Commons Sitting of 6 March 1876

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Referees on Private Bills, nominated; Oyster Fisheries, appointed; Printing, Captain Nolan added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Telegraphs (Money) [90]; Drugging of Animals [85].
Committee—Offences against the Person* [1]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Council of India (Professional Appointments) * [69].
Third Reading—Exchequer Bonds (£4,080,000) [89]; Consolidated Fund (£4,080,000), and passed,

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH MESSAGES.—QUESTION.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the public will be allowed to supply themselves with telegraph cards in place of those withdrawn; and, whether, if such cards bear a proper stamp, they will be collected from the pillar post boxes and be sent out as telegraph messages?
LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that for the reason which he assigned the other day, the telegraph cards had ceased to exist; but the telegraph message forms, with which the public were supplied, could be deposited in the pillar post boxes, whence they would be collected and despatched. For obvious reasons the latter were much less likely to be mistaken for letters, than were the old telegraph cards to be mistaken for halfpenny cards.

NAVY—COAL.—QUESTION.
MR. HUSSET-VIVIANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in "The Times" of the 29th ultimo, in which it is stated that experiments have boon recently made by the Officers of the Steam Reserve at Portsmouth with certain coals from the Monmouthshire collieries, and that they have been classified in a certain order of merit; whether the results therein set forth are correct; whether it is intended to carry through a series of analogous experiments upon the leading coals of the South Wales coal field; and, whether any notice of such intention has been or is to be given to the owners of steam coal collieries in South Wales?
MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that until his attention was called to the paragraph in The Times of the 29th ult. he had not seen it. The Admiralty directed expected experiments to be made by the officers of the Steam Reserve at Portsmouth with certain coals from the Monmouthshire collieries for their own information, and with no intention of its reaching any newspaper, and how it got into that paper he did not know many days before the report reached him. He had no intention of instituting inquiries into the different collieries in Wales, the Admiralty being well aware of their quality. Whether the Report
1414
should have been produced by the Admiralty would have been a question for consideration; but as the statement that had been published was correct, it would be useless to withhold it, and if the hon. Member would move for it, it would be laid upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—CASES OF SCURVY.—QUESTION.
MR. WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that within the last week two vessels have arrived, one at Queenstown and the other in London, with an unusual number of bad cases of scurvy on board; and, whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to institute an inquiry into the causes thereof, and whether the result of these inquiries will be laid before the House?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I suppose the two cases referred to are the West Ridge, of Liverpool, and the Prince Rupert, of St. John, New Brunswick. In both of these cases there were several pronounced cases of scurvy. Inquiry has already been ordered in each case, to be held by the medical officers of the Board. Reports will be laid on the Table in duo course, with other Papers, as I lately promised.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—WRENTHAM.—QUESTION.
MR. COLMANasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Education Department delayed, from the 6th September 1875 to the 21st January 1876, to intimate the condition of their consent, according to section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to the transfer of the Wrentham British School (being the only public Elementary School during that period in the district) to the Wrentham School Board, it having been offered to and accepted by the Board; and what was the reason for the delay; whether there is at present any obstacle to the transfer, the School Board having, in a letter of the 1st February, agreed to
"relinquish the proposed term or condition of the transfer relating to the cost of carrying on the School, from the date at which the parish first asked for the School Board,"
as required by their Lordships on the 21st January 1876; and, whether the

