said he desired to bring before the House what threatened to be a great personal grievance and injustice to two of the employees of the company which this Bill absorbed. The circumstances were that for the last forty years Mr. Stimson had been the engineer to the company, and had largely assisted to bring it up to its present condition. He left the Great Northern Railway Company to join this company. If he had kept to the old company he would have been in receipt of a pension of some £70 a year. In this House the promoters of the Bill themselves inserted a proviso that any employee of the old company taken over by the Bill who had been ten years in the service of the Water Company should be entitled to compensation, the amount of which should be fixed by an assessor appointed by the Board of Trade. He thought the feeling of the House would be that an employee of forty years not only came within the strict letter of the clause inserted by the promoters themselves, but that the clause was the policy and practice of Parliament, and it was a right and just clause. How was a man sixty-two years of age to make a new departure in his employment? He would have an equitable claim, the strongest possible claim, on his old employers, but he would have no such claim on the new authority established by the Bill. The principle for which he was contending had been admitted by the promoters themselves, inasmuch as they had come to an agreement with the secretary to give him £500 compensation, although he was only receiving a salary of £30 a year and. some legal fees. Having disarmed opposition in the House of Commons by inserting the clause, the promoters, when the Bill reached another place, without any of the parties being communicated with, caused the clause to be struck out. And yet in the circular they had issued to hon. Members they positively complained that the engineer and collector had allowed this to be done without petition. The promoters' answer to his opposition now was that the services of these two employees were to be taken over. That might have been all right centuries ago when people were, like goods and chattels, or like live stock, to be transferred with an estate. But surely those he represented had some title to being consulted before they were thus treated after their long years of service. They naturally objected to this treatment, and they pointed out that the promoters had already conceded the principle of compensation in the case of the secretary, as well as by themselves inserting in the Bill the clause which had subsequently been struck out in the Lords. He believed that the Chairman of Committees had been appealed to in regard to the matter, and, with that regard for right and justice which he had always shown, he had gone into the facts and had suggested that the parties should agree amicably to an arrangement which he believed to be fair and proper. Now, he (Sir Albert) did not presume to express any opinion upon the figures arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman. But he did venture to suggest that the pro-motors, having conceded the principle of compensation by themselves inserting a clause providing that it should be assessed by an arbitrator, it was only fair and proper that they should be held to it. He was sure the House would not allow a single employee to be taken out from the general body and placed completely in the cold. The gentlemen whom he represented declined to enter the service of the new authority. They asked that the promoters should be bound by their own clause, and that the provision that the amount of compensation due to them should be assessed by an arbitrator should be re-inserted in the Bill.

supported the hon. Member for South Islington in his effort to secure the re-insertion in the Bill of the clause which would secure compensation for the collector and engineer. It was a usual proceeding to insert such a clause, and he remembered that a Bill was passed a year ago in which an urban district council agreed to purchase some gasworks, and in that Bill there was a clause providing that, in the case of any officer or servant who had been in the service of the company twelve years or upwards, they should, if they declined to continue in their posts, have a right to compensation. Now, the present Bill simply provided that these two men should be taken over with the undertaking. But was it not rather hard on a man sixty-two years of age that he should be expected to begin life afresh in the service of the district council? Was it not quite possible that at the end of seven or eight years he would have to give up his position, and then he would have no claim for consideration at the hands of the council? It was only right that the House should safeguard his interests, and see that he was properly treated, either by the company who were selling the undertaking or by the authority who were purchasing it. He would like to point out that there was a clause in the Bill providing that, in the event of the urban district council and the water company being unable to agree as to the price to be paid for the undertaking, the dispute should be submitted to arbitration. Surely the right of the officials of the company to compensation formed one of those considerations which should go to determine the total price to be paid by the urban authority. The question the House had to decide was whether these two servants of the water company were to receive any compensation. They were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it was originally laid on the Table of the House. The promoters now suggested that no petition against the Bill had been presented by these gentlemen. In taking up that attitude he did not think they were acting squarely towards the House. It was well known that heavy costs were entailed upon individuals who had to appear by counsel before a Parliamentary Committee in order to protect their interests in a Bill of that character. The tax was sufficiently severe in the case of wealthy people, and how could persons like an engineer or a rate-collector be expected to bear it? They ought not to be put to unnecessary hardship and expense, and he submitted, therefore, that it was only fair that the Bill should be restored to the form in which it passed the House of Commons—a form which sufficiently protected the interests of these two people.

said he wished to point out that the Bill provided that the urban authority should take over these two gentlemen with the undertaking, and they would receive the same salary as they had hitherto received from the company. He thought that that sufficiently protected their interests, and he would be very sorry indeed if, in consequence of the opposition now being offered, the passing of the Bill was delayed. There was no reason whatever why either of the two officials should refuse to be transferred.

Will the Chairman of Committees give the House the advantage of his advice? It seems to me very strange indeed that a clause passed by the House of Commons should have thus been struck out in the House of Lords.

