To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the present Government, which has been in office for eight years, has never made any attempt to pass a measure dealing with the Loan Fund system in Ireland containing provisions tending to secure more regular and business-like attention to their duties on the part of the trustees and treasurers of the Loan Fund Societies. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) As already stated, the Government in 1900 introduced and passed into law a Bill framed to meet the most pressing of the difficulties of the Loan Fund system. The Act was admittedly a provisional measure, and if the Government, by further legislation, has been unable to

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire into the circumstances connected with an assault committed by Sergeant Shelley upon Mrs. Fitzgerald, a woman of advanced years, in Kildorrery on the 28th of June; what offence, if any, did Mrs. Fitzgerald commit; and why was the ordinary course of proceeding by summons departed from in this case. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) On the date mentioned Mrs. Fitzgerald used abusive language in the public street. Sergeant Shelley requested her to desist. She threw herself on the ground and had to be removed by the police. For some time past she has indulged in similar misconduct and has been warned that persistence in it will lead to a prosecution.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state when the Chiromo and Blantyre Railway will be commenced, what length of line is it proposed to construct, when is it expected to be finished, and what will be the cost per mile. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) According to a contract concluded on 31st December last between His Majesty's Government and the Shiré Highlands Railway Nyassaland Company, Limited, the line between Chiromo and Blantyre is to be commenced with reasonable dispatch and completed within five years from the above date. It is understood that materials for construction have already reached the Protectorate. The length of line between Chiromo and Blantyre is about eighty miles. I am unable to say what the cost per mile may be.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the figures of imports and exports for the year ended 31st March, 1903, for the Protectorates of Somaliland, British Central Africa, East Africa, and Uganda, distinguishing in each case, so far as may be, figures arising from administration or construction of public works and those due to natural trade; and what proportion of the import and export figures arises from trade with the British Isles on the one hand and other countries on the other. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The figures for the East Africa Protectorate are shown in the Report by His Majesty's Commissioner which was presented to the House in June last (Africa, No. 6, pages 33–38). The Reports on the other Protectorates will be presented to the House as soon as they are available.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sums have been paid out of the National Exchequer by way of grants-in-aid or otherwise to the Protectorates of Somaliland, British Central Africa, East Africa, and Uganda, respectively, during the financial year ended 31st March, 1903.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that the Report of the Irrigation Commission will not be in the hands of Members until the end of the month, will he state briefly the most important recommendations contained in the Report. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) No copy or abstract of the Report of the Irrigation Commission has yet reached the India Office, and I cannot therefore state what the chief recommendations are.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank of India have increased from £145,628 in 1899–1900 to £425,911 in 1901–2, can he state the number of depositor's by whom these accounts are held and the occupations followed by the bulk of the depositors. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The hon. Member's figures are incorrect. The balances at the credit of depositors amounted on 31st March 1900, to £6,431,000; on 31st March 1902, to £7,121,000. The classification of the depositors at the latter date, as given in the Report on the Post Office of India, was as follows: Class I. Professional—A. Having fixed income, 233,108; B. Having variable income, 58,130; Class II. Domestic, 151,204; Class III. Commercial, 32,065; Class IV. Agricultural, 12,387; Class V. Industrial, 27,450; Class VI. Indefinite, 352,349, Total, 866,693.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of a statement contained in paragraph 75 of the Indian Financial Statement for the current year to the effect that the capitalised value of State railways and canals at 25 years purchase of the net annual average revenue for the three years ending 31st March 1902, shows the capitalised value of those undertakings to be £264,065,000, will he indicate the value placed on canals as distinct from railways. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) £41,387,000.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the result of the inquiries addressed to the Government of India in March last will enable him now to state in round numbers how many sovereigns, British or Australian, have been paid into the Indian Treasuries for land revenue, Customs, or other fiscal payments, since those coins were made legal tender at the rate of fifteen rupees; also, for the same period, what number of sovereigns have been paid out at the same rate by the Departments for Public Works, and other local purchases of materials, for stores, salaries, interest, and other State obligations; what is now the total amount of currency reserves in gold held respectively in India and England; and what proportions of that amount

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the cropped area of the various Provinces of India for the year 1901–2 compared with the previous year, and with the year 1891–2; and will he specify approximately the percentage under wheat and the other crops in each Province.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that experiments are being made with automobile cars for the purpose of conveying produce and merchandise between the various villages and stations in Bengal starting from Calcutta along the Grand Trunk Road; and will the Government of India call for a Report as to how far these experiments have succeeded. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no information on the subject. If the experiments are considered by the Government of India to be of importance they will doubtless see that all material information regarding them is collected by the local authorities.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the New Zealand mails were due and arrived in New York at ten o'clock on the morning of Saturday the 30th May, and the Post-master of New York sent to the Cunard Steamship Company to ask if they would let their steamer "Campania," which was to leave the docks at 9 a.m. on that day, slacken speed in the river, and he would send a special tug with the mails, getting them on board by noon, and that the Cunard Steamship Company did not see their way to so act, although considerations of tide did not prevent, with the result that the mails had to remain in New York from Saturday till the following Wednesday; and if so, will he see if there can now be an arrangement with the Cunard steamship Company to provide for taking such mails on board under similar circumstances. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am informed that if the "Campania" had waited for the New Zealand mail, as suggested, she would have been unable to cross the bar of New York Harbour until one o'clock or later, which, as the tide was ebbing, might have involved more risk than the circumstances justified, and might have necessitated delay for the next tide. The Cunard Company are not under contract with me for the conveyance of mails from New York to this country, but they have assured me that, when their New York agents can safely detain one of their homeward-bound steamers for the New Zealand mail, they will do so. I may add that I am informed that the Company's vessels have waited for these mails on more than one occasion, and have received the thanks of the agent for New Zealand at San Francisco for so doing.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that mails from Tientsin and other Chinese towns are sent to England in from twenty-four to twenty-six days by the Trans-Siberian route, whereas mails from England to those towns are sent by the Suez Canal route occupying from thirty-five to forty-five days, he will take an early opportunity of arranging for the mails from England to go by the Trans-Siberian route. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am endeavouring to come to an arrangement with the Russian authorities to enable persons in this country to send correspondence to the Far East by the Trans-Siberian route.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the charges made on British vessels entering United States ports are estimated to produce about £70,000 annually, and that it has recently been decided to reduce to the of 12½ per cent. the charge For light dues on all vessels entering British ports, can he see his way to communicate with the United States Government with a view to secure a compensating reduction in the charges made on British vessels entering United States ports. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I will have the figures carefully gone into and consider in conjunction with the Foreign Office whether any representations could usefully be made to that Government on the subject.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the aggregrate value of the importation from foreign countries into the British colonies, dependencies, and protectorates, of commodities which are not produced in the United Kingdom or are exported from the United Kingdom to only a small extent; giving separately the figures for mineral oils, timber (including planks), metal ores, raw cotton, raw silk, tobacco (unmanufactured), sugar, coffee, wines, dried fruits, wheat, maize, rice, other agricultural and dairy products, and miscellaneous commodities. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The information cannot be supplied in answer to a Question. If the hon. Member will put down a Return specifying the articles for which he desires the particulars mentioned in his Question I will consider how far the Return can be granted; but its preparation in any case will take a considerable time. In the meantime perhaps the hon. Member will consult Part XXV. of the Statistical Tables relating to the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom [Cd. 1324 of 1902].

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the length of cotton piece goods exported to foreign countries in 1872 and 1902 respectively. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The cotton piece goods entered by the yard exported to foreign countries in 1872 and 1902 were as follows:—1872-2,205,000,000 yards; 1902-2,669,000,000. The figures for 1872 include, exports to British colonics in cases in which the amounts were too small to be separately specified.

To ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the road from the Mall to Charing Cross will be opened for traffic. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The First Commissioner fears that he cannot fix a definite date; the arrangements for the demolition of the houses in Spring Gardens are being made as rapidly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent charge of Mr. Justice Phillimore; and whether it is his intention, during the present session, to introduce legislation, such as was indicated by the learned Judge, for the amendment of the law as to the treatment of habitual offenders. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas). I have seen reports of a statement made by Mr. Justice Phillimore on this subject, and I hope to be able shortly to introduce a Bill leading in the direction indicated by the learned Judge.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rules under the statute directing executions to take place privately within prisons permit any official to interrogate prisoners under sentence of death with a view to extort admissions or confessions; and, if so, whether he will consider the expediency of so altering the rules as to ensure that this proceeding will not be applied in such a manner as to cause unnecessary suffering to the condemned prisoner. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The relations between the chaplain and the prisoners under his spiritual care are a matter not dealt with, and hardly capable of being dealt with by statutory rules. In the case to which I take the hon. Member to refer, I have called for a report from the chaplain, and he informs me that Dougal had promised to make a true confession on the eve of his execution, but failed to do so. "As the last moment approached," the chaplain says, "my spiritual anxiety became intense. I prayed earnestly with him during the last quarter of an hour, during which he sobbed, but he seemed unable to unbend and make a confession. I knew not what to do more, so, under strong impulse, and quite on the inspiration of the moment, I made the strong appeal at the scaffold." While making every allowance for the chaplain's difficult position I think the incident is to be regretted, and I will endeavour to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the proceedings which took place at the execution at Chelmsford, whether it is part of the duty of a prison chaplain to demand a confession from a criminal when actually on the scaffold. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the full Answer which I have given on the same subject to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to appoint a Prison Commissioner in the room of Lieut.-Col. Garsia; and whether, in the selection of Colonel Garsia's successor, special regard will be had to experience in the Prison Department. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I propose to submit an appointment for the King's approval in due course; and the hon. Member may rest assured that before doing so I shall give due weight to all proper considerations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many experiments under Certificate C (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876) have been witnessed by an inspector during the whole or part of the time of the experiment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state in how many instances, since he has been in office, the conditions of the licence issued under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, have been violated; whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to enforce the penal clauses of the said Act in any such instances. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am not aware of any such ii stances other than the four mentioned in the last Annual Report under the Act. All these were trifling departures, by inadvertence, from the strict letter of the law, and did not call for criminal proceedings.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what authority is it stated by the inspector, in the Return (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876) just issued, that only four irregularities have occurred during the course of the year. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The statement is made on the authority of the inspector as the result of his visits and his constant communication with the licence holders.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to recent outbreaks of measles and whooping cough, and excessive mortality from other causes, amongst the children of the Norwood Poor Law Schools, and to a report made on this subject by Dr. Priestly, the medical officer of health of Lambeth, in which the aggregation of children is condemned; whether any additional expenditure on the schools by the Lambeth Board of Guardians has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and to what amount and whether Dr. Priestly's report can be published as a Parliamentary Paper. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to this matter, and I have seen the report made by Dr. Priestly. I have been in communication with the guardians on the subject. A committee appointed by them has been investigating the matter, and I am now expecting their final report. On receipt of it I shall consider what action it may be necessary to take. I informed my right hon. friend, in reply to a Question by him on 29th June last,† of the expenditure which had been sanctioned in connection with these schools. No further expenditure has been sanctioned by me. I do not think that Dr. Priestly's report should be issued as a Parliamentary Paper at the present time.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Local Government Board has sanctioned the expenditure by the Poplar Board of Guardians of £150,000 in building a new Poor Law school at Hutton, near Shenfield, accommodating 900 children, who are to be housed in blocks containing sixty and thirty children each. (Answered by Mr Walter Long.) I have approved plans for the erection by the Poplar Guardians of new buildings to accommodate 624 children. The estimated cost of the buildings is £144,725, but I have not yet authorised the expenditure. The approved plans are for two schools. The boys' school to consist of five blocks for sixty children each, and the girls' and infants' school of ten blocks for thirty children each. In addition twenty-four elder girls are to be accommodated in the matron's block.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department is engaged in the fiscal inquiry; and if he has any official information

† See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 775.

showing the cause of the reduction of 17,522 in the number of families engaged in agriculture between 1821 and 1831, and of 35,068 adult male persons employed in agriculture between 1831 and 1841. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My Department are not directly concerned with the inquiry referred to, although, of course, they will furnish any information in their power that may be required in connection with it. I have no information as to the particular matter alluded to in the last part of the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in those branches of the Customs Department where assistant clerks are employed, the clerks on the grade next above the assistant clerks are allowed thirty-two days annual leave; and that in the case of absence on leave or other causes of these clerks their duties are performed by assistant clerks in receipt of checking allowances who are granted only fourteen days annual leave; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of granting an increase of leave from fourteen to eighteen days, as was recently recommended to the Treasury by the Commissioners of Customs. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) I have nothing to add to my answer of the 6th instant on this subject.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in the case of a bankrupt limited owner whose rents were collected up to 1894 by the English Court of Bankruptcy, the bankrupt's debts being afterwards paid by an insurance company, who now collect the rents of the estate, the limited owner or the insurance company will have the right to sell under the Land Bill. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) This Question could not possibly be answered without a full knowledge of the facts.

