SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 22 July 1872 vol 212 cc1520-70

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £124,500, Army Reserve Force.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that at that late period of the Session he would not go into the question of recruiting for the Army; but as the main part of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War depended on his getting a sufficient number of men into the Reserve, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he proposed effectually to retain the services of the men, and what arrangements he was about to make for their being called out for drill during a certain period in every year? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman said the Militia Reserve would consist of 30,000; but in the Estimates the number was set down as 25,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain this discrepancy.

MR. CARDWELL

replied, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not read the Estimates correctly. The 25,000 men belonged to the Second-class Army Reserve, the 30,000 men of the Militia Reserve having been already provided for by the Committee in the Militia Vote. In regard to the Reserve Forces generally, the Act provided that their training should take place at such periods as would least interfere with their civil occupations. That Proviso was introduced because he had ascertained that the former Reserve appeared less popular than was desirable; first, because the pay was not deemed sufficient, and secondly, because the law compelling the Reserve to be called out with the Militia made men afraid of joining the Reserve lest they should not be able to obtain civil occupation. Consequently, the pay of the men had been increased, and a Proviso introduced that they should be called out at such a period as would cause the least interference with their civil employment. When the localization system came into operation it would be easy to carry out this regulation, as each man would be attached to a particular local centre. With regard to the men leaving the locality to seek for employment, it was intended that each man should be entered in the books at his own natural centre; and that when he migrated, he should report himself to the brigade centre to which he belonged, though he would be paid and trained at the centre for the district where he was working.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

asked what was the rate of pay?

MR. CARDWELL

said, it was 4d. a-day.

LORD ELCHO

believed that at present it was not possible to get a Reserve without offering pensions, for according to the report of the recruiting officers the men still looked for a pension; and he therefore wished to know whether pensions would be given? He would further ask whether any of the Reserve would take part in the Manœuvres next autumn?

MR. CARDWELL

stated that 200 of the Reserve would take part in the next Autumn Manœuvres, and would be attached to different regiments. With reference to pensions, they were not at present enlisting for short service, except for the infantry, and there would, of course, always be a certain proportion of the infantry going for long service.

LORD ELCHO

asked why the number of the Reserve to take part in the Manœuvres was limited to 200, and how many attended on pay-days?

MR. CARDWELL

said, they had no right to call out the Reserve for the Autumn Manœuvres, and it was considered better to try what number would volunteer to come. The number of the Reserve who appeared on pay-days was very great in proportion to the whole.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

inquired how it was that there was no power to call out the Reserve for the Autumn Manœuvres?

MR. CARDWELL

replied that the Act of Parliament only gave the Secretary of State authority to call them out for training during 12 whole days in any one year; and that time would not allow of their being called out for the Manœuvres.

MR. HOLMS

asked, with reference to Class 2 of the Reserve, whether it had ever included 30,000 men, or whether there had been a reduction of 5,000?

MR. CARDWELL

said, a Return which had been laid on the Table showed that 30,000 would be available in case of necessity; but there had not been pay taken for 30,000, because it was not compulsory upon them to serve, and they were unwilling to leave their civil occupations. He believed about 25,000 was the real number.

In reply to Major General Sir PERCY HERBERT,

MR. CARDWELL

stated, from a Return which had been presented to the other House, it appeared that 600 of the Reserve were called out last year, and it was intended to call them out at their several brigade centres when the new system had been introduced. In the meantime, after being in communication with His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, he had determined in making arrangements for the next Autumn Manœuvres that 200 would be the best number to take of the Reserve.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £379,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Control Establishments, Wages, &c., which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1872 to the 31st day of March 1873, inclusive.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