I shall be very glad indeed if I can assist the House in coming to a decision on this matter. The facts are quite clear, and I think they have been adequately brought out. The position of these two gentlemen, I admit, is one which deserves consideration; but I doubt very much, notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. Member for South Islington, whether this engineer has any right to receive any compensation at all from the present company in whose service he has been so long. So far as I can ascertain he would have no legal right whatever to compensation if the company were to dismiss him forthwith, assuming, of course, that the dismissal was a proper one. That being so the question arises, have these gentlemen any greater right against the council which has taken over the undertaking than they have against the company itself? I came to the conclusion, after hearing the arguments on both sides, that they had no legal right to compensation at all, but that in one respect they were put in a worse position under the Bill under their new masters than they would have been under their old masters, for it is pretty certain that a company which benefited by their services for so many years would never let them leave without some solatium or some pension, even although they might not be legally entitled to it. But the district council have undertaken to continue to employ them. Their case differs from that of the secretary of the company whose office has been abolished, and who consequently was entitled to compensation. When the parties were before me I suggested that a compromise might be arrived at, and, having been informed of the wages these two men were receiving, I made a certain proposal to counsel in the case. I suggested, in fact, that an amicable settlement might be arrived at by the payment of a sum of £350 to these officials. I understood that the council was prepared to agree to that, but, unfortunately, the individuals in question have taken a higher view of their rights, and they are asking the House to give them full compensation in respect of their services, compensation to be paid, not by the company to whom those services were rendered, but by the ratepayers who are taking over the business of the company. I regret extremely that my suggestion has not been accepted. I believe it would have been judicious on the part of these gentlemen to have accepted it, and under the circumstances I would suggest that the House do agree with the Lords Amendment, striking out the compensation clause. In the notice of the original Bill there was nothing whatever about such a clause, and it seems to have been inserted in the Bill through an error of the draughtsman and contrary to the instructions of the district council. It was not until the Bill had passed through the House of Commons that the council discovered that the clause had been inserted, and they at once applied to the other House to have it struck out. That is the position of matters now. I believe that under the Local Government Act of 1888, as well as the Act of 1894, general principles are laid down for dealing with these matters, and it is provided that where a servant is continued in his employment by a county council on taking over the undertaking he is not entitled to receive compensation in respect of past services, but that where his services are brought to an end through his office being abolished he is entitled to compensation. If we follow that principle in this case we must agree to the Lords Amendments, and the result will be that we shall leave these gentlemen in the employ of their new masters, and they will not be left stranded after many years service.

I am absolutely ignorant of the facts of this case, but I think it is one in which, to some extent, the character of the House of Commons for justice and fairness is involved. It is our duty, as far as possible, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I quite agree with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the general principle which has been laid down for the guidance of this House in dealing with these matters. In the Bill as it passed through this House, a clause was inserted protecting the interests of these two gentlemen, if it was wrongly inserted it was the business of the promoters to have found it out and to have applied to get it struck out by this House. But they did nothing of the kind until the Bill reached another place, and now we naturally have representations made of the injustice which it is alleged is being done to these two officials by the striking out of the clause without notice to them and without their having had any opportunity of opposing such a proceeding. We are now asked to agree to the Lords Amendment and to leave a servant of forty years standing at the mercy of new employers, who, of course, will not look upon him very amicably, having regard to the attitude he has taken up here. He will be liable to be dismissed at three months notice. I do not think the House of Commons, should part with a Bill which inflicts an injustice of that sort, and I would therefore suggest that the debate should be postponed, so that the parties may have another opportunity of going before the Chairman of Committees in order to endeavour to arrive at a settlement. Whatever these gentleman are entitled to, let them have it secured to them by Act of Parliament. Do not allow the clause which protects them to be struck out, and thereby leave them at the mercy of people whom they have been fighting in this House. I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.

I have no objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that during the last fortnight I have done my best to bring these parties together. I shall be very glad indeed if a settlement can be arrived at, even if the terms I have suggested are not strictly adhered to. The adjournment at any rate will afford the parties an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and I trust that, as a result, an amicable settlement may be arrived at, although I confess I have no very great hope of it. I am afraid the House will be troubled again with it.

I rise to move the re-committal of this Bill, and I will state, as shortly as I can, the reasons why I am asking the House to revise the decision of the Committee. The point I have to raise is one in regard to which I submit a decision should not have been come to by a Committee, but which should have been determined by the House itself on the motion for the Second Reading. It is one of essential importance and great public interest, and it affects the pockets of Her Majesty's subjects to a very considerable extent. I am sure, therefore, that, in taking this step, I shall have with me the sympathy of Members of this House. The London County Council have brought two Bills before this House. One of them has already been sent to another place and is under consideration by a Lords Committee, The other—the one with which we are now dealing—has been passed by a Committee of this House, and I am not going to impugn any conclusion at which the Committee arrived on the merits of the Bill. The parties for whom I am concerned—the local authority for the borough of Wandsworth—have a locus standi by law, and have a right under an Act of Parliament to put a veto upon the measure which the County Council have brought before the House. Without saying whether it is reasonable or not that that veto should be continued I have a right to say, and I think it will be admitted, that they have a locus standi to be heard whether or not, and on what terms, that veto should be taken away or modified. I consider that is a fair question for discussion. The London County Council are now recognised as the proper authority for working tramways in London. Their trams necessarily run through the districts of many authorities. But they have not yet been made, nor are they likely to be made by statute, the road authority. The District Board of Works in Wandsworth is the road authority for that part of London, and the question is whether that Board of Works shall continue to have its veto with regard to interference with the roads for the maintenance of which it is responsible. What I have now to submit is that these authorities ought not to be put to the expense thrown directly upon them of appearing twice over, both in this House and the other, upon two Bills introduced for the same purpose. They have already had to contest one of the Bills in this House, and they are now contesting in the other House No. 2 Bill, and if the House does not listen to my appeal they will also have to enter an appearance in the House of Lords on No. 1 Bill, on precisely the same grounds as they had to in the case of No. 2 Bill. I need not trouble the House with the literatim et verbatim of the Bill, but I will just refer very shortly to the evidence given by three witnesses of the most undoubted authority as to whether these two Bills do not cover the same matter. Mr. Benn, formerly a Member of this House, and Chairman of the Tramway Committee of the London County Council, said that there was no doubt that if No. 2 Bill was carried, the powers sought for under No. 1 Bill would be unnecessary, so far as the case of construction was concerned. Mr. Kennedy was asked whether there was anything in connection with the Westminster and Tooting line—which is the line to which this Bill refers—which could not be done under the other Bill which could be done under this, and he said no. Mr. Cripps also gave similar evidence. Those admissions are sufficient for my present purpose, and I submit to the House that if the local authorities are subjected to the ordeal of appearing upon their locus standi twice in both Houses, it will be a most scandalous waste of public money. The London County Council are also using the ratepayers' money, and for the ratepayers to have to bear the expense of both sides, the promoters and the opponents, is an injustice against which, I think, this House will extend its protection. Then it is said, "Why do you not put down Amendments to this Bill which cover those powers which are contained in the other Bill?" The answer is, because the matter is highly technical. One Bill is to give authority to the London County Council to apply electric traction to all the tramways that it now possesses or may hereafter acquire, and the other is for powers to construct and reconstruct and open roads, and other matters, all of which could be done under the other Bill. We have a right to be hoard, and the local authorities have been advised that upon this point they have a good case both in this House and the other, if not to throw out the Bill in accordance with their desire, at least that proper and reasonable conditions should be made, upon which they ought to have the right of veto, if necessary. That is the point which I have to put before the House. I should, perhaps, say one more word upon the subject of amending this Bill in this House. Although there are only two clauses which mention specifically, by name, this particular line, if those clauses were amended as general clauses you could not very well tamper with them without considering whether the other clauses of the Bill would not also have to be amended by Consequential Amendments; and to have to go all through this Bill and study it, and bring in a lot of mere verbal, technical Amendments, would not only weary the House, but, in my opinion, it would be a manifest and unnecessary waste of the time of the House. If the House assents to the suggestion that the money of the ratepayers should not be wasted in opposing two Bills when one is sufficient, and where the people are prepared to accept the decision of any Committee—on that question the Parliamentary agents of the local authorities and the London County Council would simply have to meet and settle the principle, and they would not be in the Committee Room twenty minutes, whereas if the details are discussed in this House it might take several hours. It may be thought that I should have approached the parties and tried to arrange this matter without troubling the House at all, but I have sought the intervention of the House, which, I believe, sympathises with us in our difficulty. It has been suggested by the local authorities that the two Bills might be submitted to one Committee of the House of Lords, and I undertake, on behalf of those whom I represent, to be satisfied with one decision, and why the London County Council should want to go before two Committees I do not know, unless it be that if they happen to be beaten on the one Bill they think they may succeed on the other. But I think under the circumstances the House will stand between them and the ratepayers' money being squandered in this way, and in that belief I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee on the Bill, and if this motion is carried, I shall move an Instruction to the Committee to leave out such provisions of the Bill as are included in the London Tramways (No. 2) Bill, passed on 30th April.