† See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 1382.

The insurance company may be, and possibly are, mortgagees in possession, when they could sell.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has given a favourable consideration to the application addressed to them by the fishermen of Kells, Co. Kerry, for the improvement of landing facilities for their boats; and, if so, whether the suggested works will be proceeded with. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The application was considered by the Congested Districts Board at its meeting today. The Board regrets it cannot at present undertake the works in question. At Loads, which is only two miles distant, the Board is expending a considerable sum in carrying out improvements to the landing place.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the sales of estates under the Land Purchase Acts tithe rent-charges which are payable to the State are usually redeemed at 22½ years purchase; whereas tithe rent-charges which are payable to private owners are usually redeemed at 20 years purchase; and whether he will give the reason why this distinction should be made. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of years purchase for the redemption of tithe rent-charge payable to the State has been fixed by the Treasury under the 9th section of the Tithe Rent-charge Act of 1900, while the number of years purchase for the redemption of the rent-charge payable to private owners has been fixed by the Land Commission for the reasons given in the judgment of Mr. Justice Meredith in Fitzgerald Estate, I.L.R.J. (1902), p. 444, to which I beg to refer my hon. and learned friend.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the car fare paid by the police from Letterfrack to Clifden it now 15s. per journey, whereas this fare until quite recently was 6s. per journey; and if he will state why the extra charge is now being paid. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No change has been made in the fare (7s.) charged to the police for this journey.

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the married non-commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers detached from their regiments are not allowed to receive money in lieu of rations, although warrant married officers are permitted this option; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to the removal of this dissimilarity of treatment, having regard to the loss and inconvenience experienced by the non commissioned officers referred to. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is more than doubtful if this grant would be of real benefit to the men mentioned, as they could hardly get better value by retail purchase than they get by the supply of rations in kind which are provided under a large contract. Further, the General Officer Commanding has considerable latitude for dealing with special cases under the allowance regulations. There does not appear, therefore, to be any good reason for incurring this extra public expenditure.

To ask the Secretary of State for' War whether he can state how much longer the regiments which have gone through the whole of the war will remain in South Africa; when those regiments that have been three and a-half years under canvas will get into barracks; and whether he will arrange for wives, who have been separated from their husbands for nearly four years, to go out to them. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The whole question of the relief of regiments is being carefully considered. Hutments are being built as rapidly as possible to accommodate the force. It is necessary to house the troops before building married quarters, but every effort is being made to meet the difficulty as promptly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority the band and pipers of the 1s Battalion Gordon Highlanders were advertised to give a performance (by kind permission of the colonel and officers of the regiment) on the pier at Southport, on Sunday 21st June last; and at whose instigation, and by whose authority, the performance was stopped after the hand and pipers had actually arrived at Southport. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Commander-in-Chief gave the orders for stopping the performance by the band because it was brought to his notice that irate money was to be charged for admission

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will authorise a reprint to be made of the discussions at the Colonial Conferences of 1887, 1894,

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the value of the total exports and sugar exports, and what is the percentage of sugar exports to the total, from each of the West Indian Colonies for the year ended 31st December, 1902, in continuation of the Table for the year 1896, given on page 5 of the Report of the Royal Commission to the West Indies, or for the last year that is available. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The following Return has been prepared with the object of affording the information asked for:—

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact stated in the introductory Memorandum to Parliamentary Paper [C. 8449], that a considerable proportion of the apparent increase in foreign importations is attributed in most of the colonies to the effect of the Merchandise Marks Act, he proposes to amend or to repeal that measure. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers did not state that the measure in question had proved injurious to British industries. The question of the policy of repealing is one for the Board of Trade to consider.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent successful competition in Canada of British made locomotives, he will request the High Commissioner for Canada to obtain detailed particular's of the tenders and contracts in question. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) As I stated in reply to a Question in the House on Tuesday, † the locomotives were purchased by the Canadian Pacific Railway, not by the Canadian Government, and I have no claim whatever to ask them to disclose the particulars desired. It is, of course, open to the hon. Member to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway direct for the information he requires.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two of the officers tried by Court-martial with reference to the incident at the Mount Nelson Hotel, Cape Town, while under

† See page 571.

constructive arrest pending the holding of that Court-martial, and after they had given their word of honour not to appear in any place of public amusement, were present at the races at Ascot; and, if so, will he state what are the names of these officers; and what action, if any, has been taken by the War Office authorities for this conduct.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar Question put by my hon. friend the Member for East Finsbury on the 6th instant.†

asked what were the names of the officers, and if any disciplinary action had been taken.

Disciplinary action has been taken, but I do not think it necessary to go into details.

I must press for the names. Has not one of the officers been gazetted a major?

I must really decline to be cross-examined on a Departmental question of discipline in which the Commander-in-Chief has taken action.

Was not Captain Williams one of the men, and has he not been gazetted major—[Cries of "Order."]

The right hon. Gentleman has declined to reply. It will be open to the hon. Member to comment upon that later.

If I have an opportunity.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say "Yes" or "No?"

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what course, if any, he proposes to take with regard to the conviction and fine at the Marlborough Street Police-Court of Lieutenant Prior, one of the seven officers

† See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 1386.

recently tried and acquitted by Court-martial; and whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the police magistrate, that it was painful in the extreme to be called on to say that he disbelieved on his oath the statement of a British officer, as he was accustomed to look on the word of a British officer as sacred.

My attention has been called to the case in question, and to the observations of the magistrate. The Adjutant-General informs me this morning that Lieutenant Prior has tendered his resignation, but that he will be informed that if he does not take measures to prove his innocence of the grave imputations made against him, it will be necessary to consider his removal from the Army.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the trial by mock Court-martial on, and the treatment by twelve officers of, a subaltern in the transport "Staffordshire," on the voyage to the Cape on New Year's Eve; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Nothing is known at the War Office of this matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to use the Porthcawl Rifle Range for field firing; and, if so, whether he can state the artillery units that are likely to use it.

This range will be used for field firing, but not by Royal Artillery.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is this year a reduction in the number of recruits for the Volunteer forces in North Devon, and that there is dissatisfaction amongst the Volunteers with the rate of the pay allowed to them whilst in camp, as compared with the pay now granted to the Imperial Yeomanry; and whether he can see his way to grant an increase of pay for the time the Volunteers are in camp during the coming training in August.

The hon. Member has been misinformed. So far from there having been any decrease there has been a large increase of recruits in every Devon Volunteer Corps except one, where there was a decrease of five men as compared with 1902. There would appear to be no reason for special treatment of the Devon Volunteers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is his intention to volunteer on the War Office Vote a statement as to the policy to be pursued in reference to the forces in South Africa and the linked battalion system.

I am quite ready to make a statement as regards the forces in South Africa, and any other questions which may be raised on the War Office Vote.

Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the Prime Minister early in the session promised a statement on this subject before the end of the session.

Yes, and I have no doubt that the question will be raised on the War Office Vote to-night. I can then deal with it. That will be the more convenient course.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether at any time since 1899 rations supplied for the use of the Army by any of the firms named in the recent Report from Pretoria were condemned; and, if so, who were the firms, the quantities condemned, the reason for their being condemned, and whether the rations so condemned were destroyed or returned to the contractor.

No meat and vegetable rations supplied during the late war by any of the firms named in the Report were condemned on analysis in this country as unfit for the use of the troops in South Africa—but a large number of the so-called emergency rations were condemned — and the contractor has been required to make them good. The responsibility of the same contractor on a further consignment is under consideration.

asked whether any of the rations condemned were supplied by any of the contracting firms mentioned in the Report from Pretoria.

Yes.

Will you give the names?

Name, name.

The emergency rations were supplied by Messrs. Maconochie.

Has any further information on this matter been received from South Africa?

No, Sir; I have just been informed that no telegram has yet been received at the War Office.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that upon 21st April, 1903, the British Ambassador in Berlin made an intimation to the German Government to the effect that he believed that, in certain events, His Majesty's Government would impose retaliatory duties on German goods coming into this country, he will say whether this statement was made with the sanction of His Majesty's Government or is now adopted by it; and, if so, what is the need for further inquiry.

I have read the paragraph in Sir F. Lascelles' despatch, of which the hon. Member gives an abbreviated version. I quite agree with the paragraph in its original form. It expresses the belief of our Ambassador, which I also share, and seems to point to the necessity of inquiry rather than the reverse.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of some of the results of the inquiry into a possible change of our fiscal system being laid before the House previously to the end of the present session, whether he will state the mode in which such inquiry is being held or will be held.

I have nothing to add to what I have already said in answer to similar Questions.

I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman answer any Question as to the mode of inquiry.

I am not aware that the Questions have been about, anything else.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of German exports to Canada in 1897, as compared with the amount in 1902, as also the amount of Canadian exports to Germany in the same years; and if he will estimate the total extra duty paid on Canadian exports to Germany in 1902, as compared with what would have been paid had Germany retained Canada as entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment.

The value of German exports to Canada for home consumption in the official year 1897 amounted to $6,493,368, and in 1902 to $10,919,994, of which the value of sugar amounted to $2,390,239 in 1897, and to $3,655,570 in 1902. The value of the exports of Canadian produce to Germany in 1897 was $764,589, and in 1902 $1,298,654. The Canadian official year terminates on 30th June. It is impossible to form an estimate of the amount of the extra duty actually paid on Canadian produce as compared with what would have been paid if Canada had received most-favoured-nation treatment in Germany.

Has the inquiry not got that length yet?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the cause of the delay in the erection of a new post office at Hong-Kong.

Designs for the new Post Office were called for on the 5th December last and competitors were given to 31st March last to send in their designs. It will obviously take some time to make a final selection; and I do not think that there has been any undue delay in proceeding with this work.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the approaching termination of the appointment of the present Governor of Hong-Kong and the Imperial importance of the colony in its relation to China, will he consider the expediency of appointing a governor of wide experience to succeed the present officer administering the colony.

Sir H. Blake's appointment does not expire till November, 1904. It is always my desire in recommending the appointment of a Governor for any colony to endeavour to secure the services of a gentleman of experience.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to announce the conclusion of the arrangements for the laying of the spur cable connecting Ceylon with Cocos Islands.