Mr. Chairman—The Committee will admit that women of the humbler classes in this country are far less capable of influencing the proceedings of this House than any other portion of Her Majesty's subjects. They are far less capable of making their voice heard through the Press, and, therefore, if we are going to maintain a law which subjects them to insult, and which surrounds them with peril, I think we are bound to give our most careful consideration to that law. Sir, everybody is aware that this is not an agreeable topic to deal with, and I should think that no one who knows anything of this House would willingly undertake such a subject; but if we pass Acts of Parliament such as the Contagious Diseases Acts, we must submit to their discussion, however disagreeable it may be. We are asked by the Government—I am sorry we should be asked by any Government in this House, and more especially by a Liberal Government—but we are asked by the Government to vote this sum of money to maintain a system of secret police—to maintain a band of spies to prowl about our towns to discover, not the vicious habits of men and women, but of women alone. These spies have the power to place upon a public register every woman supposed to be a common prostitute, and to compel her fortnightly, or at such times as the authorities may fix upon, to subject herself to instrumental violation. The Act of Parliament contains no definition of the term "common prostitute." There is nothing to show at what particular stage in vice a woman becomes a common prostitute. The secret police, therefore, have to determine this question themselves, without the aid of Parliament. Will anybody attempt to deny that that is a most difficult question for them to determine? Does it not appear extremely likely that in determining it, respectable women may sometimes be treated as common prostitutes? Let us consider for a moment the difficulty of the task that we put upon the secret police. Between the line of chastity and that of common prostitution there is necessarily every grade of conduct. There are many women on the borderland, as I may term it, whose reputation and freedom depend entirely upon the proceedings of the secret police; women who, if they are very poor and dependent, are liable to be brought up, to defend themselves on a charge of being common prostitutes; and if they succeed—and they do succeed sometimes—in showing that they are respectable persons, their position is only a little better than it would be if they had failed, for they are pointed at and liable to suspicion ever after. I will divide the women who occupy this border-land into two classes. First, there are those who, like men, will indulge in the occasional gratification of their passions, and whose lives are not wholly regular. Suspicion may rest upon such persons, and they may be forced by the police into the ranks of prostitution. Is it not an intolerable thing that women should be placed in this dangerous position, whilst men have unbridled license in vice? But there is another and a larger class; women whose incomes change with the change of seasons, with the change of fashion, and with, from time to time, the depression of trade. Is it not notorious to everybody that such women are driven, from the fear of starvation, from the difficulty of obtaining the means of subsistence for themselves and those dependent on them—is it not notorious, I ask, that many such women are addicted to occasional prostitution in order to assist their miserable wages? These women give the greater portion of their lives to industry and to respectable associations, and only the smaller portion of their lives, from the pressure of want, to vice. Consider the risk which these women run of being dragged over, by your secret police, into the abyss of prostitution! I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, whether this is just legislation between men and women; or whether it does not bring additional shame and ruin upon women, and give greater immunity in vice to men? We are told, Sir, that the police evince great discretion. Now, I am not going to attack the police. They are just as fallible in carrying out these Acts as they are in everything else. A little time ago we had a discussion on the Parks Bill. There was then a party in this House who were not willing to trust the liberties of the people to the police. I confess I sympathized with that party in the battle which they fought. Whether that battle would have been fought in the same way, if only poor and defenceless women had been concerned, I cannot say. There is one thing which is rather remarkable in connection with the Contagious Diseases Acts; not one lawyer, on either side of the House, has thought it worth while to open his mouth to criticize this legislation. Talk about the discretion of the police, indeed! Anybody who has read the evidence taken before the Royal Commission, knows that an anonymous letter, the malice of another woman, the statement of a drunken man, may set the secret police on any poor woman. As an example of this vaunted discretion of the police, I should like to read to the House a case which has occurred at Southampton. A poor woman was brought up before the Bench—there was a large attendance of members of the Bench—summoned for non-compliance with the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts. The case occurred on the 23rd of March, 1871. Mr. Harfield, who was engaged for the defence, said he hoped he should not have to address the Bench, and requested the Inspector to withdraw the information, as the woman was a married woman. The Inspector refused to do so. Mr. Harfield handed the woman's marriage certificate up to the Bench, and stated that she was married to a highly respectable young man, whose name, for obvious reasons, it was desirable not to mention. The constables failed to prove anything against her. It was arranged that her husband should be sent for, which was done, and on his appearing in Court, the officer at once admitted that "he was the only person they had seen in the woman's company." The case was therefore dismissed. There was another case the other day in Dover. A poor woman was brought before the Bench charged with being a common prostitute. She had had an illegitimate child. I do not know whether that is considered a sufficiently suspicious circumstance to justify the interference of the police with her; but witnesses proved that she was a respectable woman, and was gaining an honest livelihood, and the case was dismissed. But suppose the woman had not been able to bring forward this testimony in her favour? We all know well what would have been the result. But taking these cases which I have mentioned, what is the position of those two poor women? The effect of these proceedings is inevitably to put them under suspicion, and to render their paths in life much more difficult. When a lady of title in this country had her character injured in Court, the learned Judge was very severe on the man who had so injured it; newspaper articles were written in defence of the injured lady, and hon. Members of Parliament came down to the House and asked it to pass more stringent laws against defamation of character. But it appears that we set traps and establish elaborate machinery, by which poor women may have their characters ruined. Sir, I have shown you how these Acts are carried out, and, I think, how they must necessarily be carried out; but, as I said before, I do not mean to blame the police. If you want to get all the prostitutes in one particular net, it follows, as a matter of necessity, that in the endeavour to accomplish your object, you must interfere with the liberty and damage the reputation of many poor but respectable women. It has been said that no cases are to be found of injury to women. Let it be remembered that none of the women complaining of outrages have been called before the Commission. Let it be remembered also, that in the charges brought before the Royal Commission against the police of wrongful interference with women, the simple denial of those officials was considered to constitute proof of their innocence. The following I quote from Douglas Kingsford's Summary of the Evidence before the Royal Commission:— The police called twice the same day at the house of a respectable working girl under 16; said that she must come up for examination, unless medical proof could be given that she was not diseased, and that they had been sent to look for a girl of her name. Neighbours remonstrated; but the police laughed, saying that the 'young ones are often the worst.' The mother had her daughter examined by a private surgeon—name and address given—who reported that she was an innocent girl. 'The police afterwards met the girl in the streets and said they had mistaken her for some one else. The errand of the police became public, and the girl suffered from suspicion and taunts.' These and other details, on the statements of the grandmother and mother of the girl—well known to the witness—were confirmed by the master and mistress and other people residing in the house, which was let out in parts to various tenants. The Inspector of police of the district did not give any personal answer to this case, though he had an opportunity. … But Captain Harris produced a report of the Superintendent with respect to it, from which it appears that two constables of police called at the house and saw the girl, and finding that she was not the woman they wanted, asked to see her mother 'on the chance of her being so.' In former times an Englishman's home used to be considered his castle, and I suppose that would still be true with regard to the rich. But, when we find that houses are invaded in this way, what has become of the sanctity of the homes of the working people of this country? Here is another case— The late Rev. Mr. Heritage told Mr. Sloggett that a 'virtuous and respectable woman of his congregation was spoken to by the police.' Although Mr. Sloggett 'promised, on the part of the Secretary of State for War and the Commissioner of Police, that the strictest investigation should be made into it,' yet Mr. Heritage declined to give the woman's name; an objection, as Mr. Sloggett admits, not altogether unreasonable. Does anyone suppose that you can get the names of those women who have been so insulted? Here is another case— Mrs. D—(name and address given) had four daughters living at home with her. Police came to her house, said they had been sent there by girls of the town, insisted on seeing the daughters, and ordered them to attend for exami- nation. They refused, being respectable girls. One of the daughters afterwards went out one evening. The police called again the next day, and told her of every place she had been to, showing that she was followed all the time she was out; they also asked the names of two acquaintances (men) to whom she had spoken in the street, and ordered her again for examination. None of the daughters went up for examination, and no further proceedings were taken to compel them. Afterwards Mrs. D—and her daughters were frequently called after in the streets, and asked disgusting questions; in consequence they were afraid to go out, and in one instance the annoyance was so great that Mrs. D—appealed to the local police for protection. I give these cases from the evidence before the Royal Commissioners. Now, Sir, I complain that the system must necessarily lead to the gravest and most injurious errors. On Wednesday next we shall have, I believe, a discussion in this House on capital punishment. One of the strongest arguments that I have heard in opposition to capital punishment is, that if the Government takes the life of a criminal it sets a bad example. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury bench, whether they believe they add to the respect for women by compelling prostitutes to submit to the horrible system which is enforced by these Acts? Who are these prostitutes? I suppose they are "our own flesh and blood." Who made them prostitutes? Is it not true that in the majority of cases they have been seduced by men, under false pretences; and, their characters gone, they have been compelled to take to the streets to support themselves? Have we no better way of treating them than that of collecting them together, and sending them to the examination house, turning them adrift again to pursue their miserable occupation under the sanction of the Government? In dealing with a difficult question, is this the highest product of the Christian civilization of England? But, Sir, I shall be told that these unfortunate women are so much in love with this disgusting treatment that they petitioned this House in order to have it continued. And when these Petitions from prostitutes have been presented to this House, I have noticed that they have been met with cheers from hon. Members who sit below the gangway, on the opposite side of the House. They have received those Petitions with cheers; but when women of another sort presented Petitions, they have been received with abuse by hon. Members of this House. I can very well suppose that some persons have signed those Petitions sincerely, because I gather from the Report of the Evidence before the Royal Commission, that it is considered that the trade of many of these women has been considerably improved in consequence of the policy of the Government; but taking the Petitions as a whole, I would attach precisely the same importance to them as I would attach to Petitions coming from the Blacks of Carolina in the palmy days of American slavery, asking the Congress of Washington to perpetuate their slavery. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) presented a Petition to this House the other day, from prostitutes in favour of the Contagious Diseases Acts. That Petition was got up in the police station. I have a letter here from the assistant overseer; he was defending himself against an attack made upon him for the way in which the Petition was prepared, and he tells us how it was got up. Well the manner in which it was done was this—The assistant overseer wrote as follows to the Superintendent of police:— Dear Sir,—Inclosed is a list of the women on the register. If you have no objection to send round and ask them to attend to-night at the police-station at half-past 7 o'clock, I will run down and ask them whether they are disposed to sign the Petition in favour of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Sir, that Petition was signed in the police-station at Windsor, in the presence of the police and assistant overseer. There have been Petitions from Colchester and Dover of a similar character. With regard to the Petition from Colchester, I have received a letter from Mr. Williams, of the Rescue Society, in which he says—"That Petition was signed by women waiting for examination at the Lock Hospital." The argument used to induce the women to sign, was that greater severity would be meted out to them under the Government Bill; and they were told that at present they had their liberty, and were not interfered with so long as they came up regularly to be examined. I should like to ask the three hon. Gentlemen who presented those Petitions this question—If these women are in a state of alarm lest the system should be put down, and if they derive so much benefit from it, how does it happen that when they get into prison hospitals they frequently break windows, and get into tumults of one kind and another, with the avowed object of being sent to gaol; and how is it explained that, in order to avoid the periodical examination, they have been known to go to prison once, twice, three times? But, Sir, Petitions of an opposite character have been presented to the House. I have a copy of a Petition signed by 61 inhabitants of Dover. That Petition says— That the petitioners reside in the immediate neighborhood of the place where the women go to be examined; that such a place is disgusting and demoralizing to the neighborhood. They believe the compulsory examination of prostitutes to be degrading, and pray that the recommendation of the Royal Commission, proposing to repeal the Acts, should be adopted. I have also had a letter sent to me, which is addressed to the Rev. Mr. Kell, of Southampton. It reveals the state of things with regard to the examination room there. The letter says— The inhabitants of Southampton complain very much, and are extremely bitter against the Government, for allowing such a thing as an examination room in one of the most respectable neighborhoods of the town. Many of the resident women do not like to be seen out on the examination day, as they are afraid of being taken for prostitutes, a thing which has often happened. I do not know whether the Home Secretary, who is a great supporter of this legislation, or whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would like to have such an establishment within sight of his drawing-room windows; but, at any rate, they have no objection to subject other people to these indecent exhibitions. I have been told that these Acts ought to be maintained because the doctors are in favour of them: doctors are in favour of them—yet doctors are also against them. I know a doctor who is at the bottom of the agitation against these Acts, and who has done more in agitating this question than any other man—Dr. Charles Bell Taylor, of Nottingham, a man of character and ability. I asked, one day, the ground of his earnest opposition to these Acts. "Ah!" he said, "many doctors have signed memorials in favour of these Acts, who know nothing of the working of them; but I have lived a great deal on the Continent; I have seen a great deal of the working of these Acts, I know their uselessness, and I have seen how cruel they are to women, and nothing shall stay my exertions to get them repealed in this country." A. doctor's opinion is valuable with regard to disease; but on a question with great political and moral bearings, I would rather be guided by the opinions of the average electors than by those of professional men. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether he would have any respect for me if I were willing to sanction the introduction of these Acts into the great city of Manchester. What is the position of Manchester? Besides the usual occupations of women, there are large factories worked mainly by women and girls. They go to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, and they toil on till six in the evening; and they have no time for outdoor enjoyment, except at night. How do the poor people get their recreation but by walking at night out of doors? Would the right hon. Gentleman have any respect for me if I were willing that the steps of these poor women should be dogged by hidden spies in order to learn who were chaste and who were not chaste? I would rather consent to any sacrifice than do that to the poor I should hold it to be a base and cowardly thing to subject them to this treatment, whilst the men, who are more vicious than they, get off scot-free. This, Sir, is a sanitary law, and it deals with one sex only. I do not see the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read), the agricultural Representative of this House, in his place; but I wonder what he would say if any hon. Member were bringing in a sanitary law for cattle, which dealt with only one sex. He would doubt the sanity of any Minister who proposed such an absurd thing. I am not in favour, and I would give no vote in this House for including men under the operations of the Acts. I would submit no human being to the conditions to which women are subjected under these Acts. But I will say this—only to apply this system to one sex is a great failure, and to do so is to be sure of failure. We have experience on this question. We know it on the Continent. It has existed there for many years. I had a letter from a London physician on this subject. He says— Compulsion is a folly, and it fails everywhere. You should have voluntary hospitals, and, in the long run, they would succeed better than compulsory ones. I have had experience in London and Paris, and the disease in Paris is more serious and more wide-spread than in London. And at Heidelberg, where the Acts are in full force, you have more disease than they have at Kidderminster, in both of which places I have had experience. The hon. Member for East Cornwall (Sir John Trelawny) wants to reduce disease; and he has the most frightful picture of disease before his eyes. He made a speech in this House not many months ago—it would have been more effective, if he had been less excited. He said—"Many men are falling to pieces in consequence of this disease." If he be sincere in this belief, why does he not apply this law to men, as well as women? The machinery is ready; not a single additional spy would be required. You take women, because you see them in company with men—take men whom you see in company with women. We never knew till these Acts were enforced what was the power of men to propagate disease. The Royal Commissioners state that of the two forms of disease one has actually increased since this system came into force. The hon. Member for East Cornwall was for protecting innocent wives and children. Prostitutes do not give disease to wives and children. It is the fathers and husbands who give disease to innocent wives and children, and yet he imposes no restriction upon them. If my hon. Friend showed as little logic upon other matters as he does upon this, he would have very little influence in this House or anywhere else. The Prime Minister appears to me to have at least as large a responsibility as any hon. Member of the House, with regard to this legislation. I say so, because I believe he has been a Member of every Cabinet that has passed these Acts. Now, I notice that he has never said a word to defend or attack them. In fact, although we have had this remarkable legislation, there has never been a speech of any kind from the Treasury bench to show—first, that legislation was necessary; secondly, that it was likely to accomplish its object; or, thirdly, that it was just. We have never had a speech dealing with this question, although it is a question vital to the interests of the people. It may seem to some a comparatively small matter confined to the present area; but the promoters of these Acts mean to extend it to the whole people. Now, there is no hon. Member of this House more manly than the Prime Minister. I venture to say that it is his duty, either to defend these Acts or to endeavour to repeal them. He has made important declarations in reply to the inhabitants of Halifax, and on other occasions. He made a declaration when he acquiesced in the appointment of a Royal Commission. He should, on the present occasion, give his opinion on this question. There are thousands of persons outside this House wondering why we never hear anything from the head of the Government upon it; but if he should consent to take part in this debate, I hope he will not tell us that the views of the Government were expressed by the Bill which has been discharged. It was a discredit to the Government to bring in that Bill; it would have been a disgrace to them to have passed it. There may be hon. Members of this House who think that this question is to be allowed to die out. There is no doubt that in consequence of the promises of the Government, and owing to the confidence the people have in the Government, this question has not been agitated during the present Session, as it was before. But I will undertake to predict—that now they have no hope from this Government, the agitation, which is already considerable, will become much wider, and that it will never cease until legislation on this subject is in accordance with the conscience of the people, and with the sense of justice of the great body of the constituencies. I have to move that the Vote may be reduced on Army Estimates by the sum of £3,648, for Police employed under the Contagious Diseases Prevention Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £376,052, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Control Establishments, Wages, &c., which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1872 to the 31st day of March 1873, inclusive."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)

MR. CARDWELL

said, he was not going to enter upon any argument with respect to the question as a whole, but wished to point out in what position the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) would leave the matter. A duty was imposed by an Act of Par- liament upon the Government, and the necessary means for discharging that duty was refused by the House of Commons. He never remembered an instance in which the House had refused the money necessary for carrying out its instructions as contained in an Act of Parliament; therefore, the Committee would see the expediency of not pressing the question further on the present occasion.