in seconding the motion of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, said that he had no desire in any way to thwart the London County Council in their efforts to acquire tramways, and to show his bona fides he might state that it was his earnest desire to see the tramway system in that part of Clapham and Battersea, which he represented, extended and put forward immediately. The position which he took up was identical with that of the hon. Member for Wandsworth: that two Bills dealing with the same subject, having the same object in view, were unnecessary. One Bill (No. 2) had already passed the House, and they were now confronted with another (No. 1) which proposed to deal with exactly the same subject. The Wandsworth District Board had opposed that Bill, and was now opposing it in the House of Lords. In asking that the Bill be recommitted, he desired it to be distinctly understood that their action was not due to any hostility towards the tramways. He had had, by the merest chance, placed in his hands that day the case for the London County Council, and be saw nothing to object therein until he came to the statement that "if this motion for recommittal be carried the Bill must be lost." He denied that averment, because it was competent for the Parliamentary agents of both sides to put their heads together and arrive at a decision whereby the two Bills might be sent to a Committee of the House of Lords. There was a principle involved in the matter. The House could not desire to set a precedent whereby not two Bills dealing with the same subject could be brought before them but four or five, because if two why not more. He thought that if the London County Council would meet the local authorities half way in the matter they would be doing a just, if not a generous thing.

Both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in support of this motion have signified their general approval of the measure before the House, and the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House denied that if it were recommitted it would be lost. But anybody who is acquainted with the forms of this House knows perfectly well that if this Bill were referred back for reconsideration to-day it could not be carried into law this year. There can be no doubt about that, and I leave it to private Members acquainted with the procedure of this House to confirm the truth of what I say. It is extremely difficult to see what the complaint of the two hon. Gentlemen amounts to. They say they are complaining because certain clauses in this Bill exist in the Bill called No. 2 Bill, which has already passed this House, and which is for a totally different purpose. The two Bills are quite distinct, and there is nothing more common than for two different and distinct Bills to be introduced in this House with similar clauses. No. 2 Bill received most careful consideration from the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Norwich. The Bill referred entirely to the point as to how electric traction shall be fitted to the existing tramways which the London County Council now possesses. It does not sanction the construction of any new lines or propose to sanction them. Now we come to the question of electric traction on these tramways. As regards the first Bill, which affects a large number of local authorities, the County Council consulted no fewer than forty local authorities in London, and a large amount of interchange of opinion has taken place between them with the view of getting some workable scheme of electric traction. It is the case that under the scheme which has passed this House the County Council is to make an application, and the Board of Trade is. to decide, but not until it has heard the local authorities. That has been agreed to by the County Council and the local authorities, with the exception of the local authorities now objecting to this Bill. Exactly the same clauses with regard to the methods of electric traction which have passed the House in the Bill already sent up to the Lords are placed in this Bill. If in this Bill you do not pass these same clauses you will have this peculiar state of things. You will have the existing tramways as far as-electric traction is concerned governed by a certain law, and you will have interposing pieces of new tramways excluded from that law, and therefore you will bar the whole development of the electric system in London. That is simply the position. The hon. Gentleman proposes that something should be done in the House of Lords about our sending this to the same Committee. The hon. Gentleman ought, to be as well acquainted as I am with the fact that this is not the place where the procedure of the House of Lords can be determined. We have made a statement, which is in the hon. Gentleman's hands, which practically covers the ground of the whole opposition. It has been arranged by the County Council and the local authorities that whatever Amendments, if any, in respect of electric traction are made in the House of Lords in No. 2 Bill as regards the existing lines shall also be extended and made applicable to the new works under No. 1 Bill. It is obviously our interest and our desire to have the clauses identical both for the old tramways and the new. There are not two hearings called for in this matter. Two hearings have been asked by the hon. Gentleman and those whom he is representing for the moment in this place. Both Committees have most wisely passed these clauses and sent them to this House. I trust that the House will send the clauses to the House of Lords in both Bills. The House of Lords can reject or pass them as it pleases.