The reply is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of Lord Cromer's statement that the lunatic asylum at Cairo is wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of the country, will he state how many patients this asylum will accommodate, and when it is proposed to erect a new asylum.

I have no information subsequent to the statement in Lord Cromer's Report. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that Lord Cromer states that it is hoped that this defect will be remedied when money becomes available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information as to the latter part of the Question?

I do not think that that is necessary, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down another Question I will see what can be done.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been advised by the British Minister at Bukarest that the German Government is about to make a new treaty of commerce with Roumania; whether he is aware that German trade has secured substantial advantages at the expense of British trade; that in five years the imports of British manufactured cotton goods have fallen from 75 per cent. of the whole to 49 per cent., and that British machinery, tin plates, jute tissues, bags, cast iron, and other articles are being ousted from the market; and, if so, will he say what steps are being taken to safeguard British trade interests.

I understand the Roumanian Government are engaged in reconsidering their Customs tariff, but we have no reason to suppose that a special treaty with Germany is being negotiated, or that there is any intention of granting German trade substantial advantages at our expense. I am aware that there has been a falling off in certain branches of British trade in Roumania, including the commodities mentioned by the hon. Member. Communications have passed between His Majesty's Minister at Bukarest and the Roumanian Government with a view to safeguard British trade interests.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now announce the complete formation of the Committee appointed to consider the position and duties of the various Government Departments, with the view of consolidating the commercial and trade interests of the country in one Department, in view of the fact that it is over four months since the inquiry was promised.

The Committee has been completed by the addition of the name of Mr. Emmott, Member for Oldham. I hope the Committee will commence their work at once and that the inquiry will not be a long one.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if evidence regarding trippage allowances on travelling post offices would be accepted at the proposed Committee of Inquiry into the wages of postal employees.

No, Sir. The inquiry proposed is into the normal rates of wages of the classes concerned. When these are fixed it will be for the Postmaster-General to settle, with the concurrence of the Treasury, what special allowances are required to cover exceptional duties.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he would use his best endeavours to obtain some alleviation of the cable charges between India and China, commensurate with the reductions recently announced between the United Kingdom and China.

I have communicated with the cable company concerned, and am informed that, in view of the recent reductions to which the hon. Member refers and of others made by the company during the last few years, which have resulted in a diminished revenue, the company are unable to make any further reductions at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Clanricarde has recently served notices to quit on tenants at Derrygoolin, Woodford; if so, will he state the amount of rent due on date of service; also, if rent had been demanded; and, if not, why were tenants served.

Yes, Sir. Three notices to quit were served. A half-year's rent (something over £3) was due in each case. Payment had not been demanded before service. No cause was assigned for the issue of the notices. Upon application being made by the landlord for ejectment decrees, founded upon the notices to quit, it will be open to the tenants to apply for a stay of proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution of the Westport harbour Commissioners, in which they state that, seeing that they are the local authority within whose jurisdiction Innishlyre harbour is to be built, they ought to be consulted as to the most suitable spot for the harbour; and whether he will see that they are consulted by the engineers.

Yes, Sir: the resolution has been received. The Harbour Commissioners will be consulted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Government have applied to the Sligo County Council for the sum of £1,500 to cover the cost of extra police stationed in the southern division of that county during the past two years; and whether, in view of the fact that it was owing to the action of the grand jury and against the protests of the County Council this expenditure has been incurred, he will devise some means by which the ratepayers may be relieved from the payment of this tax.

I have called for a report on the facts, but have not yet received it. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ouch an estate as that of the Marquess of Ely, in the counties of Fermanagh and Wexford, now in the English Court of Chancery, can be sold under the Land Bill; and, if not, will he provide for such sales being made where the owner desires to sell.

I am conferring with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Advocate. The question, if a satisfactory solution can be found, is one that can be dealt with in another place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any provision in the Land Bill to secure that the consideration of the claims of the evicted tenants shall receive priority in the proceedings of the Estates Commission.

The Bill contains no such provision.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that it is practically two months since the Royal Commission on the War completed taking evidence, he will ascertain and state when their Report will be published; will he consider the desirability of this being done so as to give sufficient time for debate before the end of the session; and will he give a day for that purpose.

The Royal Commission are completing their proceedings as rapidly as possible, and hope to be able to present their Report at an early date.

Will it be before the close of the session?

I rather gather that will be so, but I can give no pledge or promise.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that a new leave scheme, based on an announcement made in the official circular 15th March, 1898, had been introduced this year in the Dublin sorting office; whether he is aware that this circular stated that the staff were to understand that the success of the scheme depended on their own co-operation, and that the Postmaster-General and the Secretary to the Treasury would not feel justified in sanctioning its permanent adoption unless assured that they had the co-operation of the staff; and, seeing that the majority of the Dublin sorting office staff was in favour of the scheme referred to, and that the feelings of the staff were not taken when the new scheme was being drafted for operation in the Dublin sorting office, will he state what steps he proposes to take.

The matter referred to by the hon. Member received my personal attention. The majority of the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Dublin was in favour of the scheme, and the scheme has accordingly been adopted.

I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can now make a statement, or, if not, when he can do so, as to the probable course of business for the remainder of the session.

My review of the outstanding obligations in regard to legislation for the remainder of the session will come, I think, better when I move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, the date for which is approaching. It will probably be in the course of next week. As regards the immediate business before us, the Irish Land Bill is down for Report to-morrow as the first order, and from all I can learn we shall be able, I think, to have the good fortune to finish that stage during the sitting. In that event I pro pose to take on Monday the Scottish Licensing Bill, the Employment of Children Bill, and the Naval Works Bill, and other business on Monday. I contemplate taking the Third Reading of the Land Bill on Tuesday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Irish Estimates could be taken on Monday. We have had no opportunity of discussing them this session.

That is the first time the suggestion has been made to me. I will consider it, and the House will therefore regard what I first stated as to Monday as subject to alteration in consequence of the appeal of the hon. Member.

The suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule is apparently to be proposed at a much earlier date this session than in previous sessions.

The hon. Member may rest assured that I have no desire to suspend the Rule prematurely. My only object is that we may arrive at the prorogation somewhere about the usual date. It certainly will not be done in any spirit of levity.

I hope that such a measure as the Sugar Convention Bill will not be taken under the Twelve o'clock Rule. This is a new measure, not the worn-out fag-end of a controversy; it is perfectly new matter, and the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule ought not to be put in operation with regard to it.

I appreciate the spirit of that remark, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the essence of the Bill was discussed last session. (Cries of "No, no.") I perfectly recognise that the House desires to discuss the Second Reading, and I certainly shall put the Bill down as the first order.

I was referring rather to the end than do not want the discussion to be prolonged to three or four o'clock in the morning.

When will it be put down?

It would be premature for me to make any arrangement for the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill until I know how many Members desire to make their views heard, and what is the degree of novelty and variety in the speeches likely to be made.

I suppose we may take it that no fresh Bills will be brought on for discussion after twelve o'clock.

Of course it is not intended to introduce any new Bills under the Twelve o'clock Rule likely to lead to controversy, but there are some measures which are uncontroversial which might be introduced. It would be, I will not say a Parliamentary outrage, but a strong measure to introduce Bills under the Rule which are controversial.

Is it proposed to star any private Members' Bills?

This is another matter which ought to be deferred until I move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule.