MR. BRAND

said, he was loth to continue the discussion, but he could not help saying that the House had been placed in the position to which his right hon. Friend had referred, owing to the action of the Government, who, at the commencement of the Session, introduced a Bill to repeal the Acts. That Bill was brought forward by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a speech which was open only to one interpretation and that was that the right hon. Gentleman was favourable to the principle of the Acts, and that he introduced his measure simply in deference to public opinion, or to the express wish of the Cabinet. Now, a Bill thus brought forward had very little chance of passing, and therefore those who were opposed to the Acts were obliged to seize upon occasions like the present for the purpose of expressing their opinions with regard to them. For his part, he was not one of those who thought Parliament ought not to interfere in the matter; but, then, it ought to do so in a legitimate way. The system of compulsory examination in the case of one sex, and that the weakest, was, to his mind, essentially unjust. That being the view which he took, he should, as long as he had the honor of a seat in that House, vote against the continuance of the Acts. If they should be extended to men there would not be much need to protest against them, because then their continuance would be a question of hours instead of years.

MR. DICKINSON

said, that as he was opposed to the employment of extra police to carry out the Acts, he should vote against the grant now proposed.

MR. HENLEY

I think no one can be surprised at the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), after the positive pledges which have been given by the Government on a subject which certainly excites great interest in the country. The Govern- ment undertook to act on the Report of the Royal Commission, and no one can maintain that they have fairly carried out that promise. They have, indeed, brought in a Bill; but they have not made the slightest attempt to carry it. Those who were in the House the other evening could have had no doubt as to the influence which was at work to secure a count out, so that an independent Member should not have an opportunity of introducing the Bill, of which he had given notice, dealing with the question. For my own part, I believe the existing legislation with regard to this subject has been immoral from the first, and that it will never come to any good, bolstered up as it is by cooked Returns, by which it is sought to show that there has been some diminution of disease, when, in reality, the Acts cannot be said to have contributed in the least to a diminution. The local officers, who send in these accounts, have no knowledge whatsoever of the cases in which men suffer from the disease, because many of the men do not go into the hospitals; and it appears from the evidence taken from Aldershot that in a great many instances they endeavour to cure themselves when they find they are infected. The result of that has been a more deplorable state of things than would otherwise exist. In consequence of that attempt on their part to cure themselves, the disease assumes another form secondary symptoms display themselves more generally than before, thus undermining the health of families, and laying the seeds of disease for future generations. I think the Acts have been framed in violation of the laws of both God and man, and I believe they operate in the same direction.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

I must express my regret at hearing my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) speak of cooked Returns having been made by public officers, because my right hon. Friend can have no positive information on the subject; and I do not think he has any right to use such language with regard to public officers, unless he has proofs of the justice of what he has stated. Having said thus much upon the remarks of my right hon. Friend, I wish to express a hope that the House will act on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The question at issue is one of great importance, affecting both the moral and physical condition of the people, and it cannot be properly discussed without going carefully into the evidence which has been taken before the Royal Commission. It is a question which ought to be calmly discussed, and not to be made the subject of vehement declamation in the middle of a Vote on the Army Estimates, and I trust the Committee will resolve to treat it in that manner. Whenever the time does come for discussing the question, I, for one, will not shrink from declaring my conviction—my deep and earnest conviction—that, on moral grounds and on physical grounds, these Acts are what my hon. Friend the Member for East Cornwall (Sir John Trelawny) once called them—one of the most benevolent pieces of legislation of the present generation. But, whatever may be our opinion of the Acts, they are clearly not a fit subject for discussion in the middle of passing a Vote on the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply, especially in a case where we pass the Vote as a matter of form, and in which, as my right hon. Friend has said, we cannot, with propriety, shrink from voting. Under existing circumstances, I must decline to discuss the general question, and shall postpone what I have to say until a more convenient opportunity.

MR. RYLANDS

It is with the greatest reluctance that I rise on the present occasion; but when I remind the Committee that I was a Member of the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into these Acts, and that for several months that Royal Commission gave a very large amount of time and attention to the consideration of the evidence put before it, and that as the result of all this laborious inquiring and sifting of evidence, the Commissioners recommended that the present Acts be repealed, I do not think the Committee should say we are not justified in protesting against our being put into the position in which we find ourselves to-night. What is that position? It is simply this—that after a Royal Commission, appointed by the Crown at the instance of the Government, with a view to deal with this question, has reported in favour of the repeal of the Acts, Her Majesty's Government have not taken the measures necessary to repeal these Acts, and have left us in this House no opportunity other than is afforded by the Votes in Supply to raise the question, although it is well known that this subject is acknowledged to be important in this House, and is felt to be of the first importance by a large number of people out-of-doors. Now, I will yield to no one in the respect which I feel for the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, as a most laborious and painstaking Member of the Commission. I am quite sure he acted in a conscientious manner, although he came to a conclusion different from the majority of the Commission. But I wish to remind the Committee that when the Royal Commission—which was very carefully selected, so as to secure a fair and impartial inquiry, such as would cause the representation of all sides of the question—had met, it was found that a majority of its Members were in favour of the existing Acts. A majority of the Commissioners were of opinion that the evidence brought before them would inevitably prove the Acts had worked beneficially, and that they should be maintained. I watched from day to day the gradual change of opinion upon that Commission; I watched from day to day the effect of the examination of the witnesses; I watched from day to day and found that by degrees first one and then another gave in, and at length one of the Commissioners jocularly remarked to me that what had originally appeared to be a forlorn hope, had changed into a triumphant victory. We had the satisfaction of seeing the majority of the Members of that Commission become in favour of repeal, and that the Commission unanimously—including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich himself—recommended the Acts should be repealed. I am quite aware that the right hon. Member for Droitwich appended his name to a protest, which was also signed by the other Members of the minority, asking that a portion of these Acts might be maintained; but that does not alter the fact that he signed the Report of the Commissioners as a body, which Report distinctly recommends that these Acts should not be continued. Yet we are now, in Committee of Supply, long since that Report was presented, asked to Vote £3,000 to carry out these Acts. I say we are justified in resisting this Vote, and I hope the Committee will not be led away from the real point at issue; because there can be no doubt whatever that it is quite within our competency to refuse to find the means to pay for a service we believe to be entirely unnecessary. I wish to address myself to points not of a sensational character, but to a sober consideration of the position in which we stand. I am not going to identify myself with many of the arguments and appeals urged out-of-doors. I wish to deal with this question in a practical manner. I wish the Committee to consider whether the Acts have answered their purpose or not; what has been their effect on the health of the Army and Navy; and what has been their effect upon the women themselves? These are matters of evidence and statistics not matters for argument and declamation. And I venture to say that the evidence we have before us, and as printed in the Blue Book, will satisfy any candid mind that the impression which has prevailed in support of these Acts, has been entirely unsupported by the facts of the case. Immediately before these Acts came into operation, and concurrently with the operation of these Acts, the Government, with very great propriety and wisdom, directed special attention to the health of the Army and Navy, and adopted a variety of means to promote the health of soldiers and sailors. Within the last 15 years, we have had a Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Herbert, to consider the sanitary condition of the Army; another Commission considering what means should be adopted to improve the sanitary condition of military barracks and hospitals; and since 1857 improvements have been made in barrack accommodation. Another most important Committee was appointed in 1865 to consider the spread of venereal disease in the Army and Navy, and that Committee was engaged until 1867 in considering what steps should be taken to lessen the disease. They made most important recommendations, which were carried out by the War Office and the Admiralty. These recommendations were all aimed at diminishing disease in the Army and Navy, more especially the disease to which our attention is now directed. In the Navy there have been also very large additional measures taken for the health of the sailors, and, among others, I may mention the fact that, instead of their being paid in large sums on the completion of a voyage, they are now allowed to draw from time to time when they arrive at any of our ports and so encouraged to send remittances to their families. They are, consequently, not exposed to the temptation that beset them when they left the ship with a large sum of money, and indulged in a great debauch. Another improvement was the employment of continual service men, instead of limited service men. A better class of men was secured under this system; they were passed from ship to ship, instead of being paid off. Now, this very closely bears on the subject we are discussing. I was about mentioning that in the last few years there have been provided for the men of the Army and Navy, means of healthy exercise, recreation and occupation in various ways. In barracks and vessels of war, there are reading-rooms, day-rooms; and for the soldiers there have been gymnastics and means for open air exercise provided. In fact, every step possible has been taken to induce the men not to leave their barracks and ships, but to stay in their own quarters instead of running riot in the neighboring places. Sailors' Homes have been established, with most beneficial effect upon the characters of the seamen. Formerly, they had no place to go to but the public-house or the brothel; now they have respectable Sailors' Homes. The training ships, too, have had the effect of introducing a more steady body of men into the Navy, and altogether the class of men in the Army and Navy has very much improved of late. Now, Dr. Balfour and Dr. Armstrong are the highest possible authorities on this subject, and they tell us that, owing to the measures to which I have alluded, the moral character of the Army and Navy, and the character of the men now enlisted in the services, have very much improved during the last few years. Accordingly, you would expect that the health of the Army and Navy should have improved apart from these Acts, and so it has. I have in my hand statistics to show that the health of the Army and Navy has improved of late years; but those statistics show that the health of the services improved very much more before the Acts came into operation than they have done since. In Devonport and Plymouth, in 1860, the admissions to hospital for these diseases were 440; they had declined in 1864, before there were any Acts, to 289; from 1864 to 1868, with one year of the voluntary system, and three years of the Acts, the decline was only from 289 to 280. That is the case throughout all these stations. It is shown that before the Acts came into operation, the disease was diminishing in a greater proportion than after the Acts came into operation. I have got here a Return. ["Oh, oh!"] I think hon. Gentlemen should listen to the facts of the case. I am now merely giving hon. Gentlemen statistics to show that it is an entire mistake to imagine that these Acts have had the effect attributed to them. Taking the Returns sent to the Royal Commission respecting the whole of the Army at home, we find that the amount of the disease of the character we are now considering existing at the beginning of 1860, amounted to 369 per 1,000, a proportion of 54 per cent. From 1860 that proportion had decreased in 1866 to a proportion of 41 per cent. But from 1866 down to 1869, when the Acts were in force, the reduction was only from 41 to 40 per cent, showing that there was a much greater proportional decline before the Acts came into operation than there has been since. The same result is shown in the case of the seamen of Her Majesty's ships. The ratio had diminished from 1856, when it stood at 116.2, in the 10 years to 76.3; but from 1866 to 1869, when the Acts were in force, the reduction was as from 76 to 59, showing a less proportional reduction. Seeing the impatience of the Committee, I do not wish to trespass long upon the time of the Committee. But before I sit down I wish to urge upon the Committee, that if it is shown by the evidence before the Royal Commission, that other measures adopted for the improvement of the services have improved the health of the men and diminished this special disease, and if it be further shown that before these Acts came into operation, that improvement in health went on at a greater ratio than since, I think that is an argument which should have weight without going into the very forcible arguments, on general grounds, which may be adduced in favour of putting an end to this system. I believe the Acts might be repealed on this evi- dence alone, and I ask the Committee to support my hon. Friend in resisting this Vote.