1415
Department, having intimated for the first time on the 21st January, that
"my Lords have not yet determined whether the teacher of the National School is entitled to a Certificate. Until this point is determined it win be obvious that my Lords cannot decide whether they are justified in consenting to the transfer,"
intend by their reply to make their consent to the transfer of the British School to depend on the position of the National School; and, if so, whether such reply is in accordance with the Minute of the Committee of Council of Education, dated the 17th July 1871?
VISCOUNT SANDON: This is a curious case, but it may not be amiss that the hon. Gentleman should have called attention to it, as it will show how easily, unless great care is taken, a locality may be made under the Act of 1870, to bear a double burden for its schools. The question is worded in such a manner that unless I state shortly the facts of the case a most erroneous impression might be created respecting it. Wrentham is a place which had two voluntary schools—one being National, and one British—with school accommodation considerably in excess of what is required by law; both had certificated teachers till 1875, when the National school engaged an uncertificated teacher, with the expectation of his getting a certificate from Her Majesty's Inspector in January, 1876. Two years ago the managers of the British school informed the Department officially that they intended to close their school, having passed a resolution to that effect. Upon this the Department, following the only possible course (Section 12 [2] of the Education Act, 1870, not applying to this, which was to be a united district), issued the usual printed notice to the locality, stating that a deficiency of school accommodotion for 80 children existed, owing to the proposed closing of the British school, and that unless that accommodation was supplied within six months a school board would be ordered by the Department for the purpose of supplying it. Within the time named the requisite accommodation was supplied by the enlargement of the National public elementary school, and therefore a school board was not ordered, the equipment of the place being complete. Information was received some time after the place was ordered to provide
1416
further accommodation that the British school had, after all, not closed its doors as it announced it intended to do. There, therefore, remained two voluntary public elementary schools in the place; one, the enlarged National school, now become sufficient for the whole population, the other, the British school, which was still kept open, and both in receipt of Government annual grants. On the requisition of a meeting of ratepayers, a school board was ordered for Wrentham, it being at the same time intimated by the Department, in an official letter, that the school board, as matters then stood, would be unable to set up a school, though it would be able to pass bye-laws for compulsion, as the Department would not be justified in allowing a loan for a school, or probably also in allowing a Government annual grant to a board school, the place having put itself to the expense of supplying voluntarily the necessary accommodation in accordance with the requisition of the Department. The school board, when elected, requested the Department to agree to a transfer of the British school to the board; and here, in direct reply to a part of the Question, I have to say that the delay complained of arose principally from the National school having lost its certificated teacher and from the impossibility of ascertaining how the school would stand till the new master had been examined at the annual inspection of his school in 1876. If he had failed, it would have been a matter for our consideration whether the National school would not have ceased to supply efficient education. As it is, the master got his certificate in January, so that that part of the question is at an end. The obstacle, to which the Question alludes, now existing to the transfer of the British school to the board is this—The sanction of the Department is required by the statute for every transfer; and the Minute, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, only bears upon the details of a transfer, and not upon the principle of the propriety of the transfer itself, respecting which the Department cannot divest itself of the responsibility under the Act. We consider that it would be most unfair, and a breach of faith with those who have, in compliance with the requisition of the Department, supplied the necessary school accommodation, by sanctioning the transfer of the British school to the

1417
board, to throw the burden of the maintenance of that school upon the ratepayers generally, the locality having, at the bidding of the Department, on the announcement that the British school was to be given up, provided voluntarily elsewhere all the school accommodation needed. If we were to consent to such acts of injustice, I feel confident that the feeling of the country would soon turn against the Act of 1870. As it is, both the schools in question rank at present as public elementary schools; there is no deficiency of accommodation in the locality, the Department do not hold themselves justified in assenting to the transfer, but the two voluntary schools at Wrentham will, I trust, go on side by side, as they have done, for a long time past, supported with the aid of Government grants, by those who prefer them, as long as they wish to have them.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—POOR LAW RELIEF.—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether that Clause of the Elementary Education Amendment Act which provides that in cases where continuing Poor Law relief is given to parents it shall be a condition for the continuance of such relief that their children shall be kept at school, and that for this purpose, when necessary, additional relief shall be given, is intended to apply to cases where relief, owing to purely temporary causes, such as illness, is only given for a week or two, or for other very limited periods?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I cannot say what was the intention of the clause, but my opinion undoubtedly is, that where relief is given by weekly allowances, or for a period exceeding the interval between the meetings of the Guardians, the case comes within the terms of the Act. If the relief is given by the relieving officer on his own discretion in cases of sudden or urgent necessity, the condition does not apply.