moved to reduce the Vote by £100, his object being to call attention to the failure to carry out proposed schemes of reform in the Army. He regretted that under the political circumstances of the hour Army matters were receiving but secondary consideration, with the result that the Minister for War had been enabled to carry on his supposed reforms free from that criticism which should have been bestowed upon them. He had always felt that those schemes were not adapted for the country—were not wanted; and that the right hon. Gentleman had placed before the country an unworkable and extravagant scheme. The condition of the War Office at the present moment constituted a great national danger. It was a matter of regret and surprise to him not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in his place that night. They could not forget the unprecedented attacks which the right hon. Gentleman, as an ex-Cabinet Minister, last winter made with regard to the administration of the War Office, as did also the late Minister of Agriculture. It was then said that what was wanted was a drastic reform of the War Office, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that "this would never be obtained until they removed all those outside influences which now interfered with the management of the Army and with the selection for appointments and promotions—interference which would not be tolerated in any well organised Department of the Civil Service"; whilst the language of the late Mr. Hanbury was even stronger and more direct. When such charges were made he held very strongly that the confidence of the public in the Army must be sadly impaired and what was even a greater, if not the greatest, asset any Army could possess, the confidence of the Army officers themselves in an impartial system of justice must also be very much at stake. These charges of undue favouritism, remained practically unanswered to this day. The only reply he had heard put forward by the Secretary of State for War, was that officers were "the architects of their own careers," while Lord Roberts had merely recommended the Sandhurst cadets not to believe all "the nonsense they read in the newspapers." That surely was not very respectful language for the Commander-in-Chief to use towards the utterances of an ex-Cabinet Minister and of the late Minister of Agriculture, both of whom must have been behind the scenes and must have spoken with full knowledge and a sense of their responsibility, and in his opinion the neglect to meet such a charge was discreditable in the highest degree, both to the Secretary of State and Commander in-Chief. Now, in the remarks he had to make he wished to say, as he had said before, that he made no attack on any individual officer, but only on those responsible for administration, viz., the Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief. He intended to ask questions about certain appointments that had been made, in the hope of getting some explanation from those who were responsible for the appointments and promotion of officers. For instance, he wished to know whether there were not men in the Army more qualified by experience, service, and attainments, than General Sir Ian Hamilton to hold the important post of Quartermaster General. He maintained that the advancement in the career of this officer had been due to personal service to the Commander-in-Chief. For the ten years ending 1882 he was a regimental subaltern, and since then he had seen no regimental service. He was A.D.C. to Lord Roberts from 1882–1890, who then appointed him to the post of Inspector-General of Musketry in India, a post which he held until 1893. He confessed that in view of the training and of the post of A.D.C. held by that officer, giving him no practical touch with men or regimental training, that was a most inexplicable appointment, seeing that there must have been hundreds of officers in India who had had regimental experience as commanding officers, and he would like to know whether that appointment was not opposed at home by the then Commander-in-Chief for some time before it was confirmed. His subsequent service was as Military Secretary and Deputy Quartermaster General, both posts at Head Quarters, Simla. There was one point also as to this officer's later service in South Africa which required explaining. In the Official Army List he is shown as commanding the Mounted Infantry Division, South Africa, April 1900 to May 1901, but this officer came home with Lord Roberts in November, 1900. Such a manner of establishing a "record" was most reprehensible, and if sanctioned by regulations, the sooner these were changed the better. He practically only commanded the Mounted Infantry Division for a few months, although given the rank of Lieutenant-General over the heads of a number of senior officers on the spot, being finally promoted to that rank over the heads of sixty or seventy major-generals. The question was whether such a career was the best to fit an officer for the onerous and responsible position he now held. He would pass on, more for comparison than criticism, to the case of General Sir William Nicholson, a distinguished officer with valuable Indian experience, who on appointment as Director-General of Military Intelligence, had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, although he had when a colonel been promoted by Lord Roberts in 1899 out of his turn to supernumerary major-general. His predecessor, Sir John Ardagh, an officer of world-wide experience, who was retired for age, had been denied that rank of lieutenant-general after five years tenure of that position. General Nicholson was six years junior to General Ardagh in the service, and it was a grave blot on any system that it should allow the country to be deprived of the valuable services of Sir John Ardagh at the present juncture. His services might have been utilised by the Imperial Committee of Defence, but instead of that he was sent to South Africa as a member of the Commission to inquire into the working of Courts-martial. The action of the War Office in this case contrasted very strongly with that of the Colonial Office in the case of Sir Robert Herbert, the late Permanent Under-Secretary. Surely the War Office need not have thus dispensed with Sir John Ardagh's services at the very moment the Intelligence and Mobilisation Department were supposed to be receiving special attention. The phrase of "sending Hercules to the Himalayas" was truly applicable to more recent army appointments than the one of Lord Kitchener, to whom primarily it had reference; in any case the system must be wrong that retired a valuable officer for not attaining, on relinquishing an office, the rank that was specially bestowed on his successor on appointment to the same office. He quite admitted that selection was a necessity and had many good points, but it must be strictly safeguarded. He was prepared to allow a great deal of discretion to the Commander-in-Chief, but many cases at present were inexplicable and irritating to the whole body of the. Army. It was an extraordinary thing how every one of the Commander-in-Chief's A.D.C.'s were selected for good appointments. Sir-George Pretyman, who had been unemployed for five years, and whose claims for employment must have come before and been rejected by the Selection Board for all that period, was appointed in 1899 by the present Commander-in-Chief, when he was on the point of retirement, commandant to Lord Roberts at headquarters, a post often held by captains or majors, and although he had never practically commanded in the field except a minor post on lines of communication, he had now been selected for a first-class district in India. Was that selection made by the Selection Board? Another case which required some explanation was that of General Sir C. Tucker. This general was appointed to the command of a division in South Africa in 1899 with the temporary rank of lieutenant-general. He was an officer who had served all over the globe. In December, 1900, he attained sixty-two years of age, and in the ordinary course would have retired; but he was retained, presumably, and rightly in his opinion because he was a most efficient officer. That winter Sir T. Kelly - Kenny, Sir A. Hunter, and Sir N. Lyttelton all went home, and later so did General Bindon Blood, this latter after serving barely six months in South Africa, yet in the Honours Gazette all were promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general over the head of General Tucker whilst that officer was actually in the field holding a lieutenant-general's command. He considered that the promotion of these officers may have been right and proper, but it was difficult to understand on what principle General Tucker should have been superseded at the time they were promoted, as General Tucker was actually at the time in the field performing the duties of lieutenant-general in South Africa. In 1902 General Tucker was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, but he had lost two-and-a-half years of seniority by his supersession, or about fifteen steps. Then there was the case of Major Mackenzie, of the Seaforth Highlanders, another A.D.G. of Lord Roberts, who was appointed Governor of Johannesburg, being given local rank of colonel. At that time there were in Johannesburg, one lieutenant-general and four major-generals who by the appointment were placed under him; and one of these, Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Chermside, was a man admirably adapted by experience in many countries to be the governor of a cosmopolitan polyglot town like Johannesburg. Lord Settrington was another A.D.C. as to whose advancement he would like to have a little information. Lord Settrington went out to South Africa as a Militia officer and A.D.C. to Lord Roberts, and no doubt rendered good service. He was afterwards posted, however, to the newly raised Irish Guards as second lieutenant, and rose to be captain in six months. It was very hard to find justification for such tremendous progress. Nay, more, it was impossible; every subaltern, not only in the Guards but in the British Army, was wronged by such an incident, and the formation of a new regiment should have been taken advantage of to promote deserving officers. He was standing up for the unknown "Smith" in the Army, who had been sadly neglected of late years. He might give many more cases, but he hoped he would have some answer to the cases he had spoken of. The distribution of rewards and honours caused intense heart-burning in the men whose whole career depended upon their advancement in the service. He strongly objected to the distinction of "qualified for employment on the stall" being distributed in an arbitrary and erroneous way, as a reward, and being given for anything else than certain specified duties in the field. Such distinctions cast a baneful influence over the Army right down to all the ranks. A great deal of this was due to the want of practical, proper, and efficient working of the machinery by which the Army was organised. The War Office was choked with arrears of work which blocked its effective action. New methods had been started with new men, but there was no head control; decentralisation was not secured, and he did not believe that there was one of the six much vaunted Army Corps which could go on active service without breaking up other units. To show that decentralisation was not secured, in spite of all they had heard, he might point out that even in a small matter such as an application to travel for a few days abroad by an officer from, say, Shorn-cliffe or Chichester, the application would be sent first to the officer commanding at Shorncliffe, from Shorncliffe to Dover, then to the officer commanding the Army Corps at Salisbury Plain, and from there to the War Office, and it would come back by the same circuitous route, entailing a great waste of time. With the pros sure of work at the War Office it was impossible that the War. Office could rise to the necessity of meeting the case of modern improvements in the Army, such as the much-needed creation of a special N.C.O. training school. The result of this maladministration was also seen in the lamentable (there was no other word for it) succession of incidents which have been occupying public attention for the last year; incidents which were calculated to bring the Army into discredit in the eyes of not only the people of this country, but of the world; incidents such as the delay in the payment of the Yeomanry, the delay in the issue of medals, in the scandals connected with the Yeomanry remount operations in Hungary, in the failure in the case of Major Studdert in Ireland, and in the disgraceful attempt to make General Truman a scape-goat, and force him to resign, when the blame for the loss of horse life in South Africa was on the Chief of Staff in South Africa and on the Yeomanry Committee, the failure and delay also to remodel the army veterinary department, which was even now 20 per cent. short of its establishment, required condemnation. These matters were due to the indecision and the contradictory action of the War Office, and to this same contradictory action and want of administrative power he directly attributed the Buller, Colville, and Kinloch cases. He would only touch for a moment on the Cape "ragging" case, which had done me re to discredit the Army in South Africa than anything else. He had always advocated the necessity of Courts-martial in individual cases, and if they had had Courts-martial carried on under a proper system during the last ten years such an incident as the Cape "ragging" case could not have occurred. Punishments have been decreasing, rewards increasing, with the result from this dangerous principle that discipline has been deteriorating, not improving. The War Office had been guilty of incessant changes; but changes in organisation did not necessarily carry with them an increase of efficiency. It had forfeited the sympathy of the Militia and had turned Volunteers into active enemies. It had also allowed to be carried out under the present regime objectless and expensive changes in uniform under the guise of economy. He felt some explanation was required on the recommendation of the Committee on Officers' Expenses that they should allow cavalry subalterns to consume more liquor at moss than infantry subalterns. He mentioned the case of the contaminated blankets, and the destruction of the condemned rations at Pretoria. Perhaps it was only right that he should read a letter which he had received from South Africa upon this matter, dated Pretoria, 18th June.

"To-day's cablegrams bring in Mr. Brodrick's reply to certain Questions asked by you in the House of Commons on June 17th regarding the destruction of rations at Pretoria in April last. I entirely agree with the position you have taken up in this connection. Such a wanton and scandalous destruction of good and sound rations, to the value of about £100,000, was sad to see, and should be the subject of most rigid inquiry. Your contention that good meat properly preserved in tins, never deteriorates is substantially correct. Only in cases where boxes containing rations have been roughly used, the tins becoming punctured, have I ever found them unfit for issue. This does not apply to the rations destroyed in Pretoria, the major portion of which was in excellent condition, and at least 75 per cent. bearing stamped impression on tins 2.5.02, and therefore could have only been in South Africa a very few months. Mr. Brodrick's reply to you that the contractors are not to blame is as generons as his statement that therations were kept longer than intended. I may mention that I was in charge of a section of wagons engaged in carting the same to the site, a few miles from Pretoria, where they were destroyed; and altogether there were engaged in the transit of these rations an average of about ninety wagons daily, covering a period of from three to four weeks. I personally superintended the loading and off-loading of the wagons under my charge, and am therefore in a position to speak as to the true facts of the case, and I have no hesitation in saying that it would have been a most difficult task to have discovered 2½ per cent. unfit for human food. I may further mention that the drivers and leaders of our transport conveying these rations, and numbering about 200 natives, lived almost exclusively on the rations in question, and certainly consumed not less than from 1,200 to 1,500 tins with no ill effects. After the destruction was completed, or supposed to have been, hundreds of rations were removed by hungry natives living in that vicinity. The modus operandi in inspecting and condemning these rations, as told to me by a gentleman who was an eve-witness, can only he regarded as farcical. The information herein conveyed can be borne out by several persons now residing in Pretoria."

This latter was on a par with other exposures of War Office system, or rather want of it, but the country had lost £80,000 over the transaction. In any case the War Office could not escape blame. He had just one word to say as to the present system of recruiting. A great deal had been heard of late about good recruits, and he had always been convinced that a proper system of promoting to a commission from the ranks would go far towards success in obtaining good recruits. He had found from a Return of commissions given to the ranks that in the ten years ending in 1896, the last year we had a Royal Commander-in-Chief, the percentage of commissions given to men from the ranks was 4·5, but in the last eight years, from 1896 to 1902, that percentage had fallen to 2·6. If they wanted good recruits they should encourage the system of giving such commissions, and he advocated a 10 perentage as a fair one; but this fall in the number of such commissions under a Conservative Government showed what a hollow pretence real reform was likely to assume. He understood other Members were going to touch on the ludicrous exposure in this House of the Somaliland operations. The Secretary of State seemed alone blind to the comedy of his action, but it was a very serious matter to the country. There had been a grave loss of life, an expenditure of £500,000, and an annual expenditure going on at the rate of £50,000 a month. Owing to these lamentable facts coming before the pub-lie they were losing confidence in the administration of the Army—and, above all, in the Secretary of State for War. Economy and efficiency were considered incompatible, with the result that neither were obtained, and the War Office had come to regard the public purse as a milch cow that could not run dry. It was because he looked upon the whole situation as a very serious one that he now begged to move.