MR. EYKYN

It is not my wish to stand between the Committee and a division; but as I represent a borough where the Contagious Diseases Acts are in force, and where I believe they have diminished disease and increased morality 50 per cent, I wish to state what would be the effect of the repeal of these Acts upon a town like Windsor. Those in the regiments stationed there can state on their own authority, and on the authority of others who are better acquainted with the facts, that the health of the Army has improved, and the morality of the Army has improved; and I may add, the general state of the atmosphere of Windsor, when a regiment is stationed there, will compare favourably with that of any other town. I will not go into figures. We are asked to vote a certain sum for carrying out Acts which have produced this result. It has been stated over and over again not only in pamphlets of a nature to which I cannot refer, but in the Press, that the police have exercised their avocation in an arbitrary, cruel, and imperious manner. I know many of these policemen, and of my own personal knowledge in Windsor I can say they have done their duty with a propriety of conduct and delicacy of manner which reflects the very highest credit upon them. So far from these men having, as we have heard, dodged the women from place to place, they have been instrumental in restoring them to their friends, or finding them useful employment.

DR. BREWER

I had the honour of being on the Select Committee which recommended these Acts, and all I can say is that the point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) was a point most anxiously investigated at the instance of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). His great object was to see that the operation of these Acts was undoubtedly favourable to the women themselves, and all his questions were directed to ascertain the truth upon this point. Since that time I have, to the best of my ability, endeavoured to shape my investigations upon the same plan. Now, I have been referred to as having presented a Petition from the women of Colchester, and referred to unfavourably by the hon. Member for Manchester; but I must say that was a very important document. There were 157 women of this type upon the register when these Acts came into operation, and when I presented that Petition there were only 57. We have, therefore, got rid of two-thirds of the whole, at that very important military station. They were got rid of, in every respect, by being returned to their friends, or, as we found out, through their being engaged in useful positions, having given up that horrible trade, which was found to be so prejudicial to their moral and physical condition. If the hon. Member desires to benefit these poor women, what greater benefit can he wish to confer upon them than this? For five years antecedent to these Acts, the number of these women had increased progressively, year by year. The number, since the Acts have been in force, has been reduced from 157 to 57. The remainder have been traced to useful employments, and the hon. Member for Manchester can, I should imagine, hope for nothing better.

MR. MUNDELLA

, who on rising spoke amid considerable interruption, said, the Committee seems unwilling to hear more than one side of this question. It is necessary, however, that both sides should be stated; and I have this question to submit:—two years ago, the Crown appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the whole question. Would it not be fair that the opinion of that Commission should have some weight with the Committee? The deliberate result that the Royal Commission came to was that the Acts should be repealed. Of the six Members of this House who served upon that Commission, only two opposed themselves to that decision, and those two were the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and my hon. Friend on my left (Sir John Trelawny), both of whom claim the parentage of the Acts. Really, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich seems to think that the way to heaven is through a Lock hospital. Now, I have heard nothing so self complacent as the statement which has been made by the right hon. Baronet, and no one so self-satisfied with the enacting of a mischievous piece of legislation as he appears to be. I would ask the House to hear the other side of the question. The Commission was composed of 20 odd Gentlemen—only six of them had seats in this House—and as a body, they were quite beyond the reach of popular clamor. They were eminent in the country for their judicial spirit and for every virtue, and it seems strange that the opinion of such men should have so little weight with the House. ["Divide!"] The fact is the House will not listen to a statement of the facts; it has made up its mind. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee cheers that—it knows the House will not listen—will not investigate—will not read. I will, however, accept its decision upon one condition—and that is, that the law be made equal for both sexes—that done, I do not care how severe you make it. Only deal with men in the same way as you deal with women—however intolerable the law, I will not object, because I am sure the evil will cure itself; its action will be automatic, and the country will rebel against such legislation. This law was enacted ostensibly to prevent innocent women and children from suffering the delinquencies of men, but why do you visit these consequences only on women? They do not convey the contagion directly to the innocent wives and children. Why not deal with the accomplices of the women who are the direct agents of inflicting the injury upon the innocent? I protest against a law which visits upon women and children the consequences of the delinquencies of men. The course which the House has taken must be retraced; it is a course infamous, and discreditable to a Christian Legislature, and cannot be supported. Will the Committee allow me to submit to it a document which has never yet been laid before the House? ["No, no!"] "No," Sir? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who says "No," and who speaks 300 times in a Session, and who tells us the same thing a thousand times, will not hear a statement—an important statement, bearing upon an important question which has never yet been submitted to the House. On the Royal Commission were two men who are no longer in this world. One was the Rev. Professor Maurice, and during the six months that I sat upon the Commission with him, I could never learn from him, until the evidence was concluded, what were his opinions. He was reticent, cautious, impartial to the utmost degree. He was a model Royal Commissioner. At the close of the evidence he wrote to me, and enclosed a memorandum, which he described as some "Hints respectfully submitted to the Commission." He wished to have my opinion as to the expediency of sending the paper round to each of the Royal Commissioners. If the Committee will allow me, I will read a portion of them, for they are better than anything I can say to the House. After having summed up the allegations and opinions of the two opposing parties, he says— I can perceive nothing in our evidence to shake the opinion which I should naturally form from the reading of the Acts, and which has been assumed in some of our latest testimonies—namely, those of Dr. Balfour and Dr. Armstrong about them—that they were intended to affect the health of our Army and Navy, and if to affect their health, of course in the way which the opponents of the Acts suppose. I do not ask anyone who thinks that a moral object, to abandon his opinion. I am not anxious to deny that it is better for the men to consort with healthy women than with unhealthy. But I must say distinctly that the objection to base any legislative measure upon such a consideration as this, appears to me a sound and reasonable objection; not a 'prejudice' like those which I maintained that we ought to defy, but a 'conviction' which a Legislature cannot defy without putting itself into hostility with the conscience of the nation. It seems to me that every argument in favour of the Acts, however well sustained, which is grounded upon the improved condition of the Army and Navy, tends to weaken the case in favour of them, to deepen the protest against them, to make it invincible. All this has nothing whatever to do with the theory that syphilis is a punishment for sin, and ought not, therefore, by all possible means to be uprooted. That doctrine I reject as distinctly immoral. Speaking as a divine, I should affirm it to be utterly at variance with the example of Christ, who, if we accept the testimony of the Gospels, healed sicknesses without reference to their moral causes, and made the cure of them an instrument of raising the moral standard of those who received it. I dismiss all reasonings of that kind as worse than worthless. And so far from desiring the Legislature to take any measures for the punishment or the cure of fornication, I should, as a moralist, beseech them by all the precedents of the past, as well as by the most sacred principles, to abstain from any rash intrusion into a region in which their efforts have always been mischievous. But it is quite another question whether they should establish a system of which the apparent object—that which strikes everyone who looks at their own statements as 'the' object—'is to provide fit subjects for fornication.' To do that, it seems to me, is, as the repealers affirm, to degrade the relation between the sexes—to make an anomaly into a law. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may object to that; but the writer of these words has been immortalized by our greatest living poet, in respect of his power to resist popular clamour, even if the clamour arose in the House of Commons. He adds— Again, the evidence of the police is clear as to the ambiguous character of the voluntary submission—as to the perplexity which they feel between their office as servants of the law, and that which is so desirable in itself, so out of place in them, as advisers to the women. There seems to be an equivocation in all this part of the Acts which make them more and more difficult to work. The English people may swallow any amount of theoretical inconsistencies; this is one which will be always thrusting itself before them in practice. There was another hon. Member on the Commission, who entered it as a Vice President of the Society for the perpetuation of these Acts. I allude to my Friend, the late Mr. Charles Buxton. He heard the evidence to its close, and then he closed his connection with the Society which favoured the continuance of the Acts, and sent in a most energetic protest against their further maintenance. He also put on record a protest of his own, showing that so far from the Acts having done what was boasted of them, they had been an utter failure, and that voluntary hospitals had done more before the Acts were introduced than had been done since. There has been a great deal of medical testimony quoted on the subject, but what are the facts? The right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) has moved for a Return of the opinions of medical men who are opposed to the repeal of the Acts, but there are 1,200 medical men on the other side of the question, and the names of such medical men could have been obtained in thousands, if the advocates of repeal had thought it would be of any effect. The truth is medical opinion is divided. The profession is, above all others, worthy of praise for its self-sacrifice and its efforts to relieve the wretched; but they believe in the omnipotence of their science; and in their anxiety to cure, they in some cases set aside all other considerations. But let me ask whether it is a mere accident that these Acts are administered by the Minister of War and the First Lord of the Admiralty? Is it not, as Professor Maurice said, that these Acts were designed to provide fit subjects for fornication for the Army and Navy. ["Oh, Oh!" and "Divide!"] Let me refer the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so anxious to divide, to the words of Baron Stoffel, in his last address to the French people. He said— What should have been done was to think of that popular instruction which is universal among our neighbors beyond the Rhine, and which, at least as much as her military organization, is a source of strength to Germany. An attempt should have been made to heal those two sores which eat into the vitals of our people—the prolonged celibacy of soldiers and the legal prostitution of women. If we had never had a celibate Army we should never have heard of these Acts. I would go as far as any hon. Gentleman—perhaps further—to promote Lock hospitals in every city and town of England. These Acts touch only the fringe of the evil. They do absolutely nothing to mend it, and they are the chief obstacle to a more general effective dealing with it. How it is the statistics show a decrease of prostitutes in the subjected districts? Canon Gregory, a Member of the Committee, moved for the insertion of a clause, which showed that 17,000 women had been examined, and nearly 4,000 had been driven away from the places of examination, probably because they were diseased. The simple effect would be, presuming the supposition accurate, that they would carry disease elsewhere. The Acts, too, only touch certain ports, and they are thus disseminating instead of diminishing the disease. Not only so, but suppose to-morrow all the women in Portsmouth and Plymouth were made perfectly healthy, the next ship that came into port might fill the hospital with disease. If the object were really to stop the disease, the Acts must be extended to the men. The test that a women is a fit subject to come under the Acts is that she is seen soliciting, or that she is seen entering a brothel with a man. Let men be treated in the same way; extend the Acts to every class of the community, and then see how long they will last. The Secretary of the Association for extending the Acts gave some remarkable evidence. His words were not actually recorded, but he stated very plainly his opinions on the matter. He spoke of women, not of the lower class; he spoke of "women—'lady women'—who associated with Peers and Members of Parliament." I believe, by the decision of the Royal Commission, these words were struck out. But if you treat all women alike, treat all men alike; and my conviction is that, whatever your laws may be, you will soon bring them to a practical conclusion, and we shall have an end put to the existing state of things. The law sets forth this doctrine—that no young man can be chaste, and that unchastity is a necessity. The Legislature in this respect is like the sanctimonious pirate in Measure for Measure, who "went to sea with the Ten Commandments, but scraped one out of the Table. The least that should have been done was to suspend compulsory examination in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission, so that the country should no longer be scandalized by the continuance of the Acts.