THE NATIONAL BANK OF EGYPT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. CARTWEIGHTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation in the report that Her Majesty's Government has
  1418
  under consideration the nomination of a Commissioner who is to act on the Board of a Bank which it is sought to create in Egypt with the view of facilitating an advance of money to the Khedive?
  MR. DISRAELI: It is true, Sir, that a proposal was made by the Egyptian Government to Her Majesty's Government that we should appoint a Commissioner to act, in the words of the hon. Gentleman's Question, "on the Board of a Bank which it is sought to create in Egypt;" but on inquiry we found that this would involve commercial relations between the contemplated institution and Her Majesty's Government, and of course we declined it. Had there been a proposal that a Commissioner should be appointed to receive certain branches of revenue and apply them to the redemption of debt, that would have been a proposal which might have received our consideration.

THE SCOTCH FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If definite instructions are given to the Commanders of the Cruisers on the Coast of Scotland in regard to their duties towards the fishermen; and, if so, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Instructions?
MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that the instructions were sent by the Fishery Board of Scotland, and the question was one rather for the Home Secretary than for himself. He might state, however, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, that there would be no objection to lay a copy of the instructions on the Table of the House, if it were moved for.

SUNDAY DRINKING (IRELAND)—RE-TURN.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVAN (for Mr. MELDON)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Re-turn giving the number of persons who are reported by the police to have entered the public houses of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Londonderry, and other places on certain Sundays of the present year, giving at the same time the means adopted, if any, for ensuring that the same persons were not counted as different individuals on entering different

1419
public houses or on re-entering the same house?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, he would be happy to lay before the House all the information on this subject which had been furnished to him by the Constabulary. The Returns might not be precisely accurate, but he believed that, generally speaking, they would be found to be substantially correct.

RETURNS AS TO THE COURT OF SESSION.—QUESTION.
MR. GRIEVEasked the Lord Advocate, When Returns "Court of Session (Scotland) Litigated Cases," moved for on the 1st day of June 1875, presented on the 11th day of August, and ordered to be printed on the 13th day of August, would be in the hands of Members?
THE LORD ADVOCATE,in reply, said, that the delay occurred owing to an inaccuracy in the information received, but that the Returns would shortly be ready.

MERCHANT SHIPPING. ACT—UNSEA-WOKTHY SHIPS—FOREIGN NATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any further Communications have been received from Foreign Countries in reply to the Circular Despatch from the Foreign Office, dated the 3rd day of February 1875, on the subject of the Transfer of Unseaworthy ships to Foreign Flags, answers to which Circular were printed in a Return, headed Unseaworthy Ships (Transfer), and dated the 10th day of August 1875?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, further communications had been received from Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, and Nicaragua. Of these, Denmark was legislating to prevent the use of unseaworthy ships, and the Swedish and Norwegian Governments were conferring with Maritime Powers about the transfer of unseaworthy ships to her flag; and the five South American Republics had all instructed their Consular agents to carry out our suggestion, that no transfer should be made without survey. These, together with the more important communications already laid
  1420
  on the Table, were, on the whole, satisfactory.

PARLIAMENT—PETITION OF MR. WILLIAM HENWOOD—EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. SPEAKER: I think it right to call the attention of the House to a proceeding which occurred at the last sitting of the House. It will be in the recollection of the House that in the last Session a Resolution was agreed to, after much discussion, by which the ancient practice requiring the exclusion of Strangers on notice being taken of their attendance was suspended. That Resolution has not been renewed during the present Session or made a Standing Order of the House. Early on Saturday morning last an hon. Member took notice that Strangers were present, and it seemed to me that, after the House had deliberately discontinued its former practice, I was bound to consider, until otherwise instructed, that the new practice was henceforth to be observed. The House is aware that many Resolutions concerning matters of practice and order have been observed as binding without being renewed. I accordingly read to the House the Resolution of the 31st of May, 1875, and proceeded to put the Question for the withdrawal of Strangers in the terms of that Resolution. I then stated to the House the circumstances under which I deemed it my duty to give effect to that Resolution, but I think it proper that the House should have an opportunity of more fully declaring its purpose and determining whether the Resolution shall continue to be observed.
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, after what you have said, I think it most convenient to say I will take an early opportunity of consulting the House upon this subject.