As representing a district through which these two tramways run, I wish to dissociate myself from the motion of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, which was supported by the hon. Member for Clapham. I hope to give the House one or two reasons why they should not deprive London for another year of the electric traction which two Committees of the House have said the London County Council ought to have. In saying this I think it is necessary to give a fact or two. The London County Council have in operation one or two tramways drawn by horses on the south side of London. That is obviously an inadequate system, and not at all up to the requirements of the housing problem, and it is not in keeping with the accommodation which the people require in the way of rapid transit. The County Council introduced two tramway Bills—one to substitute electric traction for horses, and the other to extend the existing tramways and to make new ones. In promoting those Bills the County Council has wisely and considerately approached forty London local authorities, and got their views as to road material, road maintenance, and the minor improvements necessary to carry out a good system of electric traction, and I am sorry to think that of all the forty authorities the only obdurate ones were Wandsworth and Clapham. Encouraged by that obstinacy, my own parish got off the right lines and was for a moment disposed to do the wrong thing, but after being confronted with the fact that its opposition would lead to the whole five millions of London being deprived of electric traction for another year, like the sensible district it is it recovered itself, it pulled itself together, and declined to associate itself with Wandsworth, which has alternately played the role of Dr. Jekyll to-day and Mr. Hyde to-morrow. The request put forward by Battersea was this: that where the London County Council tramways went through the parish the County Council should be called upon to put a good electric current down and also to lay the road between the rails and a verge of eighteen inches on each side. The authorities now opposing the Bill went further than that, and asked that the whole length of the road should be paved with material to be determined not by the traction authority and the Board of Trade, but by the vestry. The result of such an unreasonable demand is that only the vestry is to get the veto, and the County Council is to pay for the whole of the road material along the tramway route. If Wandsworth and Clapham succeed to-day the veto of the vestries of London will be maintained, and the traction authority will be blackmailed into the cost of the road and street improvements and the paving of the tramway routes which ought properly to be borne partly by the local authorities. The local authorities ought to pay for their own roads, and not ask the metropolitan ratepayers to bear the cost of keeping up their main roads and streets. That is a condition of things the House of Commons ought not to tolerate. Two Committees have listened to the complaints of Wandsworth and Clapham, and these Committees have declared that there is not much in them. I trust that we shall give the County Council the powers they ask, and that we shall not allow the respectable vestries of Wandsworth and Clapham to stand in the way. In representing their views they had no need to employ counsel, and in paying for that they are responsible for every penny they had needlessly spent. The Council has given Wandsworth Vestry power to vote whether it should be a conduit or overhead system. The Council is going to have the conduit system. The Council has been so reasonable that thirty-eight out of forty have agreed with the Council view, and it is because the two hon. Gentlemen represent, unfortunately, the two obstinate districts that I have dissolved partnership with them, and that I appeal to the House of Commons not to listen to their appeals to-day, and to give to the County Council the power which they ought to have to introduce a system of cheap and speedy electric traction.

I happened to be chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill. I did not understand that the hon. Member for Wandsworth wished to impugn the decision of that Committee.

Not at all.

That being so, I beg to assure the hon. Member that the Committee, after hearing all the arguments pro and con., decided not to exclude these particular clauses from the measure. I have a further objection to the proposal now before the House. It is proposed that the Bill should be recommitted to the same Committee. As chairman of that Committee, and in the name also of my colleagues on that Committee, I may say that we should object to this particular measure being committed to us again, because we have hoard all the arguments already, and we know exactly what the decision would be. Therefore it would be a waste of time to send it back to that Committee. I wish to say, in conclusion, that this Bill, and also Bill No. 2, are the outcome of a Herculean amount of negotiation between the London County Council and the different local authorities; and it would indeed, in my view, be a grievous thing if that enormous amount of effort were to be brought to nought by the passing of this Resolution to-day, because the effect of that would be to destroy the Bill.

I wish to say ditto to what has been stated by the hon. Member for Rotherham. There has been nothing new brought before us this afternoon. Everything has been considered most carefully, eminent counsel having brought out every point with equal clearness, and in every possible way. I hope the House will not delay the passing of the measure by recommitting it.

After what has been said by the Chairman of the Committee upon this point I do not think I will press this to a division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

What will the business be on Monday?

We must go on with the Tithes Bill until it is finished. I hope it will be finished to-night, and in that event we shall take the Agricultural Holdings Bill on Monday.

I wish, by leave of the House, to make a very brief personal explanation with regard to a matter which was debated in the House last week. In a London daily paper yesterday there appeared a long telegram from Sir William Stokes, consulting surgeon to Her Majesty's field force in South Africa, which was copied into several London evening papers and into a large number of provincial papers with sensational headings. In that telegram Sir William Stokes says, "Sir Charles Dilke's charge of robbing stores is absolutely devoid and destitute of foundation." That was a charge made by me in the House, and it was a charge which I believe is admitted. It rests not only on private, but on official, data, and I have on two occasions asked in this House for the production of the minutes of the court-martial which was held with regard to the robbery of stores at Intombi Camp. These minutes have not yet been given to the House It is evident that it is to Intombi Camp that Sir William Stokes refers, because the next words are these: "Intombi 'Camp was no doubt unhealthy." I wish to assure the House that I did not ask the questions in reference to this matter until I had taken every possible means to-assure myself of the truth of the statements which had been made to me, and that I am prepared entirely to stand by the statements I made in the debate. At the end of his letter Sir William Stokes. again refers to me by name, and says that the charges made were "as unjustifiable as they were cruel and unpatriotic." I could, I think, ask the House to treat those words as a breach of privilege, but it is not my intention to do so under the circumstances of the case, as an inquiry is to take place. With regard to the charge of want of patriotism, it appears to me to be a patriotic duty to bring such matters before the House.

rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the composition and the scope of the reference to the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the treatment of sick and wounded British soldiers in South Africa"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—