MR. M'LAREN

I wish to say a few words with respect to the opinion of that part of the country with which I am connected. A number of Petitions on the subject have been presented by me, and the point I wish to impress upon the Committee is this—that the sentiments expressed by the country in a matter of this kind are of far more importance, and should have far more weight with us, than any individual opinion on the subject. In the first place, then, I presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Edinburgh, got up by the Working Men's Committee, which says— These Acts are immoral in tendency, partial and tyrannical in operation, delusive in profession, and irreligious in principle, and we emphatically pray for their unconditional repeal. I have also presented a Petition, signed by the women of Edinburgh, which says— They view with alarm and distress the continued operation of these Acts. They consider them unjust, partial, and dangerous to public health, morality, safety, and liberty, and that the Acts stamp perpetual degradation on those who suffer under them. A Petition from the Kirk Session of the Free Church, Roslin, says— They have formed the unanimous judgment that the principle of these Acts is contrary to the law of God and to the spirit of English legislation, and that their operation has been pernicious to society. The Free High Church Kirk Session says— They have come to the solemn and unanimous judgment that the principle of these Acts is contrary to the law of God, and repugnant to the spirit of British legislation, and that their operation is disastrous to society. The Deacons' Court of the Free Church, Kiberry, say they— Have come to the solemn conclusion that the principle of these Acts is contrary to the law of God, and repugnant to the spirit of British legislation. A Petition from the Greenhill district— Regards them as most injurious to public morals, and fitted to exert a steadily increasing influence for evil the longer they are in operation. This district is one of the largest suburbs of the City of Edinburgh. A Professor of the University, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce took the Petition round, and some idea of its character may be gained from the fact that none of the houses in the district let for less than £80 per annum. I have also presented a Petition from three clergymen and other inhabitants of the parish of Old Headingly, Oxfordshire, who say— They are injurious to the interests of both sexes alike, inasmuch as they profess to guarantee safety to the one in immoral practices, by the degradation of the other. That this legislation gives sin a sanction and protection which hopelessly blurs the line between right and wrong, thereby exercising a most baneful influence on the character of this and future generations. Other Petitions from Edinburgh, signed by 521 persons, after condemning the existing Acts, and calling for their repeal— Pray that no future measures may be permitted to pass which shall be of the character of these Acts, in making regulations for the results of vice, and thereby giving a sanction to immorality; and that in any future measure bearing on this subject, strict impartiality may be maintained in regard to the sexes. I should have concluded with this, but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) in respect to the Petition he has presented to the House. I was requested by Mr. Cooper, the Secretary of the Rescue Society, and by Mr. Williams, one of the Committee, to get a copy of that Petition, and to mark all the signatures signed by a cross. I resolved to copy it myself, and occupied many hours in the work. I found that a large proportion of the signatures were all in one handwriting, with a cross attached. I saw the writing was that of an educated man; it was an excellent hand. I gave the information to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Williams, who resolved to ascertain how every signature was obtained, and to find out what had induced the Petitioners to sign. They went to Colchester, and found that the person who had got up the Petition was a surgeon, the deputy of the Minister for War; the Petition was got up in the examining-room; it was presented as if it was part of the treatment, and those who could not write, signed with a cross; so that this Petition was got up solely at the instance, and chiefly in the handwriting, of the medical man, whose duty was simply to cure disease, and not to engage in—[Interruption.] We have the great majority of the Commission in our favour; we have had a Bill from the Cabinet laid on the Table providing for the repeal of these worse than bad parts of bad Acts, and yet nothing has been done. Now, I have been surprised to meet hon. Members who do not know that the worst part of these Acts was not the doing of Parliament at all. It is the doing solely of the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty; and they could repeal that to-morrow if they chose. They made an intimation requiring that cruel Act to be passed and it was done at their instance alone. I have only one word more to add. I think it right to say that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) in saying that the Government Bill was laid on the Table by the Home Secretary for electioneering purposes, but I should have been very glad to have seen it passed into law.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 140: Majority 66.

LORD ELCHO

said, that although the subject of Control had been brought very clearly before the House a few nights ago by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot), he wished to make one or two remarks with regard to it. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge recommended in his Report upon the Autumn Manœuvres last year that the system of regimental transport should be adopted in future; the horses used for that purpose to be in excess of the establishment cavalry horses of the regiment, and he wished to know whether it was intended to carry out that recommendation? He hoped, further, that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the subject of Control would be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and wished to be informed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at the head of the Control Department, whether the suggestions of his hon. and gallant Friend, or the plan of Deputy Controller Robinson for an improvement in the system would be adopted? He ventured further to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, with reference to a question that had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Colonel C. Lindsay), whether it was intended this year to adhere to the plan of providing that out of the 140,000 Volunteers existing in the country, only the small number of 4,000 should take part in the Manœuvres, such Volunteers to remain in camp during the whole 14 days over which the operation would extend?

MR. CARDWELL

thought an answer to the last question of the noble Lord would be out of Order upon the present Vote.

MAJOR ARBUTHNOT

regretted that he had not been able to bring this question of Control forward earlier in the Session, but undertook either to bring it forward earlier next year, or to support any other hon. Member who would take the subject off his hands. They had heard of Reports from the generals in favour of the department. He wished to know whether those Reports could not be laid upon the Table in extenso, and not merely extracts from them? They had been told that the Control department had effected an economy But what was the use of small screwings and cheese-parings, by which every member of the Army was disagreeably affected, except, perhaps, those connected with the department itself? What was the use of savings made by driving hard bargains with the colonists, who ought to be left in a satisfied frame of mind? Credit had been taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance for organizing the department upon the recommendations of Lord Strathnairn's Committee; but he could only ask hon. Gentlemen to read the Report of that Committee and compare with it the Warrants issued by the department, and they would see for themselves whether that was really the case or not.

MR. MELLOR

complained of the charges for conveying soldiers by railway being greatly in excess of those paid by ordinary passengers and civilians, and said that unless a satisfactory explanation were given on that head he would move a reduction of the Vote.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, that a system of regimental transport had been organized for the Autumn Manœuvres. Much misapprehension had existed in reference to the real position of Control officers. One of the great defects of the English system of administration had been the undefined nature of the duties and responsibilities of officers. The great object of the department, therefore, had been to define duties and fix responsibility, and it had also been sought to assimilate home commands to foreign commands. It had been thought better that the general officer should have to do with one officer in regard to all supply services. Supposing they sent an expedition abroad, all the stores, of whatever character, should be consigned to one officer, who was in communication with the general in command. The more he had studied the question, the more, therefore, was he convinced that the stores should be placed in the hands of one responsible officer. As to the high charges made by the railways, the department had been in communication with the companies, and, he was sorry to say, with little effect; but the whole question had been brought before the Select Committee of both Houses which was now sitting, and he hoped that a more satisfactory arrangement would be come to in respect to the transport of soldiers by rail.