EXCHEQUER BONDS (£4,080,000) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exechequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EXCHEQUER BONDS (£4,080,000) BILL.

  [BILL 89.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, his object in moving the stage so early was to enable the Bill to be sent to the other House to be passed, so as to complete the matter

  1421
  within the prescribed time. He mentioned on Friday last, when the Bill passed through Committee, the dates at which it was proposed that the payments should be made. The first would be on the 10th of this month, and it was necessary, in order to enable the Government to meet that payment, that the Bill should pass before that date. Some misunderstanding appeared to prevail, owing, he thought, to his not giving a proper explanation at the time as to the nature of the arrangement which was contemplated; and he was asked how these Exchequer Bonds were to be issued? It was proposed that Exchequer Bonds for various sums should be issued; that they should fall due at different periods year by year; that they should bear interest at 3½ per cent, and that they should be issued, not to the market generally, but to the National Debt Commissioners, who would have considerable sums of money available in their hands at the present time, in consequence of the repayment of the monies which they were authorized to advance for the purposes of the Irish Church. At the time when the arrangement was originally proposed, in December last, a scheme was proposed, showing how the matter would work, and although it slightly differed from that which the Government now intended, it sufficiently explained the nature of the operation. The proposal was, that a sum of £200,000 a-year should be set aside to redeem the debt of £4,100,000, the sum in round numbers to be paid for the purchase of the Suez Canal shares and the expenses, and it was calculated that the Debt would be extinguished in 37 years by the payment partly of interest and partly of capital. In the first year £200,000 would pay £143,500 of interest on capital and leave £66,500 with which to pay off bonds. In the following year there would be a smaller interest to be paid on capital and a larger amount would be available for the bonds until the 36th year, when £11,000 only would be required for interest and £118,000 for bonds. Since then the Government had determined that it would be better to pay off the bonds half-yearly instead of yearly, and the effect would be somewhat to the advantage of the Treasury; although the change would somewhat disturb the transaction, and make the practical settlement somewhat longer;
  1422
  and he also hoped that it would not be thought necessary to issue £4,080,000 of bonds, but simply £4,000,000, paying £80,000 out of the surplus of the year. In point of fact, according to the Table which he had now in his hand, it was proposed that the payment should be made in March and September, and that the first payment should be made in September next, and the last payment in March, 1912. The matter was one of a purely financial character, and would be best discussed when they came to consider the financial condition of the country. As he had said, it was not intended that these bonds should be put upon the market. They would be held by the National Debt Commissioners, and would bring them 3½ per cent. It would be a good interest to them, and would not be lost to the nation, because they were in fact paying the interest on behalf of the Savings Banks deposits. The arrangement was similar in principle to what had been done in like cases before, with the difference that Exchequer Bonds were to be employed instead of Terminable Annuities. The Exchequer Bonds had two advantages—they distinguished between the amount of principal and the amount of interest, and though these securities were not intended to be negotiated, they could, in the case of any emergency, be negotiated.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. DODSONthought the principle which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to pursue was a right one—namely, that he should only provide for the capital amount, and that the expenses should be paid out of revenue. When, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his first statement it was understood that there was included in this £4,000,000 a further sum which was for payment of expenses, and he (Mr. Dodson) should like to know whether, in accordance with the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now pursuing, that sum ought to be paid out of revenue and not provided for by way of loan? He had intended to take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman a question concerning the production of Mr. Cave's Report, or at