I do not want to go into what has already passed, but it will be within the recollection of the House that last week a letter from the hon. Member for Westminster appeared in The Times in regard to the treatment of British soldiers in South Africa, and especially with regard to their treatment in the hospital at Bloemfontein. The letter naturally attracted considerable attention, and the First Lord of the Treasury was asked whether he would find some opportunity for the House to discuss the matter. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly agreed to put down on Friday last a nominal Vote for the Medical Department of the War Office in order that a discussion might take place. The discussion then took place, and, so far as I understood it, the Under Secretary of State for War did not traverse in the main the statements made by the hon. Member for Westminster; he practically admitted that in the main they were correct, although in some cases there was, perhaps, a certain amount of misconception and exaggeration. With regard to the Cape, the hon. Member for Westminster, in his speech rather than in his letter, stated certain facts, which were met by the Under Secretary saying that the War Office had complied with every demand made upon them by the local authorities, and at the same time he stated that a very large number of telegrams had passed between the local authorities at the Cape, both medical and military, and the War Office. I asked whether he would submit those telegrams to the House, and he declined to do so. With regard to Bloemfontein, the defence was that of military necessity, that the troops were advancing, that the matter was within the discretion of Lord Roberts, and that Lord Roberts no doubt would be responsible if any person were responsible. In fact, we were leered at; we were taunted with trying to attack the Government under the pretence of attacking Lord Roberts. That is the past history of the case. Before the debate the right hon. Gentleman agreed to appoint a Committee, and, as he stated this evening, to appoint it at the request of Lord Roberts. I would point out that it was not alone at the request of Lord Roberts that that Committee was wanted. The request was made by the hon. Member for Westminster; it was supported not only by Members on this side of the House but by a good many on the other, and certainly there was such a strong feeling throughout the country at the revelations made by the hon. Member for Westminster that there was a universal opinion that some sort of inquiry or investigation ought to be made. This evening the right hon. Gentleman has told us what the composition of the Committee is. He tells us it is to be a small Committee, that it is to consist of three persons. The first is Dr. Church, a medical gentleman; the second is Professor Cunningham, an anatomist; and the third is Lord Justice Homer. That hardly meets the requirements of Lord Roberts. Lord Roberts is afraid of there being too many doctors, and he asks that besides two or three doctors—[An HON. MEMBER: One or two.]—he says, "Besides one or two doctors, let us have some men of common sense." Far be it from me to say that Lord Justice Romer is not a man of eminent common sense; but still he is only one, and, with all respect to Lord Justice Romer, he is an eminent legal Chancery lawyer, and he is not what I should call a man of business. [" Oh, oh!"] I draw a distinction between a lawyer and a man of business. A lawyer may be a man of business, but it is not his speciality; the lawyer's speciality is to make money over quarrels about other people's business. But, anyway, Lord Justice Romer is only one, and I think the House will understand what I moan when I say that we want men on this Committee who are practical men, who are engaged in business, who are men of sound common sense, and by whom we shall have a sound, thorough, businesslike investigation, and a Report upon the results of that investigation. I cannot understand why we are to have two doctors on this Committee. Sir William Stokes has defended the doctors; Sir William Stokes has accused my right hon. friend and others of uttering un- truths. Members of a profession are always inclined to stand by their profession. When it a question which seriously affects the whole medical profession, and embraces so large a field as this inquiry ought to embrace, surely we ought not to have two medical men on the Commission forming a majority of the Committee. It seems to me somewhat remarkable that the Government should take upon themselves the appointment of the members of that Committee, and decide upon the reference which is to be put to them, without any consultation with the House of Commons. According to all constitutional doctrines the Ministry is absolutely responsible for what goes on, and they are directly responsible to this House. Whoever heard of gentlemen who are, to all intents and purposes, the defendants in the case, appointing their own jury? The House ought to have some sort of control in this matter. The appeal was made to the House of Commons, and we cannot shirk or avoid our responsibility. The House of Commons ought to have a voice in the matter as to what the reference is to be, and also in the composition of the Committee. The general usage is that their names should be submitted in some sort of way to the House of Commons. We know what takes place when a Committee of this House is appointed. The names are first submitted to us, and the House decides whether it accepts them or not, and it may change a name, and urge that this or that gentleman should be added if it thinks fit. If this Committee is to secure the confidence of the country, there must not be a majority of medical men upon it, and the House having been appealed to by the hon. Member for Westminster, and a discussion having taken place upon this subject, it is perfectly illusory to have such a discussion unless the House has some voice in the composition and reference of this Committee. I do not say for a moment that the Government are guilty, or that any particular person is guilty. I am aware of the great misery and suffering which is always involved in war; but there is certainly a primâ facie case that the sufferings might have been mitigated had there been more care shown either by the Government or by their officials, and I do not fix the responsibility upon any particular person. We have the fact before us that a most horrible state of things existed at Bloem- fontein, and that even at Cape Town it had been shown that there was not a sufficient number of nurses or orderlies. It appears from what was stated that even in a simple case like the provision of bandages for the wounded they would not have been able to obtain them had it not been for the fact that there happened to be a considerable number of bandages in the hands of a private firm. I have moved the adjournment of the House in order that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury may have an opportunity of doing what I think he is bound to do under the circumstances, and that is to take an early opportunity of giving the House an occasion to express its. views upon the reference to and the composition of this Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, then I hope hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House at all events, and even some hon. Members on the other side, will register by their votes their protest against the course which has been, adopted.