MR. MELLOR

wanted to know why soldiers were made to pay higher fares than civilians? It was a monstrous thing that a soldier should in some cases have to pay £1 1s. 3d., while the charge to a civilian would only be 14s. 4d.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he also wanted to know the reason why, and the Select Committee of which the President of the Board of Trade was Chairman also took pains to ascertain it. The reason of their not being able to get them reduced was that, owing to the Act of 1844, railways had the right to charge what they liked, and it was impossible for the Government to interfere with the rights of property. Their only hope was that justice would be done to the soldier after the Commission of Inquiry had terminated its labours.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

said, that the Controller under the present Regulations was not in the same position as any other officer in the Army. The Regulations were such that the Controller was to receive his orders personally from the general, and no other officer, whatever his rank or his branch of the service, could say to the general—"Here are the Regulations, and I do not choose to receive orders except from you personally." The Controller was in the position of commanding a very large number of men—of commanding, in fact, the whole transport of the Army, and it was exceedingly important that he should be placed on the same footing as to orders as other officers commanding a large body of men. A lieutenant-general, commanding, it might be, a corps d'armée of 25,000 men, was obliged to receive his orders as they reached him, whether by word of mouth from the general, in writing from the quartermaster or adjutant-general, or, it might be, through one of the aides-de-camp. Nor would it be possible to carry on military operations on any other footing. But the Controller, it seemed, was to take his orders from the general personally, and was, further, to consult with him; and accordingly was to be in a different position from any other officer in the service. It was idle to talk of carrying on war and in the same breath of relieving the general of responsibility. The general must be responsible for everything. In taking away his responsibility, therefore, they would be taking away the power necessary in his position.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, he was afraid he had explained very badly what he meant. He and his hon. and gallant Friend knew well that, according to the practice in garrison commands, the adjutant and quartermaster-general waited upon the general commanding with their papers, went over them with him, and took his instructions. The Government claimed for the Control officer that he should equally have access to the general commanding the district. When a decision was given by the general who it was necessary to put into general orders, the Control officer would go to the adjutant-general and ask him to let this appear. We had not yet got to the wholesome system of a Chief of the Staff; but if such an officer were appointed the Controller would, of course, be bound to take instructions from him, as the alter ego, so to say, of the general. His notion was, that a general officer commanding an Army, being about to attack the enemy, would naturally send for his Chief of the Staff and his Controller. To the first he would say—"I am going to attack the enemy's right flank to-morrow, and I want to be strong in artillery on such a point." To the Controller he would say—"Can you supply the necessary stores and appliances?" Having taken these measures, the general officer ought to have no more trouble about the matter.

LORD ELCHO

asked, whether there were to be any Chiefs of the Staff at the approaching Autumn Manœuvres?

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, he was not in a position to give an answer upon that point yet.

LORD ELCHO

understood, at any rate, that the Chief of the Staff, if appointed, would be superior in position to the Controller, who would be bound to take his orders from him. [Sir HENRY STORKS: Certainly.] He also inquired whether anything had been decided as to the question of sea-transport, whether it was to remain in the hands of the Admiralty, or was practically to be broken up?

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

hoped that great attention would be paid to the education of civilians who were to be appointed to positions of trust and influence in the Army. It was necessary to look for some assurance on this point, for he understood that recently men had been selected for positions which might have imperiled the safety of a whole Army, and who yet, it was found, were not even able to ride, a most important qualification, in his (Lord Eustace Cecil's) opinion, for Control officers in the field. There was a great deal of complaint amongst the Controllers themselves with reference to their undefined position, and that they were between two stools—that was to say, between the Horse Guards and the War Office, with respect to orders.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

said, it was a cardinal error to suppose that a Chief of the Staff, called by that or any other name, could relieve the general officer from responsibility. In an emergency he would always be his own Chief of the Staff.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, there was no difficulty in obtaining orders. There was no difference between the Horse Guards and the War Office—the former being only a department of the latter. The same facility would hold well in the case of district commands. Officers would take orders, no matter how they were conveyed, whether by post or telegraph, if issued by the competent authority.

MAJOR ARBUTHNOT

said, it had been argued that the Control department was so defective that if let alone it would break down, and that it would be better to let it fall to pieces rather than show its defects by bolstering it up. This, however, would be a very unpatriotic course.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £1,784,300, Provisions, Forage, &c.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

asked whether the rise in the price of coal and other material had been taken into account?

SIR HENRY STORKS

Yes; a sum of £53,796 has been taken for that reason in the Vote.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £751,700, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.

(5.) £1,195,800, Warlike and other Stores.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

protested against delaying these important Votes to the third week in July, when hon. Members were tired out by the work of the Session. He remarked that the amount required for warlike stores had fluctuated considerably during the last few years. In 1869, for instance, £8,000 was put down for gunpowder, and in 1870 £5,000; but in 1871 £155,000 was asked for, and in 1872 £66,000. It was evident from this that the supply had not been kept up, and that a larger stock had been gathered together in a time of panic at increased cost. He asked whether a more uniform system was now being adopted?

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, the manufacture of gunpowder had been stopped to some extent in the year referred to, owing to the fact that scientific opinion upon gunpowder was at that period very unsettled. More decided conclusions had since been come to, and the supply had been kept up. Much of the recent increase had been occasioned by the manufacture of a fine-grained powder for the Martini-Henry cartridge. This powder would, however, shortly be manufactured by the Government.

LORD ELCHO

also concurred in the protest against delaying these important Votes until the close of the Session; and submitting that it was evident the gun of the future would be heavier than the 25-ton gun tried against the Glatton, asked a series of questions with reference to the 35-ton "Woolwich Infant." In the first place, he wished to know how many such guns had been made, how many had stood the trial, at what round and at what charge had any failed, how many rounds and what were the charges fired from those that did not fail, and how many rounds were fired before the 35-ton gun had been adopted? secondly whether the system of rifling was approved, had the head of the Government Department reported that he could not adopt the spiral of 1 inch in 25 necessary to ensure efficiency, in consequence of the shearing off of the bronze rifling studs? and lastly, the cost of a 35-ton gun? He should also like to know whether the Government were aware that the Russian Government had constructed a shield capable of resisting a 1,000 lb shot?

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, he was unable to answer all these questions offhand, but would do his best. The only 35-ton gun yet tested was one which was designed for the naval service. It had fired in all 73 rounds, with charges varying from 75 lb to 130 lbs of pebble powder. After the 68th round, a slight crack was found in one of the grooves. Five more rounds, however, were fired, and the result was satisfactory, for it was found that the crack did not extend. The result was a conclusive proof of the great strength of the system of construction. Some changes might be made in that system with a view to obtain a further development of power; but enough had been done to show that this 35-ton naval gun was the most powerful in the world. The system of rifling adopted was what was called the "Woolwich system," and he had not received any report as to the impossibility of getting a spiral of 1 inch in 25, or with regard to any injuries done to the rifling. The cost of the gun was—for wrought iron, £2,200; car- riage, £220; platform, without gear, £318; 100 rounds of ammunition, £700; miscellaneous, £150; so that the cost of the gun complete was £3,588.

LORD ELCHO

said, he believed the system of construction on the whole to be good, but the question was, whether the system of rifling would stand the wear and tear to which it would be subjected. Now, he knew that intelligent mechanics had grave doubts on this point. Though only one of these guns had been tested in the test-house, two had been fired, the second having only fired two shots. With regard to the first, he wished to know with what charge of powder the gun was loaded after the discovery that it was cracked? What number of battering charges was it supposed to be able to stand? Were the further trials with the battering charges, or with the reduced charges? According to his information, the gun had split in nine out of a total of ten grooves in the A or inner steel tube, and it had failed when fired with the first full battering charge. The condition of the manufacture of these guns was that the normal charge should be 115lbs of powder and a 700lb projectile; and supposing his information to be correct—that the latter charges were made with reduced quantities of powder—he submitted that the gun had not fulfilled the conditions which had been thus laid down. He spoke in no spirit of caviling, but from a wish to save public money, and get the best gun for the public service. He hoped, therefore, that the War Office would institute a full inquiry into this matter, and not be guided solely by what might be said by the parents of this adopted child. It had no right to be called the "Woolwich system" of rifling. It was really a French system, known among experts as "Nobody's child." Another point to which he would direct attention related to our forts and shields designed to resist penetration from heavy artillery. Some years ago it was pointed out that our shields were constructed by engineer officers of little experience in the working of iron and the best form of constructing iron shields. The Government of the day ordered the experiment to be tried on a section of what was called the "Plymouth Shield"—that was, a section of the fort which was to be erected at Plymouth. The result was that the shield was, to use a vulgar expression, blown "to smithereens;" but another shield known as the "Mill-wall Shield" stood the test and was not injured. [The noble Lord here exhibited to the Committee photographs showing the different effects of the fire on the two shields.] In the one case any person who stood behind the shield would have been blown to pieces; in the other the shield was not penetrated at all. But, instead of adopting the principle of the Millwall Shield, those forts which we were erecting at great expense—whether at Plymouth, Gibraltar, or Bermuda—were to be armed with shields constructed on a principle which had signally failed.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that if subjects of this kind were to be discussed, and he was expected to deliver an opinion upon them, he must ask that some Notice might be given him beforehand. He had heard a great deal about the system of backing shields which the noble Lord so highly approved, and all he could say was that the matter had been considered by some most competent men. With regard to the "Woolwich Infant," as it was what was called in law filius nullius, there was not likely to be any prejudice in its favour. He had hitherto supported the "Woolwich system," because he found it to be, in the opinion of the most competent judges, a success. These gentlemen told him that the Woolwich system was at once the cheapest and most efficient, and he would not be prepared to substitute for it some other until that other system was proved to be either the more economical or the more efficient. If, however, all he was asked to do was to look into this and other matters, he would be most happy to do so to the best of his ability; but in looking into these things, it was his duty to be guided by the advice of responsible men. If he were once to give way to the representations of inventors, everyone of whom was full of the merits of his own inventions—while he had no charity for the inventions of anybody else—both efficiency and economy would be lost.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

inquired, with regard to the Martini-Henry rifle, whether the new plant had been set up at Enfield, and, if so, how many of these weapons had been manufactured; whether any regiment had been armed with them; and, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated on a previous occasion that he was about to follow the recommendations of the Committee, whether he was still of opinion that a short Martini-Henry rifle with a sword-bayonet was better than a long Martini-Henry with the ordinary bayonet?

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

inquired when the whole of the Regular forces was likely to be armed with the Martini-Henry rifle?