said he did not rise for the purpose of following the hon. Member throughout the whole of the somewhat discursive oration he had made. He thought a speech which attempted in the course of half an hour to touch on almost every question of Army administration, including Somali land, appointments at the War Office, rations of the troops, decentralisation, and a number of other topics, could not be described otherwise than as giving a discursive view of what had taken place. He rose, before they went to more serious topics which might be introduced, to enter his protest against that part of the hon. Member's speech in which he made a formal indictment of the Commander-in-Chief and the appointments made by him to the War Office. He did not suppose that those observations would be taken in this House for more than they were worth, which was the expression of opinion of an individual Member. But those observations went out to the country, they were reported in the Press, and if he were not at the earliest moment to make an emphatic protest and express his desire to controvert in every respect what had fallen from the hon. Member he should be wanting in the duty which he discharged to this House. To show, he would not say the prejudice in the sense that the hon. Member had deliberately abandoned a fair and impartial treatment of the matter, but to show the prejudiced aspect which the whole subject bore in the hon. Member's mind, he could not do better than to take two appointments, the only two on which he proposed to comment, in regard to which the hon. Member had attacked the position of the War Office—the appointment of two most distinguished officers, Sir Ian Hamilton and Sir William Nicholson. The hon. Member said that the record of Sir Ian Hamilton was one purely of personal interest to the Commander-in-Chief. That was not only not the truth but it was the absolute reverse of the truth. Sir Ian Hamilton undoubtedly served the Commander-in-Chief as military secretary in India. He was also selected by Sir George White, and asked to take the same post on his stall which he had held with Lord Roberts, and at the urgent request of the new Commander-in-Chief Sir Ian Hamilton did so. He himself happened to know, for he was then in India, that at the moment Sir Ian Hamilton urgently desired to return home. Sir Ian Hamilton was appointed, not by Lord Roberts but by Sir George White, to the position of Inspector-General of Musketry in India, and the qualities which he showed in that capacity were so exceptional for the position that he was appointed, not by Lord Roberts, nor by Sir George White, but by Lord Wolseley, to the chief post at the School of Musketry at Hythe. From that post he was selected, not by Lord Roberts but by Lord Wolseley and Sir Redvers Huller, who at that moment, he thought, had not gone out himself, to proceed to Natal and to form part of the Natal field force. In that capacity he commanded a brigade at Ladysmith, and he consequently commanded a division during the campaign in South Africa. He returned with Lord Roberts, and as between the date of his return and the absolute date of the abandonment of his command he, like other officers, was allowed two months leave. He then became military secretary to Lord Roberts; and he was, with the universal assent of the whole country—there was never an appointment which gave greater satisfaction—sent as Chief of the Staff to Lord Kitchener, and practically he exercised the control of Chief of the Staff for eight months over an Army of a quarter of a million of men. On coming back he was employed at the War Office in the post which was previously held by Lord Wolseley, Sir Redvers Buller, and Sir Evelyn Wood; and he could only say that that was a good omen for Sir Ian Hamilton's future advancement, as it was an indication of services which were exceptional, even in a campaign in which many exceptional services were rendered. He must say that to represent the appointment of an officer of that distinction in the field, whose qualities had been proved and acknowledged by all those who served with him in South Africa, as a personal selection for personal services to the Commander-in-Chief was an unworthy representation to proceed from a Member of this House. With regard to Sir William Nicholson, he could only say this—it was not necessary for him to speak his abilities in this House, they were known to all Members who had to do with India long before they were known to those who served in the War Office, who were not in immediate contact with him. Sir William Nicholson was a member of the Defence Committee, and as a member of that Committee he had been brought in contact with leading Cabinet Ministers and with the leading members of the sister service. He undertook to say that there was not a man sitting on that Committee who would not say that it was impossible to deal with Sir William Nicholson without feeling that he was a man of the very first ability, knowledge, and application. The hon. Member had instituted a comparison, which he thought was wholly undesirable, between Sir William Nicholson and Sir John Ardagh, who had done excellent service in the capacity and in respect of the subjects with which he was charged. They all knew that the post of Director-General of Mobilisation and of Military Intelligence had been immensely developed, his responsibility had been greatly enlarged; and he was glad to say that by a recent decision of the Treasury, on their application, his staff had been greatly enlarged. When that change was made, and these fresh responsibilities were placed upon Sir William Nicholson, he was given a seat on the War Office Council, and, like every other officer holding that position, he was given the rank and pay of lieutenant-general. The denial of that rank to Sir John Ardagh was not due to any disregard for his qualifications. It was given to Sir William Nicholson because the post he held was a much more important one. The hon. Member had represented that General Tucker had been in some respects a victim of some want of regard on the part of the Commander-in-Chief.

asked whether it was not the fact that General Tucker had been superseded.

said it was impossible to undertake, when an officer was selected for promotion for his services in the field, that he should not go over the heads of other officers, of General Tucker, as it happened, was made knight commander of the Bath in the Gazette in which two other officers were made lieutenant-generals, and he was subsequently made lieutenant-general for his services in the campaign. He was quite certain that General Tucker would be the last man to say or to suggest that his treatment had been otherwise than handsome. He would leave these subjects, and only on this ground—they had given a pledge to the House two years ago that all appointments of officers should be made with a view to their command in the field, and, as far as he knew, that pledge had been kept in every single particular. He was prepared to vindicate every appointment that came under his own personal control in the sense of putting the seal on what had been brought before him by the military authorities. He could assure the Committee that these imputations of favouritism, not one of which had ever been made good in or out of the House, gave the utmost pain, not merely to the Commander-in-Chief, but to the officers associated with him, and to the officers unnamed on whose behalf they were professed to be made. He had never heard of, and he did not believe there was, in the Army any feeling but one of confidence that every endeavour was made to take the best men. Of course, after a campaign there must be disappointments: but all he could say was that officers who had been preferred after this campaign had not belonged to one school rather than another. They had been selected indiscriminately from among men who had the best Indian reputations, the best Egyptian reputations, and the best peace reputations in Great Britain. He hoped that these efforts to disparage the judgment, and, more than the judgment, the integrity, of a great soldier like the Commander-in Chief would not be repeated.

said that the right hon. Gentlemen had had brought to his notice the feeling of indignation which was often caused by the selection of officers for promotion. He did not agree with his hon. friend in introducing particular names to the Committee; but it was unquestionable that a great many of the appointments made by Lord Roberts in connection with the war had caused the greatest offence to, and deepened the ill-feeling of, many deserving officers in the British Army. He deprecated the introduction of names in the strongest possible manner; but he would say that Lord Roberts' appointments had not always been free from the suspicion of favouritism. Passing from that point, he thought the Committee were entitled to a pronouncement as to the policy of the Government with regard to the permanent garrison in South Africa. The proposal, first made in The Times, was that one Army Corps should be permanently stationed in South Africa, and called part of the home garrison. Three points were urged in favour of that policy. The first was the strategic mobility to be gained thereby; the second emanated from the Colonial Office, and suggested that the "three-year-old" soldiers should be invited to settle in South Africa as colonists; while the third, which probably came from some ardent supporter of War Office reform, urged that South Africa was a better training ground than Great Britain could possibly be. Upon the last point contradictory statements had been made from the Treasury Bench, for while in April, 1902, the Secretary of State for War declared that no men were sent out not properly trained, in March of this year the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that South Africa was considered a very suitable training ground for the young soldier. The War Office might have changed their policy, but those statements were clearly incompatible. He believed that for the purposes of mounted infantry and cavalry drill, South Africa was an admirable training ground, because of the distances and areas it afforded, but with regard to artillery the advantage was not so certain, and he seriously doubted its desirability as a training ground for the infantry The large area necessary for mounted forces was not required for infantry, and the character of the ground in South Africa was so unlike the enclosed regions of this country that the officer entrusted with the duty of training the men would be set a task entirely different from that involved in manœuvring in an enclosed country. That difference was recognised by the writer of the series of articles in The Times. It was untrue to say that infantry could not be trained in England just as well as anywhere else. He did not know whether the Financial Secretary had read the interesting critique in The Times of this morning on the manœuvre at Aldershot. He took it that the writer of the critique was the gentleman who animadverted upon the individual composition of the brigades which took part in the recent Aldershot review. The writer pointed out that over a considerable open space of ground a division was manœuvred in accordance with the most recent developments of military drill, in the style and upon the theory adopted with such conspicuous success in the German manœuvres four years ago. If it was possible so to manœuvre infantry that they were concealed from the observation of the defending force, the manœuvring of the soldier depended not so much upon the ground which he occupied as upon the intelligence of the officer who directed the operations. If the quality of the directing officer was improved there would be obtained on the part of the private soldier a skill not hitherto secured in this country. The Times critic also noticed that the noncommissioned officers and men showed an intelligent interest in the maps of the surrounding country which had been provided for them. If that were so, the Army had made a substantial advance in the right direction. Another consideration in connection with the permanent garrison in South Africa was that the cost of the soldier in that country was so much greater than in England that it would materially increase the expenditure on the Army. A man in South Africa cost £25 more than in England. It appeared, therefore, that the proposal would afford no advantage from the strategic point of view, greatly increase the cost of the troops, and, without providing colonists for South Africa, cause considerable difficulty in the provision and maintenance of the reserve. When the proposal was made to send certain reservists to Canada, it was thought by the War Office that we should have a claim on their services in time of war, but the Canadian Government entirely repudiated that view. The same thing would probably happen in South Africa. Thus there were several serious arguments which could be advanced against the proposed retention of an Army Corps in South Africa as a part of the home garrison. Another matter upon which he desired information was the future policy in Somaliland. According to the Secretary of State, seventeen officers and 340 men had been killed, the Vote for the campaign was practically exhausted, and further supplies would have to be asked for. What was the quality of the troops that had been engaged? In reply to a Question, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no native levies would be employed in the field, and yet in every action natives had been given the most prominent share of the fighting. According to the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, these men had not completed even a native recruit's musketry course, and a great part of the losses sustained by Colonel Plunkett's column was doubtless due to the fact that the native levies could not aim straight. Moreover, since that reply, fresh levies of these men had been made. He wished to know something about the troops to be employed in subsequent operations. The whole of the operations in Somaliland had so far been directed, to driving our enemy out of another country into British territory. When this expedition began its operations the Mullah was outside British territory, but he had since entrenched himself in British lines,, and his presence there was viewed with great anxiety by the inhabitants. "Was the War Office going to establish a permanent force in this territory or were they going to have these expeditions every year? They had appointed a competent officer to take command, and they had been told that an advance was shortly to begin. If the result of that advance was to be that the enemy was to be entrenched more strongly in our territory than before the advance, then he hoped some other means would be adopted of driving the Mullah out of our territory, and of securing protection for the tribes to whom they had promised adequate protection. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some reply to the question raised with regard to this South African garrison, and also with regard to this expedition which had proved so costly and had upset all the optimistic statements made by the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of this session.

said he thought the Committee would be disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in deprecating the introduction of personal matters which figured so very largely in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion this afternoon. The hon. Member occupied some time in discussing patronage in the Army and Navy. In this country they had committed themselves to the policy of selection, and he thought on the whole it was agreed that that was the only method by which they could arrive at the one most important thing, namely, getting the right man in the right place in the hour of need. Just as it was useless to interfere in matters of selection when there were no grounds for believing that there had been an actual corruption at work, so in regard to the question of the administration of discipline it was not wise to interfere without there were definite grounds to show that the forms of law and justice had not been accurately followed. In so far as criticisms had been made upon matters like the Colonel Kinloch case, he wished to point out that they had not been directed at the legitimate exercise of the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief but only at what was conidered to be a departure from the recognised form of law and justice and an illegitimate exercise of that discretion. The most extraordinary thing in the speech of the hon. Member opposite was the example he took to illustrate the evils of selection. He should not have thought, on the face of it, that there were two officers in the British Army whose appointments had given more universal satisfaction than the appointments of General Ian Hamilton and Sir William Nicholson. He apprehended that it was the general opinion of those born in the service that there were few men more fitted to deal with the great matters of policy and administration, transcending and extending beyond the ordinary limitations of strictly professional training, or more fitted to rank as military statesmen, who could take part in the Councils of National Defence. He rose chiefly for the purpose of expressing the hope that they should not consume this day in discussing these comparatively small personal matters. He hoped they would not spend a long time in discussing the procedure at a Court-martial of which they had heard a good deal. There were an immense number of important matters which a great many hon. friends of his were very anxious to have information about. Some of those questions had been touched upon by the hon. Member who spoke last, and he appealed to the Secretary of State for War to give them as much information as he could as early as possible in the debate, because he thought that would curtail the discussion and make it more fruitful, and prevent them from straying on wrong lines. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them something as to what he intended to do in regard to the troops in South Africa. Did he intend to keep the present garrison permanently there, and what would be the increased cost of that alteration in the distribution of their military forces in South Africa? He should also like to know a little more about the popularity of the service in South Africa as compared with the popularity of the service in other parts of the British Empire. If South Africa was going to be a permanent station for such a large force they could not go on keeping the troops under canvas or under rudimentary temporary shelter. Of course that would react upon the question of cost. Besides that, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them something in regard to the progress made with recruiting. He was rather inclined to think that some of the figures the Secretary of State for War had given had hardly tended to reassure the House that the right hon. Gentleman's anticipations at the beginning of the session had been borne out by events. They wished to know how the recruiting had been affected by the new conditions as to character and standard which had been introduced, and they also wanted to know the number of re-engagements or proportion made under the new system of pay.