In seconding the motion of the hon. Member for Northampton I desire to say that I take this course without any previous arrangement with the hon. Member. I do not think that it is unreasonable, under the circumstances, for me to ask to be heard on this subject. I object, in the first place, to one name as being that of a gentleman who ought not to be on such a Committee when the responsibility of the Army Medical Department is directly attacked. I would remind the House that I have not myself attempted to localise the responsibility for what I saw in South Africa; but of course the Army Medical Department must necessarily be largely implicated in the question The hon. Member for Northampton has called attention to the curious divergence of the composition of this Committee from the expressed wish of Lord Roberts Lord Roberts's words were, "a small Committee, consisting of one or two medical men of recognised ability, in whom the public have full confidence, with some men of sound common sense." I ask whether a Committee which has a majority of medical men upon it is a Committee framed in accordance with the desire of Lord Roberts? I object to this Committee because it has that majority of medical men. The difficulty of arriving at an accurate opinion with regard to what has taken place in South Africa from medical sources has, I believe, already been illustrated in the case which was the only precedent we have for such a Committee. That was at the time of the Crimea, when the letters of the present Sir William Howard Russell awoke the country to the true state of things, and a Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the case. When those letter's appeared, describing, in terms singularly like those I have myself felt compelled to publish, the inefficiency of the medical arrangements in the Crimea, the chief medical authority on the spot, Sir George Brown, was going about in this country saying that everything was absolutely perfect. There are many other analogies between this case and that. Mr. Roebuck brought the matter before the House. A Parliamentary committee was appointed and Mr. Roebuck, the chief accuser of the medical arrangements in the Crimea, was appointed chairman of that committee. The House will remember that the Aberdeen Ministry went out on that proposal, but Lord Palmerston came in, and he accepted the Committee. I know what the answer to this will be. I shall be told that at the same time a Sanitary Commission of three was appointed, two being doctors and one what was called an engineering member, to go out to the Crimea. But the object of that Commission was not to inquire into what had happened, but to at once take in hand the bettering of the arrangements on the spot. Therefore, of course, it was composed of experts. There was another serious difference between that Commission and the present one. That Commission was appointed not by the Government which defended the medical arrangements in the Crimea, but by the Government which came in on the strength of accepting the fact that those arrangements were insufficient. I desire to ask the House, which I think is always generous to an individual, to consider for a moment the curious position in which I myself am placed. I can assure the House that I would not call attention to this if I did not think that some slight consideration of it on the part of the Government would really facilitate the cause we all have at heart, and that is getting at the truth of this matter. What is my position upon this question? I made certain statements in the press. Those statements I repeated in the House and added to them other statements, which together constituted a grave indictment of the medical arrangements in South Africa. That placed me in the position of a plaintiff; but the thing has turned round, and now I am in the position of a defendant—defending the accuracy of my statements, and what I believe to be the great interests involved in proving their truth, if they are true. I know what the Government will say. The Government will say that they will call me as a witness and enable me to state my case. They may possibly say they will accept my suggestion of other witnesses who should be called. But is that enough in this case? Is it not the usual practice that a man placed in my position should have the right to watch the case on his own behalf? Has he not the right to put what questions he likes to witnesses, and to cross-examine all the witnesses? I daresay that some skilful dialectician on the front bench will find flaws in this analogy, but to me it seems to be close enough for my purpose. My facts have been questioned. Of that I make no complaint. But my motives have been bitterly attacked, not in the country, not in the press, but in a more influential, though more limited circle. I had no motive, no shadow nor shred of any motive or reason, for making these statements except my determination that they should be made public, because I knew that by that means, and that means alone, could we obtain a reform of that terrible condition of things. That is my position, and with my facts questioned and my motives attacked I put it to the House whether some claims do not arise out of that position—some claims to me with regard to this Committee. I do not ask that those claims should be considered. I do not wish to put them forward, and I am quite willing to lose sight of all personal considerations, if the Government will allow me to co-operate with them to a certain extent in enabling this Committee to get at the truth of the matter at issue. My suggestion briefly is that I should be permitted to suggest to the Government a name for them to add to the Committee. I promise to suggest the name of one whose impartiality, ability, and qualifications cannot possibly be questioned. I have waited day by day in the hope that I might receive some communication from Her Majesty's Government on the subject. If the absence of any wish that I should co-operate with them in this matter is due to an assumption on the part of the Government that they are on one side and I am on the other—an idea which can only be based on another assumption that the medical arrangements in South Africa are perfect, or as perfect as possible—then I deplore that I, as a loyal member of the party for fifteen years, am placed in that position, but I put aside personal considerations and personal ties to my party, and I say that the logical outcome of that position, if the Government are on one side and I am on the other, is that one side is appointing the judges to try the issue. I deplore it if that position should arise. I do not believe for a moment that the Government would wish such a position to be set up. I do not believe that they would perpetrate a personal injustice, but I must say for myself that, considering the experience I have had of this particular subject, and the knowledge I have gained of all its branches, I should be in a position to facilitate the inquiries by the course I have suggested.

I confess at once that I share to the full the disappointment that has been expressed by the two hon. Members who have spoken at the constitution of this Committee. But at the same time I am most anxious that we should, if possible, avoid the bringing in of anything like party recrimination or party feeling in the matter, and that we should not present to the world at large the spectacle, apparently, of the Government unwilling to give a full inquiry as alleged by their opponents, and their opponents clamoring for a fuller inquiry in the face of the Government. I do not think that that would be a seemly position for the House of Commons to take up in a matter which we all admit to be so grave, and a matter which affects so deeply the feelings and sentiments of a large part of the population of this country. The point that strikes me as most unfortunate is that which has. been referred to—namely, that there is not a sufficient representation of ordinary laymen—that there is, in fact, none at all if you exclude a judge from the category of laymen. There are two eminent doctors, of whom most of us have nothing to say, for the simple reason that I am afraid the great majority of us do not know much about them; but I take it for granted from, their position—one academicals, the other in his profession—that they are capable and competent men, and also that they are high-minded, straightforward men, who would do their duty while in such a capacity. I make no doubt of that. Besides them there is only an eminent judge; but what is wanted, surely, of all things, is what my hon. friend spoke of as the man of business, or, rather, the business man—a man accustomed to bring his common-sense and experience of life and affairs to bear upon such problems and difficulties as 110 doubt have presented themselves in South Africa. There are many men of that kind who could be obtained, and whose positions and character before the country would secure the complete confidence of public opinion. Let me point out also that this is not a mere question of the technicalities of the medical profession. There is the whole question of transport and of the power of organising relief in such a case as this, upon which surely it is most desirable to get the opinion of men qualified to give that opinion. A number of names occur at once of men who, if they would undertake this patriotic duty, would, I am sure, satisfy the mind of the country and give solidity to the Commission, and secure that success for it which I am afraid it will not secure if it is constituted as proposed. I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I have said that I have the strongest possible wish not to appear as if we were fighting with each other on a matter such as this, where the character of the country stands at stake before the world. It is also a matter which touches the hearts and feelings of many people who have relatives there, or may in the future have relatives undergoing the chances of war in South Africa or in other parts of the world. Will the right hon. Gentleman not listen to what I would put forward, even as a friendly appeal, if he will allow mo to say so—namely, that two Members should be added to the Committee, and that those two should be chosen not from any party purpose or on account of any prejudice they may be supposed to have? On the contrary, they should be men who are least likely to have prejudices, but competent men with that priceless quality, common sense, to which Lord Roberts alluded. I do not know any test, I am bound to say, except the test of their past record and their character in the eyes of the country. If two men of that character were added to this Commission, I am certain there would be a great feeling of relief throughout the country. But if that is not done, and if we are to have two doctors, however eminent, and a judge, however eminent, and nobody else, then the feeling of disappointment will be great, and I am afraid the chances of a successful result will be small.