SIR HENRY STORKS

replied that no regiment had as yet been armed with the Martini-Henry. The plant at Enfield had been altered, and it was proposed this year to make 62,000 Martini-Henry rifles. With regard to the bayonet question, the length of the Martini-Henry would be the same as that recommended by the Committee of which the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) was a Member. There were to be further trials of the sword-bayonet and of the ordinary bayonet, and in the course of the year the authorities would decide which should be adopted.

LORD ELCHO

remarked that the rifle to which his right hon. and gallant Friend referred was not shorter than that used by the Rifle Brigade. It was an immense thing to be able to take away so much of the weight. What the Committee tried to do was to make the rifle as effective and as light as possible. It was also most important that instead of having different kinds of rifles we should have but one. About the sword-bayonet, Lord Sandhurst, among others, had expressed himself favourable to its use. The advantage of it was that it was one of the best possible choppers. He took it down with him to the country and put it into the hands of a woodcutter, and this new instrument, which he had never tried before, the man was able to use as effectually as his own bill.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

observed that a man might fire with the ordinary bayonet fixed to the rifle, but he could not with the sword-bayonet, because it would be so heavy as to depress the point of the weapon.

MR. MUNTZ

asked how it was that the great military nations of Europe would not use this sword-bayonet, but looked upon it with contempt? But now it appeared that we were to have a rifle which was to be six inches shorter, and the difference was to be made up for by a bayonet six inches longer. He fully sympathized with the remarks that had been made about discussing such questions in a House like that. While this subject was under debate there were exactly 11 hon. Members on that and 10 on the opposite side of the House, thus giving the Government a majority of 1. These Estimates ought to have been laid before the House earlier in the Session. There had been a steady increase in this Vote of which he complained, and he suggested that all Government manufactures should be carried on, and balance sheets produced, so as to show the actual cost of the articles made, and that the Government should advance capital to each manufacturing establishment at 3½ per cent, in order to ascertain the results of this manufacturing system.

LORD ELCHO

contended that in case of an encounter with an enemy it would be an advantage to our men that the rifles should be weighted at the end, and he would remind the Committee that the Rifle Brigade used the sword-bayonet.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the Prime Minister, during his canvass of the electors in South Lancashire, complained that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, who was then Secretary for War, wasted a great deal of the public money by hastily adopting inventions with reference to armaments which proved to be worthless; but the present Secretary of State for War was doing the same thing. Last year he (Mr. Rylands) suggested that the Vote under this head should be reduced by £500,000, and he was glad to find that the Vote now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was £600,000 less than that of last year. He hoped the Surveyor General of Ordnance would ascertain what was the cost per man with reference to warlike stores in the Continental Armies. He had reason to believe that in the German Army, which was well appointed and second to none in Europe, the cost upon warlike stores per man was less than in this country. He believed the German Army purchased its warlike stores to a greater extent than we did, and that it manufactured warlike stores only to a limited extent. This matter, he thought, deserved the very serious consideration of the Government. He would not propose a reduction of the Vote, but he hoped that next year the Vote would not exceed that which was proposed for 1870–1.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £855,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superintending Establishment of and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1872 to the 31st day of March 1873, inclusive.

COLONEL C. LINDSAY

said, that he had intended to call attention to the condition of Fermoy Barracks, respecting which he had received particulars from the commanding officer of the regiment stationed there; but he had received an assurance from the Surveyor General that preliminary arrangements had been made, and that sanitary repairs would be commenced at once. Having gained his object, he (Colonel C. Lindsay) did not feel called on to carry out his intention.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, he had given such an assurance; but it would have been better had the commanding officer referred to addressed his representations to the War Office rather than to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

CAPTAIN TRENCH

asked whether the barrack site at Galway was to be utilized? It was purchased prior to the Crimean War, in consideration of the inferior existing barrack accommodation and the claims of Galway to be a garrison town, and much expense was incurred in levelling and preparing it for building; but the war necessitating expenditure in other directions, nothing had since been done. The Midland Great Western Railway Company was obliged to make a costly detour in order to avoid the site, and in the course of legal proceedings taken by the Company to relieve themselves from that expense it was stated by the officer responsible for the Ordnance Department in Ireland that the barracks were to be erected immediately. Excuses had been offered for the non-use of the site, but he believed they had little validity. There was a strong feeling in Galway that this site had been used by the Government for a purpose for which it was not originally intended. The expense which had been entailed upon the railway company by their being compelled to make this diversion had been very large, they having had to expend no less than £30,000 upon a bridge to enable them to make the diversion. Now that the Army Organization Bill was about to be discussed in Committee, he trusted that the claims of Galway in this matter would be taken into consideration.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

, in moving that the Vote for the fortifications at Bermuda should be reduced by £20,000, and that for St. Helena by £1,000, said the former was one of the most unnecessarily expensive fortifications which we possessed. Although it was almost the smallest of our naval stations, St. Helena, with an area of 47 square miles and a population of 6,860, cost £54,624 annually; the Mauritius, with an area of 708 square miles and a population of 322,917, £122,149; Ceylon, with an area of 24,454 and a population of 2,096,777, £35,845; Heligoland, with an area of 5¼ square miles and a population of 2,172, £1,166; while Bermuda, with an area of 24 square miles and a population of 11,796, cost £163,935. That was the expense in 1867–8, and he had no reason to believe that there had been any falling off in 1871–2. Indeed, Bermuda was, with a single exception, the only fortification for which the House was that night asked to vote more money. He contended that, instead of the permanent fortifications that were being erected at an enormous cost on that island, all that was required were sufficient temporary defences to protect the harbour of refuge for our fleet in case of disasters, for it was a grave question whether Bermuda could be properly provisioned in time to hold out against a hostile fleet, supposing one to exist. There was Vancouver's Island, on the other side of the Pacific, on the coast of America. It would be necessary that it should be equally defended with Bermuda in case of war. He was therefore at a loss to understand why so much money should be expended on the fortifications of Bermuda. The time had gone by when it was necessary to keep up such Sebastopols or Gibraltars; and, as he understood, those fortifications now being carried on at Bermuda were constructed more to meet an invasion by land than as a protection for the harbour. In his opinion, a well-organized system of gunboats and torpedoes would be all that was necessary there. The expenses now going on for many years on those permanent works were so much money thrown into the sea, for if it were surrounded by a hostile fleet it could not hold out for a month. Labour in the construction of those works was employed largely and paid too highly at Bermuda. Half of that labour was done by Blacks. He thought that such labour might be dispensed with altogether, or it could be done cheaper by an importation of coolies, or the employment of more soldiers. He would remind them of the £1,000,000 that was uselessly expended on the fortifications of Alderney. With all due respect to the engineering department, it appeared to him that there was a great disposition to extravagance in the construction of these works, and it would be, in his opinion, wise to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, to be composed not only of engineer officers, but also of certain civilians known to be good practical men. He wished to refer not only to Bermuda, but to many of our other fortifications. The sum taken this year for St. Helena was small—namely, £1,000; but it was to the principle of the thing that he mainly objected, for he could not understand why St. Helena should be now maintained as a great fortress, having no trade to defend there. The case was, of course, different when we had the conqueror of the world immured in that island. There was really no necessity for any of those fortifications, and he considered the money expended on them as so much thrown away. Perhaps he might be told that the cost of the works at Bermuda was only about £500,000, and that they had proceeded so far that it was absolutely necessary to complete them. The soundness of that argument, however, he entirely disputed. He held that in public as in private matters, if their predecessors had begun a costly work of folly, that was no reason why they should waste any more money in continuing it. They had already spent £279,000 at Bermuda, and the further sum required to complete the works was £146,000. He wished to see that latter sum saved and applied to some useful purpose. As far as those fortifications were concerned, they had already done enough; and the execution of those works out of Imperial funds was a great mistake. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Vote be reduced by £21,000; or for Bermuda by £20,000, and for St, Helena by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £834,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superintending Establishment of and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1872 to the 31st day of March 1873, inclusive."—(Lord Eustace Cecil.)

MR. A. GUEST

said, he had to make a complaint in regard to Gibraltar which was quite of an opposite character to that just made by the noble Lord. He had complained last year—and he now complained again—of the temporary character of the works carried out at Gibraltar, by which he contended that a great amount of public money must be utterly thrown away. According to the latest Return before him it appeared that there were 90 9-inch guns and 11 10-inch guns at Gibraltar, only a very small portion of which were mounted. Not one of the 10-inch guns at that moment was in position, although they were put there to repel the attacks of armour-clad vessels. He was also informed that scarcely one of the 9-inch guns could be effectively used, and that so far from their being able to repel the attack of armour-clad vessels they would be more likely to do damage to the surrounding works. They were all placed in a temporary position, where they could prove of no earthly use to the place in case of a hostile attack. Now, he should like to know why these guns were mounted in a temporary position? He understood, in fact, that Gibraltar was now absolutely assailable from the east side, and he was very anxious to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and also whether the shields for the batteries had been sent out, and of what description they were? As to the new batteries which were being constructed at Gibraltar, he inquired whether it was true that a plan had been adopted, not of blasting the battery out of the rock, but of building it upon the rock? He had noticed at Gibraltar that the shields to the batteries were placed too close to the edge of the parapet, so that a shot striking underneath would undermine them. These distant places could not be properly fortified by a Committee sitting in London unless the local officers were consulted, and at Gibraltar several costly batteries might be seen which had been abandoned.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he was glad the hon. Gentleman had again called attention to the fortifications at Gibraltar. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would probably give the answer to which he (Sir John Pakington) was getting accustomed—"Why didn't you do it when in office?" to which his rejoinder must be, that he was not allowed time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would clearly and succinctly state to the Committee what progress had been made in the fortifications of Gibraltar during the past year, and what works were now going on there?