  1423
  least the communication to the House of the substance of the information which Mr. Cave had furnished to the Government; but as he understood there would be another Bill in connection with the subject of the Suez Canal shares shortly before the House, and that by that time Mr. Cave would probably have returned to England, he should defer putting any questions. He should like, however, to know when the Bill to which he alluded would be introduced, and when Mr. Cave might be expected home?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a great improvement in the Bill by his proposal to take the larger part of the commission by way of Vote in a Supplemental Estimate, and not in the form of a loan. There is still, however, a small part of the commission to be borrowed. It is proposed to borrow £20,000 and to vote £80,000, and I hold that the whole commission ought to be voted by the House. I should like to know something about another small sum which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he computed the exact sum payable to the Khedive at £3,976,000, and raised the sum to £3,980,000, for the sake, as he said, of round numbers. It is a small sum, but I think the uniform principle is, that when a large sum is voted by this House, to vote the exact amount under that particular head, and not to vote a lump estimate for any supposed expenses. I do not desire to enter at large, although I should be quite entitled to do so, upon the subject of the Canal; but I wish to refer to one point which was alluded to the other night and to another which has arisen from something that has been said to-night. I will take first the point that has been raised to-night. In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), it has been stated by the Prime Minister that the Government have refused the proposal of the Pacha of Egypt to appoint a Commissioner to superintend and to participate in the proceedings of a bank which it is proposed to found in Egypt in some kind of connection with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says that Her Majesty's Government have declined, and I have not the
  1424
  least hesitation in saying the answer of Her Majesty's Government will convey a sense of considerable relief to the public mind. But unfortunately, as has been observed by an ancient poet—
  "Medio de fonte leporun,
  Surgit amari aliquid."
  The right hon. Gentleman did not allow us to enjoy the comfort which he administered for any length of time, for he proceeded to sketch out another extreme, which, if it were proposed. Her Majesty's Government would be in a condition to entertain. I hope it will not be thought that I am premature in calling attention to the very slight and at the same time appalling outline of the scheme which it is proposed to substitute for the scheme of the Khedive. I shall be glad if any explanation is given which will remove the difficulties and apprehensions which we may feel in connection with it. Let me say that while I can understand the motives connected with recent transactions which have led Her Majesty's Government to feel that it may be matter of importance, for reasons connected with their own conduct and proceedings, to bolster up Egypt, I think that in the whole of that matter they are treading upon tender ground. This is a question on which the public mind is extremely sensitive, and unless they are very cautious in the proceedings they adopt they may bring serious consequences on Parliament and on themselves. The scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has described as one which might be entertained we know nothing of, except from the language which was used. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not disposed to entertain—[Mr. DISRAELI: Consider.]—I am glad to be corrected, but we mean the same thing, though I think "consider" goes rather farther than "entertain." Whether it goes farther or not, the proper course is to take the right hon. Gentleman's own word, and not the word which my imperfect recollection substituted for it. He said that the Government would not be indisposed to consider a proposition of the Khedive's, that they should appoint a Commissioner to be the receiver of certain branches of the revenue of Egypt, whose special office would be to apply those branches to the liquidation and payment of the calls arising upon a portion of the Egyptian Debt.