I would wish to say a few words on this motion, and the tone of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite enables me to do so. I feel deeply concerned in this matter. In my early youth I was a witness of terrible scenes in the army before Sebastopol, owing to disease and insufficient preparation. It was reported by the Medical Commissioners that 50 per cent. of the regiments engaged in the siege had died of disease in six; months. Thank God we have had nothing like that at the present time; but there is great reason to believe that the best use has not been made of the means placed at the disposal of the authorities in South Africa by Her Majesty's Government. I believe ample provision had been made, that nothing had been stinted, but I believe sufficient use was not always made of it. Letters by the last mail from South Africa, the truth of which I cannot doubt, showed some shortcomings. The state of several hospitals near Cape Town, and of hospitals in other parts of the country, showed that insufficient use had been made of the supplies, forming, in fact, a very heavy indictment against the Army Medical Department which required to be thoroughly investigated. There was, it is charged, a reluctance on the part of the medical officers to call for things necessary for the comfort and well-being of the sick, who, even within the last few weeks, had been lying in a miserable state and without proper shelter in places where there was no difficulty as regards transport. We have all heard of it; the newspapers are full of these cases. I admit that some of them may be exaggerated, but I am convinced that there is foundation for others, and that an inquiry which would command public confidence is required as to whether the best use had been made of the means provided by the Government with, I believe, lavish hands. I should like to avoid inconveniencing Her Majesty's Government in any way, but I think the inquiry should be one in which the public would have full confidence, and that men of common sense are required on it besides doctors.

The Government have been attacked by three gentlemen for three quite distinct offences in connection with the appointment of this Commission. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who moved the adjournment of the House, invented an entirely new constitutional principle which, with all the zeal of a discoverer, he expatiated upon in his observations. The hon. Member thinks that the Commission ought not to be appointed by the Government, but ought to be practically appointed by the House of Commons. It is a new doctrine, and one to which I noticed, with pleasure, the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not subscribe. It is one which was never practised by the party opposite, or by the party to which I belong, and for which, I believe, there is no precedent whatever. Of course, this House has a voice in regard to all that pertains to its own Committees. The reference is submitted to the House, and can be amended; and the names are submitted, and can be objected to or approved. But that practice is without precedent or example in the case of Commissions of this kind.

There are many Commissions appointed by Act of Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman never suggested an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament must he submitted to this House and the other House, and go through all the formalities of the Legislature. A statutory Commission is on a quite different footing from ordinary Commissions, to which this belongs. Such Commissions have never been submitted to the House of Commons in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I trust that, for the convenience of Parliamentary procedure and the preservation of the responsibility of the Government, this well-recognised principle will never be departed from. That point practically exhausted the hon. Gentleman's criticism. He did indeed gay that the Government are the accused parties in this matter; and that therefore they ought not to appoint the judges in their own case. But I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not the accused parties. When I suggested the other day that there was an attempt to drag in the Government and to make a party question of it I was met with loud cries of "No, no," and of general repudiation from gentlemen on that side of the House. I leave the hon. Member for Northampton, who moved the motion for adjournment, and turn to the speech of the hon. gentlemen who seconded it. I do not quite apprehend the object of the hon. Gentleman's speech, unless it was to suggest that he should himself be the man of sound common sense for whom Lord Roberts asks and who, according to the critics of the Commission and of the Government, is not to be found adequately represented on the Commission as it is constituted. The hon. Gentleman said that he found himself placed in a position of great difficulty. I am sorry that my hon. friend should be placed in such a position. But if he is so placed—and I do not know why he should think that he is—surely he himself is the only person who has placed him there. He tells us that he has been attacked as to his facts and his motives. I do not know who has attacked him as to his facts or as to his motives. I am perfectly certain he cannot quote a single phrase or suggestion made by anyone on this bench attacking either his facts or his motives.

I considered it an attack upon my motives to convert the statement of facts which I made into an attack upon Lord Roberts.

The hon. Gentleman indeed criticised somebody, and who that could be unless it is the responsible officers in the field we were unable to discover, and the hon. Gentleman has been unable to explain.

I did not. criticise anybody. I criticised a state of things.

There is no such thing as criticising a state of things You may describe a state of things, but you cannot criticise a state of things.

I am extremely sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I must ask him, in his own words, where or when I criticised any person, and who that person was?