MR. MACFIE

suggested that if a Commission was sent to inquire into the defences of foreign stations, it should include, like the Commission which negotiated the Treaty of Washington, a representative of the colonies, this question being an Imperial one.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, that without he had the chart of the Bermuda Fortifications before him it would not be possible to follow the noble Lord in all the details of his speech; but he would inform the Committee, as shortly as possible, of what had been done. The noble Lord had referred to a variety of places—St. Helena, Mauritius, Bermuda, and others situated in mid-ocean. Now they were essentially necessary to a great maritime power like England, having a large and wide-spread commerce to protect; for that protection could not be effectually given if we had not places at which our ships could coal and refit. They were virtually coaling stations, which it would be the duty of every officer in command to hold as long as possible, in case of war, because he would, of course, have the hope of being relieved. As regards Bermuda, it must be held by the nation that had the sovereignty of the seas. It must be defended by proper fortifications; and he ventured to think that those now being erected were of the strength and character required. There was no intention to raise land defences for the protection of the inhabitants of the island; our object simply was to defend the dockyards where the ships refitted and coaled. There was also a perfect system of torpedo defence, and he believed that in 1874, when the works would be completed and the armaments sent out to them, Bermuda would be as nearly impregnable as a place of this description could be. As to Vancouver's Island, its geographical position was very different from that of Bermuda, which was on the high road to America, and where our fleets would have to repair for protection and refitting in case of war. There was no intention of building great Sebastopols, but simply of having places of refuge for our ships, and of holding these stations as long as possible. As to the labour employed at Bermuda, 400 soldiers were engaged on the fortifications. It was impossible to have a large garrison there, the barrack accommodation being limited. Only 221 civilians were employed; but the labour question was obviously a difficult one at Bermuda, the climate and the tendency to yellow fever impeding the work at certain periods of the year. The noble Lord suggested that a Commission of Inquiry should be sent out; but he thought that if the noble Lord reconsidered the subject he would come to the conclusion with him that it was a great object to carry out the fortifications at Bermuda as now settled. With regard to Gibraltar, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. A. Guest) had objected that the sites in which the guns now stood were of a temporary character, but the case as regarded Gibraltar was rather of an exceptional character. Since the Moncrieff carriage came under consideration there was great difficulty in assigning the proper position for the guns under that system; and they were, therefore, placed in position temporarily. The shields, to which reference had been made, were on their way to Gibraltar, and a letter of the 26th of June, written by the Governor of Gibraltar, spoke of the admirable manner in which the Engineers were carrying out the instructions with respect to the new batteries. He would oppose the reduction of the Vote, and he hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied that the wisest policy had been exercised with reference to Bermuda.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he thought that the statement which they had just heard was much the same as they heard last year, and they were not told how soon the difficulties at Gibraltar would be overcome. He would like a more definite statement as to what the prospects really were of getting the fortress of Gibraltar in the satisfactory state we had a right to expect.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, the real difficulty was about the traversing gear for the guns. The fortifications would be completed as soon as possible.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

said, he felt satisfaction at the manner in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of Bermuda; but he trusted it was not meant that the existing barrack accommodation was to regulate the amount of the garrison there. On account of the deficiency of barrack-room, the garrison was much smaller than was sufficient as a security against a coup de main.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, that Government was asking a Vote this year of £5,000 for additional barrack accommodation at Bermuda. The garrison at present numbered 1,800 men.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

had listened with pleasure to what fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with respect to Bermuda. He did not, however, see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had met any of his arguments. He wished it to be understood that he did not object to Bermuda being selected upon competent authority as a great station to which the Fleet might go in case of disaster, but his objection to the fortifications there was, that they were of too permanent a character. Fortifications of a more temporary character, together with torpedoes, would be quite sufficient. He had brought forward this Motion as simply a protest against the unnecessary and excessive expenditure on permanent works which was going on.

CAPTAIN BEAUMONT

assured the noble Lord that there were no more expensive works than temporary works, and expressed his opinion that the works in question would prove to be a credit to the officers who had constructed them. With regard to the Moncrieff gun-carriage, he begged to suggest, as it was intended for defensive purposes, it ought to be fired at. He had, moreover, recommended some months ago that it should be tested at Gibraltar; but they had never yet had a gun fairly mounted on the Moncrieff principle. A strong hand was required to grapple with the subject, and it was important to know whether there was anything reliable in the system.

MR. F. STANLEY

said, he did not intend to take any part in this discus- sion; but as expressions had been used which seemed to reflect in some degree on the works now going on at Gibraltar, and having had the opportunity recently of inspecting them, he wished to bear his testimony to what was going on there. There were exceptional difficulties in the way of mounting such heavy guns. They were not very easily handled. They had to be brought up to their place with tackle, and fixed to the solid rock. That was not an easy operation, and where the climate was so severe there were unusual difficulties in the way. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had explained what had been done with regard to the shields. He wished to know whether measures had been taken to meet the defect in the defence of the east side of the Rock as to which a reference had been made to head-quarters at home?

MR. A. GUEST

must remind his right hon. and gallant Friend that last year he stated the shields sent out to Gibraltar would be capable of resisting the heaviest artillery. He wished to know how they had been strengthened. He would rather see no shields set up than such as would be useless.

LORD ELCHO

wished to draw a moral from the circumstances which had come to light in regard to these fortifications. Two points had been raised. One was as to whether unnecessary works had been carried out at Bermuda, and the other as to the character of the shields which had been erected at Gibraltar. He was not in a position to say anything as to the works of Bermuda; but with respect to the shields at Gibraltar, what he wished economists particularly to look to was the fact that the shields were already required to be strengthened. The way in which things were done was illustrated in the case of some experiments that were carried out recently with a shield constructed by the Government engineer, and another by Mr. Hughes, of Millwall Ironworks, who had since taken up his abode in Russia. The shield constructed by the Engineer officer of the War Office was penetrated; not a bolt stood; whereas in the case of the shield made by the civilian not a single bolt started, and no penetration was effected. The same thing had occurred on another occasion, and the result was the shields were being strengthened, but had it not been for this experi- ment they would have remained unquestioned by the military authorities. How were they to be strengthened, and by whom? The moral was this—that as long as the Government retained officers whose work was proved to be defective, and trusted them continually to botch and cobble it up, so long should we have a wasteful expenditure. If a man had shown that he could not design effectively, he ought to be removed from office; and the Government ought to insist on bringing the responsibility home to those officers who were entrusted with such important work.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that such generalities as the noble Lord had indulged in were perfectly unnecessary and utterly without value. He had already told the noble Lord that he was familiar with the name of Mr. Hughes, and that some of the most competent men in this country had passed judgment on him. These ex parte statements were most unfair. The noble Lord had already asked him to look into these matters, and he had promised to do so, if the noble Lord brought them specifically before him; and if the charges made by the noble Lord were found good, he should be prepared to act upon them. But he was not prepared to accept without inquiry the charges which the noble Lord had brought. The most distinguished men in the country had been engaged on these shields, they had introduced the greatest improvements, and had set an example to civilians. The shields for Gibraltar had been prepared before he had anything to do with the matter; they had relation to the power of the guns at the time, and when the guns increased in power, the strength of the shields also was increased.

LORD ELCHO

explained that he never intended to take away from the character of Engineer officers in general, or of the officer in particular to whose work he had called attention. He guarded himself expressly on the point, for he wished to speak of that officer with the greatest respect. However skilful the Engineers might be, it must be borne in mind that the work on which they were engaged was entirely novel.

MR. CORRY

asked for some explanation with respect to the defence of Hong Kong, remarking that in 1870, when Russia made her demand for the abrogation of part of the Treaty of 1856, great alarm prevailed among our people in China?

CAPTAIN BEAUMONT

said, the noble Lord made an attack upon an officer of Engineers. [Lord ELCHO: No, upon his iron shields.] The noble Lord said that the officer in question did not produce a shield equal to that which had been produced by a civilian. But, according to the best judges, the shield designed by a civilian was faulty in principle.

MR. A. GUEST

wished to have an answer to the questions he had already asked—namely, what was the thickness and what the character of the shields sent out to Gibraltar, and whether they had been subjected to any test?

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, his hon. Friend ought to have given some Notice of such questions. His hon. Friend having passed a month or two in Gibraltar and heard all the gossip there came down to the House and asked these questions without the slightest Notice. If the hon. Gentleman had given Notice, he should have been most happy to answer the questions.

MR. A. GUEST

observed, that as the subject was important, he was willing to receive any answer that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be prepared to give; but he did not think that it was unreasonable that he should ask the questions that he had put without giving any Notice of them.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, that he should be happy then to go into the questions if the Committee thought fit; but he must still say that he thought that he should have had Notice of them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

LORD ELCHO

wished to make one remark. [Cries of "Too late," "Question," "Chair," and "Hear."]

THE CHAIRMAN

said the Vote had been already agreed to.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

said, his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had risen before the Vote was finally put.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

confirmed the statement.

THE CHAIRMAN

repeated that the Vote had been agreed to when the noble Lord rose to speak.

MR. CARDWELL moved that the Chairman report Progress.

LORD ELCHO

wished to enter his protest against the principle laid down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Storks) that Notice should have been given with respect to this great question of the shields. He had sat many years in the House, and had always heard such questions put without Notice, and it was quite expected that the persons whose duty it was should be able to answer them. He wished respectfully to protest against that doctrine.

SIR HENRY STORKS

said, every Member of the Government who came down to the House to discuss the Estimates ought to be prepared to answer questions; but he repeated that he wished to answer questions which were put to him on technical subjects in the most accurate manner, and when hon. Members rose up, as his hon. Friend and the noble Lord had done, he should be much obliged if they would give him Notice of their questions, in order that he might reply to them with accuracy.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, it seemed that a Motion had been made and subsequently withdrawn, and he wished to point out that the Chairman was quite right in then putting the substantive Motion as to the Vote to be taken. He thought, however, his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) got up before that Motion was put and challenged it; and it was a matter of considerable importance that after a discussion on an Amendment to a Vote, either for its reduction or any other purpose, an opportunity should be given to hon. Members to express an opinion on the Vote. No doubt the Chairman was entirely misled into supposing that the Vote was not challenged; but in Committee of Supply it was of very considerable importance that when an Amendment was withdrawn the substantive Motion should be again put, and that every hon. Member should have an opportunity of challenging the Vote.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he did not think fairness had been evinced in the matter, and must express his opinion that the Chairman put the Question as plainly as it could be put before the noble Lord rose in his place. The Committee ought not to display partiality when a noble Lord endeavoured to get a hearing.

MR. O'CONOR

said, he distinctly saw the noble Lord standing up before the Question was put from the Chair. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alder- man Lusk) was therefore entirely in error.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.