There are no statistics available yet.

said if there were no statistics available of course they could not have them.

said the recruits who were taken for three years under the new system began to engage in April last year, and until April next year they had no opportunity of knowing that they would re-engage for another period.

said he thought that was a very favourite date. He understood from that answer that there would be no difficulty in obtaining the information he had asked for. Then there was the question of the artillery guns. That was a matter which had attracted great interest both inside and outside the House. It was an extraordinary thing that, although they had only a small Army, it was not well-armed, and although it was such an expensive Army, it was practically without quick-firing guns.

The guns do not come upon this Vote.

asked if they would be in order in calling attention to the answers given by the Secretary of State for War to Questions put to him upon this subject.

I cannot keep in my mind all the Answers given on the Questions put, and I cannot quite see in what shape the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise the question. I am perfectly clear, however, that no discussion in regard to the supply of these guns can be permitted on this Vote.

submitted that the hon. Member for Oldham had not entered upon any technical discussion with regard to the need of guns, but had only referred to the refusal of the Government in regard to those guns.

My interruption was of a precautionary character.

pointed out that there was part of this Vote devoted to the pay of the Inspector-General of Artillery, and surely it would be in order on that particular item to discuss the question of guns.

The question of guns must be raised on the Vote for guns. Vote 9 is for guns, and that obviously is the place where everybody will expect the discussion to come.

said he should be the last person to attempt to draw the discussion out of the channel in which it should properly flow, but if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any information he would relieve the very considerable apprehension which existed in the minds of many hon. Members in regard to this topic. It would also be very interesting if the Secretary of State for War could, without entering into any details, let them know what he proposed to do with regard to the Intelligence De partment. If those matters had not the same relative importance as they had at the beginning of the session, it was because they had been overshadowed by the introduction of other graver subjects, and expelled by the forebodings of change which pervaded the political arena. The matters he had mentioned vitally affected not only the efficiency of the Army but the safety of the country, and he was sure his hon. friend would endeavour to do his best, and give them as much information as he possibly could.

said the hon. Member for Oldham had put some most necessary questions, to which it was essential that they should have answers in the course of this debate. Many hon. Members would be disposed to agree with him in regretting that his hon. friend who opened this debate should have taken as his example the appointment with regard to musketry instruction of Sir Ian Hamilton, whose interest in the subject was beyond dispute, in fact he was a man who had throughout his career given more time and thought to that problem than any other man in Europe.

dissented.

said that if his hon. and gallant friend had attacked the political speeches of Sir Ian Hamilton he might have had something to say for himself, but if his attack was on his appointment to his present post that was a mistake, if he would allow him to say so. With regard to Sir William Nicholson there was one fact which was I not mentioned by the Secretary of State, and which was material to his present appointment, and that was that he held the same position in India. He was secretary of the Mobilisation Commission in India, and anyone who knew the work done there would know that Sir William Nicholson had transcendent qualifications for the post he now occupied. He was glad that the hon. Member had moved a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State, and he should support him if he went to a division. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had asked a number of questions in regard to recruiting, and he had raised in brief form reminiscences of those interesting discussions which they had earlier in the present year. The hon. Member had truly said that events had occurred which had distracted the immediate attention of the country from Army questions. If there was anyone pleased at the raising of financial issues it was the Secretary of State for War, for the Colonial Secretary was a lightning conductor for the right hon. Gentleman. It was probable, therefore, that hon. Members who were now discussing Army questions would not receive the general support in the country which they might have expected had these other questions not been raised. They wanted to put some definite questions to the right hon. Gentleman. They wanted to know both the condition of recruiting and also the bearing of the present position of recruiting upon the condition of his Army Corps as shown by the figures laid before the House a few months ago. He should not like to make himself responsible for the criticism on the recent Aldershot review, and on the field state of the troops which took part in the review. But he thought the Committee would expect to have from the Secretary of State some account of the reasons which led to certain battalions having to leave so large a proportion of their men off the field and outside the review. He should also like to ask the Secretary of State not only with regard to the number of recruits but also what were the medical reports as to the ability of the recruits to stand the strain of the work in the first few months—work which though hard was very light compared with that which recruits did in Germany and France—and under which a terrible proportion of the troops were breaking down, He should like the Secretary of State to tell the Committee something in regard to the problem presented with regard to the food of the men- His own belief was that the right hon. Gentleman would have to increase the quantity and quality of the food of the recruits, and that the principle which was laid down in regard to the food of recruits for the Navy—which was more considerable than the food of the Army and which was for that reason less requisite in the case of the Navy—would have to be applied to the Army. It was this—

"The ration should be sufficient in itself to satisfy all reasonable requirements of the men and to maintain them in a fit state of health."

They had not reached that point and he thought it had a greater bearing on the recruiting problem than the question of pay. The second question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham had reference to re-engagements. He wished to know whether it was possible to give the Committee any information on that point, it was not at the end of three but at the end of two years that the men had to make their choice, and he should have thought that the Inspector-General would have been able to tell the Secretary of State as to the reengagements. Moreover, there was a pretty large number of three-years' men before the new scheme was brought into force. He thought their experience of the present rate of re-enlistment of three-years' men would have an important hearing on the question of re engagements, in regard to which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked for information. He was glad to find a less determined tone on the part of the hon. Member for Oldham in favour of the Army Corps in South Africa than he had noticed in his suggestion some months ago.

was understood to demur.

said the Committee had undoubtedly never been in possession of the facts which were really necessary to enable them to make up their minds on the questions which were put by his hon. friend the Member for Bristol as to cost, which had assumed such prominence in the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham. He asked the Secretary of State whether they might consider that he had not changed his position. If no change was to be put forward before February or March next-year it was unnecessary to discuss the matter now, but if there was the slightest chance of the Army being organised on new lines the Committee ought to have it thrashed out, and they ought to know the arguments for and against the scheme. As long as the Government needed 30,000 troops in South Africa and intended to reduce them to 15,000 that was no change. That was the intention expressed in the House last year, and again this year, but when the Government make up its mind that a single man was to be kept in South Africa beyond the necessities of South Africa that was a change. If there was a change it ought to be very fully explained to the House and debated by the House. He did not know whether this was a matter that had been settled, or whether it was the subject of inquiry by the Government. The Prime Minister, three months ago, undoubtedly led the House to believe that the matter was under inquiry by the Government, and he promised a statement upon it. When they asked when they would have an opportunity of discussing it the right hon. Gentleman said this Vote would give such an opportunity. They were, therefore, thoroughly justified in asking if any change was to be made before March next. If so the Committee should be told. The hon. Member for Oldham asked definite questions as to the cost which would be involved by keeping an additional number of men in South Africa beyond the needs of South Africa. On the question of cost the Secretary of State seemed to have changed his figures during the last few months. When the right hon Gentleman was asked on 10th of March as to the additional cost of keeping men in South Africa he said that it was from £20 to £25 per man. But the other day when he was asked a similiar question he said that 30,000 were kept there at present but that it was the intention of the Government to reduce the permanent garrison to 15,000. The other day the Secretary of State was asked as to the additional charge for keeping troops in South Africa and he said the extra cost at the present time was £45,000 per week. That appeared to him to work out a wholly different figure and make the additional cost far greater.

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I endeavoured to give some idea what the permanent cost would be for keeping troops in South Africa, but that is complicated by the very large amount for I transport.

said those figures would give a total of £2,340,000, and it was an enormous sum for 30,000 men. The Secretary of State had explained that the discrepancy could be explained by the cost of transport. He wished to point out the enormous importance of the question of transport. I The South African troops were to be short service troops—three years men. Raw recruits were to be sent out. The question of transport would therefore; assume a very serious aspect. India had complained that she had to pay a great deal for transport, but what would it be in the case of South Africa if they had three years' service men? This question of transport bore on every other question; involved. They had been told that it; would be possible to make the change with advantage to India because troops would be more easily sent from South Africa than from home. If they were three years' service men they could not be sent to India as organised units. Before being sent they would have to receive their reserves from home. He could not help thinking that the scheme had not been thought out, and he was sure the Committee would be greatly interested in hearing what the Secretary of State had to tell them about it. His hon. friend the Memberfor Bristol had admitted that up to a certain point South Africa would be an excellent training ground for troops. Undoubtedly, but there was one point which was never sufficiently remembered in this connection. It was that long before the South African war complaints were made again and again on the Medical Vote of the enormous amount of typhoid fever in South Africa, and if our young troops would be subject to typhoid attacks that would be a great drawback to the country as a training ground. Whatever proposal the Government had to make on this point, they must deal with the question of length of service, the question of reserves, and the popularity of service in South Africa. They must tell the House whether there was any proposal in connection with India reliefs to accompany any proposal in regard to South Africa. A year and four months ago the Secretary of State for War was asked whether he had the consent of the Government of India to the charges then made, or whether the Government of India had been consulted about the changes in recruiting, and they elicited the fact that the Government of India had not been consulted, and that the Government of India had protested. But the papers showing the vehement nature of there protests had been kept back from the House for a year and more. These papers showed an overwhelming case against the Secretary for War and the Cabinet. When hon. Members on that side of the House used the word "regret," they were told that they were moving a vote of censure on the Government. The Government of India had, therefore, passed a vote of censure on the Secretary for War and the home Government, because the Viceroy telegraphed to the Secretary for India on 8th March, 1902—

"We desire respectfully to express our regret that the Government of India were not given an opportunity of stating their views before decision was arrived at, and that we received no official intimation until it was on the eve of being announced to Parliament."

The Secretary for India himself took up the protest of the Government of India, and on 22nd April, 1902, he used these words in a letter from the India Office to the War Office—

"Lord George Hamilton … shares the regret of the Government of India that it was not found possible to adopt a procedure under which both the Council of India and the I Government of India might have been afforded time and facilities for investigating and discussing, from the Indian point of view, the effects of the new system of recruiting."