My complaint against the hon. Gentleman is exactly that his criticisms were all of this, vague and obscure character. If he was merely narrating a very tragic and deplorable state of things without suggesting that. blame existed anywhere, he was really wasting the time of the House of Commons. It is only because the blame must rest somewhere, and in order that that blame may be brought homo to the proper quarters—it is only on that hypothesis that it was legitimate to bring forward this heartrending description at all. I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman made any secret of the fact that he thought that in the organisation of the advance to Bloemfontein and Kroonstad there had been mistakes made as to the transport arrangements for which someone was to blame. But I return to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Nobody here has attacked his facts or his motives. But if everybody whose motives are criticised or whose fact's are attacked is to form part of the Commission or is to be consulted as to its constitution, it is evident that the task of the Government would be never ending; and we should have to consult not only the hon. Gentleman, but the many eminent persons with whom he has come into conflict in this controversy. It is evident that they cannot all be members of the Commission; and that if they were they would be much more occupied in fighting among themselves than in investigating the charges committed to them. But the hon Gentleman appears to think that we have shown an almost callous disregard of his feelings. I hope that we are not open, to that charge; but the fact is that I did not in this matter consider the hon. Gentleman one way or the other. In constituting the Committee I did not think of the hon. Member at all from the beginning to the end of the business. I hope it does not show a hard and callous heart on my part, but that is the fact. The hon. Gentleman, in accordance with his sense of duty, brought forward facts—or what he believes to be facts—and laid them before the House. I confess that when the hon. Gentleman had done that, I thought he had done all that his ordinary sense of duty required him to do, and that we might put him and his proceedings out of account, and set to work to find out what foundation there was for the charges which he had made. The difficulties, the somewhat imaginary difficulties, of the hon. Gentleman under the heartless treatment which he has received in the formation of this Commission are illusory evils, and I think a little consideration will convince him that they have no real existence in fact. I leave the hon. Gentleman's personal complaints to come to the more objective criticism of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to take it as an axiom that, on the face of it, this was not the kind of Commission which would command the confidence of the country. On the face of things, it seems to me exactly the kind of Commission that would command the confidence of the country. No doubt it might be possible to find two additional persons who are thoroughly competent to join in this important inquiry. But my own view of a committee of investigation is that the smaller it is the quicker is its work and the more effective. That is the only reason why the Government preferred a Commission of three to a Commission of five. There may be something to be said for a Commission of five; but on the face of it, and on the obvious merits, there is an immense deal more to be said for a Commission of three. If you have a Commission of three, it is impossible to conceive a Commission which is more fitted than this one to carry out the work entrusted to it or which, on the face of it, is more impartial. What is one of the charges made against this Committee? The charge is that there are two medical men upon it. These medical men have no connection with the Army Medical Department. [An HON. MEMBER: Professional bias.] As the House very well knows, there has been a considerable conflict between the profession and the Army Medical Depart- ment, and I should have thought that; if there was a danger it was the danger of injustice to the Army Medical Department, who are carrying on their duties under conditions not very familiar to doctors and surgeons at home accustomed to the perfect equipment of a London,, Edinburgh, or Dublin hospital, and likely to be shocked beyond reason at the inevitable shortcomings which it is admitted on all hands must occur when you are dealing with the exigencies of a rapid campaign. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything in the fact that these-gentlemen are doctors which, considering their position, will make them in any sense lenient to the failures, if there have been failures, of the Army Medical Staff. I have not the honour of Dr. Church's or of Professor Cunningham's acquaintance. But I am informed that Dr. Church is not merely the official head at the present moment of the medical profession in this country, but that he is the President of the Royal College of Physicians, who, more than anyone in living memory, thoroughly enjoys the confidence of his colleagues, and is believed by them to be a man of peculiar fairness of mind, with a, great power of organisation and business, capacity. I am informed that the same qualities of common sense as well as high scientific qualities might be predicated of Professor Cunningham. There are some Gentlemen in this House, no doubt, who know him; and I have taken some trouble to make myself acquainted with his career and attainments.

He is a Professor at Trinity College. He is not in practice.

Exactly. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate. That of itself goes to show that Professor Cunningham is a man who is independent of those waves and currents of medical opinion which are regarded as objections to doctors. Though not a practising doctor, and not actively connected with the medical profession, Professor Cunningham has, however, taken the most brilliant degrees in medicine and surgery, and is thoroughly well equipped from a professional point of view. There remains Lord Justice Romer; and can prejudice go further—I was going to say, can party feeling go further—than this calm assumption on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite that because a man is an eminent professor, or an eminent physician, or a distinguished judge, he therefore cannot have those qualities of practical common sense which are supposed to be found in other more fortunate sections and branches of the human race? When Lord Roberts spoke of common sense, he did not mean to imply that doctors had not common sense; still less did he mean to say it of so brilliant and distinguished a judge of the High Court, a man of the business qualities and the impartiality and the power of collecting and sifting evidence like Lord Justice Romer, which are the qualities you want in a man who is to preside over a Commission of this kind. This Commission, as I have indicated it to the House, has the great qualities of knowledge and impartiality stamped upon it. It has among its members two of the most highly-qualified and independent members of the medical profession. It has at its head a judge of the High Court in this country; and if confidence and impartiality are not to be secured by a Commission of that kind, then I despair of any Government or any House of Commons or any responsible Minister being able ever, now or in the future, to constitute a Commission which shall command the confidence of the country. I am sorry that this deliberate attempt has been made, before its labours have begun, to asperse the impartiality of the Commission; I deeply, profoundly regret it; but I firmly believe that when the names I have mentioned go forth to the country the people will not agree with the critics of the Government on this occasion, but that they will universally feel that the Government have striven, by names unexceptionable in themselves and by the smallness of the number, of which complaint has been made, to give the test security that their labours shall not only be rapid and effective, but rapid and conclusive.

I think that the House, or at least the large majority of it, without any distinction of party, must have listened with astonishment and disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman, to the somewhat cheap sarcasms which the right hon. Gentleman thought it to be in good taste to launch against his own supporter, the hon. Member for Westminster, and the thin debating points he sought to make against the hon. Member for Northampton. All these must have struck the House as being singularly out of consonance with the feeling which animates the majority of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the appeal made by my right hon. friend—and a more temperate and more reasonable appeal was never made by a Leader of the Opposition—accuses us of making this a party question on this side of the House——

I never said so.

Yes; and of deliberately aspersing this Commission—I say that he is attributing to us motives which are entirely unworthy of any body of English gentlemen, and totally out of keeping with the feeling which pervades all classes of the community in relation to this most painful subject.