In fact, the Secretary for India had made out an overwhelming case against his colleague the Secretary for War and the whole Cabinet, and it was curious that the right hon. Gentleman should have dissociated himself from the action of the Secretary for War and adopted the view of the Indian Government. He was not going to discuss the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the point. That would be raised on the Indian Budget; but personally he did not differ from it. What he blamed the Secretary for War for was, that the right hon Gentleman had placed the Government of India in that position. He wished to endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for Oldham in regard to certain points on which we were behind every other nation in the world in spite of the enormous expenditure on the British Army. It was impossible to stand up against the Secretary for War when he said that he could not make certain changes on account of their cost. But there were a number of changes which the poorest countries in the world were able to make, but which we could not make on account of their cost. The hon. Member for Oldham had given two instances. The first was that the War Office were continuing the practice of drawing on the line battalions for the mounted infantry instead of creating a separate corps of mounted infantry, He could not conceive of any sane man depending on obtaining an effective body of mounted infantry under the present system, which was rotten. Then the supply of horses and mules for transport had never been sufficient. Again, it was said that the adoption of quick-firing guns could not be carried out on the ground of cost. He would observe the ruling of the Chairman on this question of guns, but their attack was on the Secretary for War and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Years ago they pressed the predecessor of the present Financial Secretary on this point. They showed him that our guns were antiquated even long before the war, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was almost exactly word for word that of the present Financial Secretary. Since that time the two last great Powers to adopt quick-firing guns were the United States and Russia. Long years ago, Switzerland, one of the smallest and most economical of States in Europe, had adopted them, and ages ago they had been adopted in France and Germany. Yet nothing had been done by this country. He would not deal with the technical points that there had been no real conversion of our guns into quick-firing guns. There had only been an alteration of the breach arrangement from one side of the gun to the other, while the spade attachment did not make the gun into a quick-firing gun. We were now behind every other nation in the world. The difference was such that a battery of six of our guns was only equivalent to one gun employed by the other nations. That was given on the authority of an eminent United States officer. He believed that we must save money on the Army expenditure, and that that must be done next year. That could only he done by the changes pointed out so well by the hon. Member opposite. It would be more necessary for the Secretary for War to make these savings on a large scale, because it was necessary to make these changes, in our guns. So long as the Secretary for War and his advisers clung to the linked-battalion system he would not be able to show the saving on expenditure which the House would insist upon. If the Secretary for War had moved within the last four months to replace the linked-battalion system, and that of small, ill drilled depôts by large depôts, there might have been some hope for him and for the country, but if he stuck to the old system it was impossible to imagine that the right hon. Gentleman could show that economy by which he could expect to get Estimates through the House.

said that the House would sympathise with him in attempting, within a reasonable compass, to make a reply. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him to do something to save himself, but if, in the past, he has done many things which the right hon. Gentleman had asked him to do he should not have escaped shipwreck. He had fought many questions against the right hon. Gentleman from that side of the House, and he was bound to say that year after year he returned to the charge with unerring pertinacity, and made the same discarded suggestions. But although he hoped he had not been impervious to one of his suggestions—viz., that of short service, he had not seen in the right hon. Gentleman's speech a tone of absolute certainty even as to the result of that operation. And, indeed, he thought he was more confident about it than the right hon. Gentleman. Many subjects had been discussed that afternoon, because it was said for three months they had enjoyed immunity from criticism in consequence of the discussion of the great new scheme of the Colonial Secretary. He admitted that the Secretary for the Colonies had added that to the numerous other services for which the country was indebted to him; he had redeemed them from the folly and absurdity for which every nation in Europe was laughing at us. As a distinguished German statesman a few days ago said—

"Our nation took fifteen years to remodel our Army, and your Army has been torn to pieces over a, scheme which has been only fifteen months under trial."

He thought they should be able to show-that this breathing space had been turned to some account The hon. Member for Oldham asked some questions as to how recruiting was going on during this period, and he was sure the Committee would watch with great interest how recruiting was going on, and what the position was in regard to it. They were in a very special position in regard to recruiting in the present year. In the first place, they had the Army, for the first time, quite full, and, in fact, over-flowing. Is March last, when they had to demobilise after the war, they found the cavalry 5,000 to 6,000 above strength, and the field and horse artillery 3,500 above strength—a position in which this country had never been before. That necessitated their practically closing recruiting for the cavalry and the other mounted arms. They had also raised the standard all round except for the infantry of the line, in respect of which they had taken no "specials." That was a very large general change; but, in addition to that, a considerable change had also been made in requiring and demanding characters from the men. The first effect of that change was to cause men who had the slightest doubt about their character not to present themselves, and he was not at all certain that some of those who refrained would have been very eligible recruits, because it was almost impossible to interpret a regulation of that sort in too strict a manner. But the net result had been that they had not only been raising their standard and diminishing the attractions in the shape of bounties but the Committee would readily see that the raising of the standard in itself shut out from the Army a great deal which they had a right to expect. On the other hand the men growing up would be available next year. The net result was not altogether unsatisfactory. The number of recruits taken for the infantry of the line from the 1st January to the 1st July, 1902 was 11,121. This, year the number was 13,023; therefore there was a gain on the infantry of the line of about 2,000. On the cavalry of the line there was a loss of about 3,000. The total number of recruits from the 1st January to the 4th July, 1902, was 23,500, which was the best year they ever had; and the number taken this year was 20,500. Therefore, while there was a gain on the infantry of the line of 2,000, there was a loss of 3,000 on the whole.

Was that for the half year or the whole year?

For the half year. The recruits taken during the same period for the horse and field artillery were in 1901, 12,482, in 1902, 9,600; and, owing to the changes he had mentioned, only 7,100 this year. It was too early to draw any lessons from these figures, but he did not think there was anything in them to cause apprehension. If they were to take no "specials," and were to insist upon character, there would be a decrease of wastage. In addition to that, they knew that of every 100 men who came to a station and asked to go into the cavalry sixty or seventy walked away at once when they were told the cavalry was not open. Therefore they might assume that when they again opened the cavalry they would have a considerable addition to the number of recruits. In any case they were committed to the experiment, and certainly so far the class of recruits they had taken had given every satisfaction. General French had told him the other day that he was highly satisfied with the recruits recently received at Aldershot, the Commander-in-Chief spoke very highly the other day of the recruits at Colchester, and he had had similar reports from other stations. It was absurd to throw stones at the Secretary of State for War because recruits would not come in voluntarily at a time when trade happened to be brisk. They had no reason to entertain serious apprehension in this respect.

said nobody blamed the right hon. Gentleman because recruits did not come in. Criticism had been directed to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had formulated a scheme which required a great many more recruits than could be supplied annually.

said he was not referring to his hon. friend, but to the fact that he constantly saw the smallest class of "specials" called after his name. This was a curious phenomenon, because on no occasion in the last seventeen years had he ever voted for having "specials," or been willing to decrease the standard. On the contrary, he had raised the standard. With regard to the Aldershot review, it had been suggested that regiments were either very short in numbers or were not on parade at all. That was perfectly true. The review had been erroneously called a review of the 1st Army Corps. It could not be that, because a large number of the troops of the 1st Army Corps had only just come home from South Africa.

asked where was the 3rd Division.

said four regiments of the 5th brigade had been home under two months, or just over that. A very large number of the men were on furlough, and to bring them back for the sake of a parade would have been very hard. That brigade was 3,320 men strong, and he thought it would be admitted that it was a very tine brigade. Then two brigades of artillery, one of which belonged to that division, were practising at Okehampton, and it would have been undesirable to bring them back from the ordinary practice of the year simply for a parade. The 14th Hussars returned recently from South Africa, and were utilised for keeping the approaches to the ground and for escort duties, and 1,800 men were employed in keeping the ground. He admitted that some of the Line battalions were short in numbers; but the pressure on the Lines had been enormouse in the last few years, and it must be remembered that of the Line battalions sixteen had been formed in the last four years. One of the battalions in which there was a shortage of men was that of the Manchester regiment, If the expectations of the military authorities as to the possibility of maintaining the 3rd and 4th battalions of this regiment were disappointing, they would have to consider the position of this regiment. For the moment, as two of the battalions had been on active service and the remaining two had only just been raised, they had to face a shortage in some of these battalions. He would go carefully into the position with regard to the 3rd and 4th battalions before the next Estimates. A very important point had been raised with regard to the artillery, and he hoped he might be allowed to say a word on the question of policy. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean spoke extremely strongly about the present artillery, and there was, he knew, a general desire in the House to hear that the Government had adopted a new and better gun, a more powerful gun, and a more quick-firing gun.

A quick-firing gun.

said the eighteen batteries that they had could not be described otherwise than as quick-firing.

said the quick-firing-guns were an infinitesimal proportion of the whole.

said they had 108 quick-firing guns which they could not leave out of sight altogether. He only wanted to be perfectly fair. There was no Member of that House who had given the time to this question which it was his duty to give. From the moment he went to the War Office in 1900 he exercised his influence, so far as a civilian could, and applied himself to this question. He saw Lord Roberts on the subject on the very day he arrived from South Africa and asked him to appoint a Committee and to take whatsoever steps he thought best immediately to obtain a gun that would be more suitable. With that view, before anything had been done, he took a sum in the Estimates of that year. On January 23, 1901, a few days after Lord Roberts came home, a special committee, composed of artillery officers who had commanded brigades and batteries during the Boer War, was formed under the presidency of Major-General Sir George Marshall, who commanded the artillery, to consider the whole question of bringing our horse and field artillery equipment up to date. On May 8 of that year the Committee rendered their first Report, specifying the conditions as to increased range and weight and the nature of the ammunition which they would recommend. The details were referred back to the Committee, and on receiving their Report the War Office at once communicated with Messrs. Armstrong, Messrs. Vickers, Messrs. Hotchkiss, and the ordnance factories, and invited them to submit designs of guns and howitzers which would fulfil the conditions recommended by the Committee. At a later date another firm asked to be allowed to submit designs, and they were supplied with a copy of the conditions. One of the firms asked to compete declined to send in any designs, but in October of that year designs were received from Messrs. Armstrong, Messrs. Vickers, and the ordnance factories. There were numerous details which had to be discussed, and at the earliest moment after the settlement of the details each firm was asked to submit specimens. These specimens of guns were not delivered until August or September of last year. In the interval he repeatedly called the attention of the military authorities responsible, and also of the manufacturers, to the desirability of pressing forward the production of these guns. The guns were tried last year at Shoe-buryness, and later on they were all tested at Okehampton, when Lord Roberts went down to see the results. These results were highly satisfactory, but there were again details which required adjustment. The moment those details were adjusted they gave an order to Messrs. Armstrong and Messrs. Vickers for four complete batteries of quick-firing guns for both the horse artillery and the field artillery. He had pressed by every means in his power for the production of these guns, and they were promised that they should have these batteries in August. When they were received they would be tested at once, and as soon as possible a decision would be given in regard to them. He knew that two years and a half seemed an enormous time to take. It was difficult to expedite the designing and manufacture of these guns, and to press the military authorities to come to a decision which would cost the country from £2,000,000 to £4,000,000, when they were not satisfied that they had got the best available weapon. If they got, as they believed they had got, substantially a good gun—a heavier gun than those at present in use, a far quicker firing gun for the field artillery, and a better gun in all respects for the horse artillery—he would take care to sweep away any minor difficulties and get to work as soon as they could.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say what the then Financial Secretary meant in June, 1899, when he said experiments were being conducted at that time with a view to the introduction of quick-firing guns.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say when he expected that these four specimen batteries would be ready, and when he expected that the re-armament of the artillery would be begun and completed.

said he was chary of giving figures. As soon as the designs were settled he would endeavour to get a contract. When he had got a contract he would know approximately when the re-armament would be completed. The hon. Member might rest assured that the brigades which required the guns earliest would have them. With regard to the right hon. Baronet's question, he was not at the War Office in June, 1899, and did not know what the then Financial Secretary had in his mind at the moment. He wished to say a word about the Intelligence Department. At the beginning of this year General Nicholson had at his disposal twenty-eight officers. They had gone most carefully into the additional work he had to do. They had applied to the Treasury, and ten additional officers had been selected for this work. He had every reason to believe that General Nicholson was perfectly satisfied that this provision would enable him to carry out his duties. The hon. Member opposite asked him for some account of the probable position in Somaliland, and referred a little disparagingly, he thought, to what he considered the failure of the optimistic statements he had made with regard to that campaign. He thought the hon. Member did him scant justice in that respect. His optimism consisted, first, in telling the House that it was impossible for the military authorities, in initiating an expedition by a small force in that vast country, to undertake that we should capture the Mullah; that all they could say was that there was a most certain way of crippling his resources on the one hand, and of driving him from his position, in which he threatened both our sphere and the Italian sphere, on the other. And, so far as the campaign proceeded, he represented that it had carried out the intentions of those who advised them to undertake it. General Manning, by his advance, first drove the Mullah from the position in which he had been dwelling in perfect security and raiding the native tribes, and then drove him right into Abyssinian territory. The Abyssinians, so far as they could judge—for in all those questions they had to depend to some extent on native information checked by their own officers—on two separate occasions gave the Mullah a very serious blow. The Mullah, he thought, lost over 1,000 men in each fight. The effect was to drive him, with greatly reduced forces and means of subsistence, right across our line of march to the position he now occupied in the north-east of Somaliland.

In our territory.

said he might mention, as corroboration of the view that the Mullah had had a serious blow, that since he was driven right along our line of communications he had made no effort at attack on any one of our posts, or on any one of the forces passing to and fro. General Egerton was now in touch with General Manning, and they had every reason to believe that with the reinforcements he could command, and the increased transport that had arrived, he would be able to strike a fair blow at the Mullah in an improved position. He could not, of course, go into the details of what it was intended to do, though, as he said before, it was not proposed to undertake enterprises involving a vast expedition or great expense. But the necessary reinforcements had been ordered, and, to a largo extent, had arrived, and in General Egerton they had a commander in whom they had the fullest confidence to carry out, with the larger force, whatever steps might be necessary. He passed from that to the main question on which the interest of the Committee was centred, with regard to South Africa. The force in South Africa, which stood at this period last year at about 230,000 men, had been reduced to 32,000 or 33,000 men at the present date. They had had to undertake the building of huts for a large number of these men who had been under canvas for three years, and whom, for their comfort and health, it was desirable to get into permanent buildings as soon as possible. But, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the First Lord of the Treasury indicated some time ago that they would be prepared to make a general statement of the position as it now presented itself to them, and, in doing so, they had taken care to obtain the best advice from South Africa. The Cabinet had considered what force they were prepared to keep there. There were two standpoints from which they had to investigate the question. The first was the Colonial standpoint—what was necessary in the interests of South Africa. The second was the Imperial standpoint—what was necessary in the interests of the Empire at large. It had been urged, rather unduly he thought, that in the schemes which had been put before the House for an increase of the Army, but little attention had been paid to naval and Imperial considerations. He did not think that was altogether correct. At all events, the institution of the Defence Committee, which the present First Lord of the Admiralty and he welcomed perhaps more than any other two members of the Government, and which they had some share in establishing, had certainly strengthened their hands in working their Departments together with due consideration to the force kept up in India and in other British possessions. He could only say, as far as he was concerned, that he approached the question without any predisposition one way or the other. At the same time, he would say one word in deprecation of the extreme views which had been put before the country in favour of the dispersal of the British Army all over the globe in time of peace. The British Army, whatever its intentions in time of war, was not to be kept up on a voluntary system if they were going to order every man to spend five, or even four, years out of the seven outside this country. The general system of the organisation of the Army—he was not now talking of linked battalions or any other system—had been to secure that the soldier, who when he went abroad mostly served in warm, if not tropical, climates, should be retained for the benefit of his health as well as for the benefit of his entourage as near as possible for half of his service in England; and, so long as they kept it, as he hoped they might keep it, a voluntary service, so long must they endeavour to have regard to the wishes of their recruits in that respect. There was one other consideration. Colonial service generally was not, at all events in the past, altogether the best service for the purposes of discipline. They put men who were very highly trained in the middle of a population that was not very highly trained. They put men who were subject to discipline in the midst of a population which lent itself much less to discipline than the population which surrounded them in this country; and he did not think that any dispersal of our Army was therefore an advantage. Now, with regard to the advantage, to the Army itself. It had been urged upon the Government that South Africa was a better training ground, that it gave them better health, and also—and this was a very important consideration for the Committee—that the portion of the force which they kept in South Africa was placed where it could be most easily utilised in that portion of the Empire which was most likely to be attacked. On the other hand, there were considerations which should not be lost sight of by the Committee. In the first place, any addition to the force in South Africa must keep a larger force out of England. Then there was the expense to the officers, who could not live as cheaply in South Africa as in England; and then there was the extra expense to the country involved in keeping a force abroad. It would not do for hon. Members to run too far away as regarded the extra advantages of training in South Africa. If they could keep the whole force in South Africa concentrated, they could teach their generals and field officers a great deal they could not teach them in this country. But if they sent troops to South Africa they must to some extent scatter them, and scatter them at very great distances; and then in some respects the advantages of training would not be found to be so very much greater than they were in this country in the neighbourhood, for instance, of Salisbury Plain. All these considerations had been before them. The Defence Committee had also considered the matter, and had come to a resolution, from the point of view of the defence of India. Looking at all the probabilities, they desired, if they could, to avoid anything which would increase the number of men permanently retained in India, which was not only a great strain on the resources of India, but was a great strain on our resources also in keeping the men here who were to replace them. And yet it must be obvious that the defence of India, if ever it was attacked, would require reinforcements from this country or from other British possessions. Under these circumstances the Defence Committee recommended that a considerable number of men should be held in South Africa available for service in India in case of emergency. They had considered the force in South Africa from the two standpoints he had mentioned, and the force for which they had decided to provide accommodation in South Africa would amount to 25,000 men. They proposed to maintain there four cavalry regiments, twelve batteries of field artillery, two batteries of horse artillery, fourteen battalions of the Line, and four garrison regiments. With regard to the garrison regiments a great deal had been said as to their cost. It must be remembered that a garrison regiment had no linked battalion at home and that it did not require a depôt. A man who joined was trained, and there was no difficulty whatever in the man being sent off at the earliest moment to join his battalion, He believed that for South African purposes it would be impossible to have better troops than the garrison regiments. He had had the advantage of seeing the general officers under whom four battalions had served ever since they were formed, and they said that in every respect they had found them admirable soldiers. He was afraid he was one of those heretics who believed that a man who had looked after himself and was generally medically fit was just as good a man between thirty-five and forty as he was between twenty-five and thirty. It was urged against them that they had inordinate families, but from the point of view of settlement in South Africa, that was a great advantage. They would have to spend something additional in providing married soldiers' quarters in South Africa, a considerable sum, but he believed it would pay them well. He believed they would be the nucleus of a most admirable body of soldiers; the engagements of the garrison regiments were short, and there would not be the same incentive to desertion as there was in the case of men who had perhaps six years to serve. Opportunities would, they understood, be forthcoming for the employment of a good many men, even in Government positions, who might be quartered in South Africa. At all events, they thought it desirable, in respect of this force to try, in the first instance, the experiment of sending four garrison battalions. Of these troops some would be held definitely available for Indian service in case of emergency. This being so, he would be asked with regard to the extra expenditure which was caused by this force The figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted were not conclusive at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman included what was now very great—namely, the cost of mobile transport in South Africa, not merely transport to and from South Africa. Their estimate for the future was that the extra cost in South Africa of 25,000 men would be something like £1,500,000 per annum.

asked whether that was 25,000 instead of 15,000.

That is the whole extra cost of 25,000.

Extra over what?

Extra over the cost in Great Britain. He was taking into consideration simply the cost man for man; what, would be the cost of the establishment in South Africa as compared with troops if they were at Aldershot. He had given round figures. Of course in estimating that they must remember that even before the war we had a considerable garrison in South Africa, amounting at first to 3,000 or 4,000, and ultimately, before 1899, to 6,000 or 7,000 men. Of course the extra cost of those men must be deducted from the £1,500,000 if they wished to estimate our present increased expenditure. But in addition to that, and in addition to the fact that the scheme of 1901 contemplated 15,000 men in South Africa, they were not unhopeful that they might obtain some assistance in this matter. If a considerable body of troops was held in South Africa, in a good climate, to avoid the extra expenditure of keeping them constantly standing idle in India, in a worse climate, he thought they might fairly ask some contribution from India [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh"] towards the extra cost of maintenance in South Africa, where they were available in case of emergency, as compared with their maintenance in this country, where they were less available.

asked whether the force in India would be reduced.

No. It had been recognised, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, for years past that in case of emergency it would be necessary to reinforce India from this country. They were taking a timely step in a manner which they thought would cost least and would be of the greatest advantage to the Empire, by placing us in a position to meet an emergency if it arose.

asked whether the Government of India had been consulted.

said that communications were passing with the Government of India, and the hon. Member would understand that he had not given any pledge in the matter. What he had stated was that they considered themselves entitled to ask the Government of India for some contribution in regard to the men kept in South Africa especially for Indian service in case of emergency.

asked whether under these circumstances these troops would be on the home establishment.

said he was coming to that. There was the question of the colonies themselves, and he thought that nobody could doubt that the maintenance of so considerable a force in South Africa would be of the greatest material benefit to South Africa itself. A force so kept for Imperial service, with the large expenditure incidental to the maintenance of any force anywhere, would naturally contribute considerably to the prosperity of these colonies, and, again, that was a matter which must be considered in regard to the extra expenditure which was incurred, and it would no doubt be the subject of consideration by those concerned.

Six shillings a day!

asked whether the colonies were to subscribe.

said there was no part of the United Kingdom, not excluding that part which the hon. Member so ably represented, which had not raised a difficulty over the withdrawal of a single corps quartered in its neighbourhood. Everybody knew that the presence of a body of troops in any neighbourhood was held by those most immediately concerned to be greatly to the advantage of the neighbourhood. With regard to the question of home or foreign establishments, that was a point which they had carefully reviewed. He noted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite looked to a day when the whole system of the Army might be changed; he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be at the War Office, and not himself, when that was attempted; he fancied the right hon. Gentleman would find that it was not quite so easy a thing to adapt to all the requirements of the British Army any new system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had had experience, knew that the abuse levied on successive Secretaries of State for War for the imperfections of their system might be disregarded because it was hereditary. But in this matter they did not wish to attempt to impose any hide-bound retention of old ideas or of a east-iron system; they recognised that South Africa had differences as compared with other stations abroad in which troops were quartered. Something-had been said about health statistics. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that there had been a great deal of enteric in South Africa, and that in some stations it had ranged up to thirty-eight, thirty-five, thirty-four, and thirty-one per 1,000, while in India it had ranged up to twenty-three, in Egypt twenty-three, and in the Mauritius seventeen per 1,000, and so on. But of course the sanitary position in South Africa had not been that of a permanent force kept in barracks, and they had every reason to believe that the sanitary condition in the cantonments would be very different when the arrangements were completed. It was admitted that apart from the number who did contract disease, the development of the young soldier in South Africa was very marked. Therefore he thought they were entitled to regard our regiments in South Africa from a different standpoint from those which were either locked up in coaling stations in tropical climates or which were doing service in India, where they were bound to be over twenty years of age. They proposed, therefore, to treat the fourteen battalions of the Line placed in South Africa on the principle of sending to them, as soon as they were trained, recruits from the depôts, and in so doing he by no means excluded the idea of large depôts in tins country. His objection had always been to small depôts. They proposed, therefore, to treat them as neither sending drafts to other regiments nor as receiving drafts from other regiments. They would be in a climate in which, as at home, they could receive their recruits very soon, or as soon as they were sufficiently trained. He was afraid that time did not admit of working out exactly the system under which the thing would be done, but that was the general view they had.

said there was one very material point. Would those troops which would be earmarked for India be troops which could be sent to India without receiving reserves, and, if so, on what system?

urged his right hon. friend to say whether he proposed to reduce the strength of the battalions at home by the fourteen battalions which would be in South Africa. Otherwise they would be merely increasing the expense and burden of the Army without any corresponding reduction.