  1425
  It immediately suggested itself to my mind, What is to be the position o£ this fortunate or unfortunate Commissioner? I will imagine myself, for the sake of argument, discharging, or attempting to discharge, the duties of the Commissioner: I set out to Alexandria armed, or not armed, as the case may be, with a plentiful following of financial and diplomatic secretaries. When I get to Alexandria I obtain a comfortable lodgment, and wait there to receive certain money which is to be brought to me. I am told that it constitutes the proceeds of the customs of Alexandria. When this money is brought to me my difficulties begin. How am I to know, being Commissioner for Her Majesty's Government, that this money constitutes the proceeds and the whole proceeds of the customs of Alexandria? If I am only to be there to receive what I am told constitutes the proceeds of the customs of Alexandria, then it seems to me that the appointment of this Commissioner may only be what I am sure is not desired by Her Majesty's Government—a mask under which Egypt, or the agents and advisers of the Egyptian Government, may inveigle the British public further with reference to Egyptian finance. Upon that consideration I am completely at the mercy of those who bring me the money—when they please, how they please, and in what quantity they please. I have no means of knowing whether it represents the customs of Alexandria. If the Commissioner is to be really responsible he must have the means of knowing what his revenue is, and that the money brought to him really represents the entire revenue levied under the head on which it has been paid. It is impossible that he can have that knowledge, unless he is naturally entrusted in every material and substantial respect with the levying of that revenue. For my part, I cannot conceive how there can be a fallacy in that method of looking at the case. If the Egyptian Government were to send a Commissioner to England, and that gentleman were to receive the customs at the port of London and apply them to a specific purpose, he would have no difficulty in ascertaining the amount from our system of accounts; but I do not at all feel the same assurance with regard to Alexandria. I should, therefore, wish to know whether,
  1426
  if the proposition for the appointment of such a Commissioner be entertained, the right hon. Gentleman means the appointment of a Commissioner who would really have such an effective control over all arrangements and the mode of accounting for these revenues that he could guarantee to us the receipt of the whole, that it might be applied to the purpose in view? If this is what it does mean, it appears to me that we are only shifting the difficulty one step further; because in that case our Commissioner is to take into his hands the administration of a very important portion of the government of Egypt; so that the measures which we may think necessary as a matter of prudence to cover the proposal which we are to consider may entail upon us still greater difficulties and mix us up still further with a heavier responsibility for a portion of the internal government of Egypt. When we have begun with one portion of the internal government of Egypt we may pass on to another. We may come to occupy the entire ground by series of degrees not difficult to contemplate, and possibly this may have been in the mind of the right hen. Gentleman the other night, when he said that while the people of this country would view the diminution of the Empire with horror, they would see it increased without dissatisfaction. I now wish to refer to the dismissal of Sir Daniel Lange. I must go back to the controversy with respect to the publication of these letters. My opinion is that the publication of these letters was an inadvertence. They were addressed to the Secretary of State in confidence; but I am not disposed to blame either the Government or the Foreign Secretary, because the preparation of these documents necessarily takes place in an office. It is impossible that the whole manuscripts can be revised by the Foreign Secretary, and it may be that, through the mistake of some official, these letters came before him without the important appendage of "Private and confidential" which was marked upon them. Now, with regard to Sir Daniel Lange, I cannot help saying, that there is no individual next to M. de Lesseps himself who has been more essentially associated with the whole history of this great enterprize, and with all its struggles in the period of its most formidable difficulties, than Sir Daniel Lange. I know

  1427
  the untiring zeal and ardour with which this gentleman has laboured to dispose the public mind of England in favour of this project. In company with M. de Lesseps he held 22 meetings in the great centres of commercial industry, and the effect of these meetings was to satisfy M. de Lessops that however the Government at that moment might, unfortunatey, be indisposed to the prosecution of the enterprize, the commercial public perfectly understood its beneficial character, and would take full advantage of it in the event of its being carried into effect. It was, therefore, with a feeling of painful surprise that I hoard of Sir Daniel Lange's dismissal. Of course, we have nothing to do with the dismissal of an officer of the Canal under ordinary circumstances, but I maintain that in this case the circumstances are not ordinary. This is the moment when we have been told that it is necessary for us to obtain a paramount influence and effective control over the Suez Canal. We have just paid £4,000,000 for the purpose of introducing England to the responsibilities and duties of this great undertaking, and yet this is the very moment chosen by the administrative Council in Paris and M. de Lesseps as Director-in-Chief to dismiss Sir Daniel Lange. Sir Daniel Lange is said to be dismissed on account of those letters marked "Private and confidential" addressed to Lord Granville seven years ago. I will only say I think it unfortunate that those letters have been published without the privity of Sir Daniel, who under the circumstances has a great title to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In fact, I would suggest that the commanding influence we have acquired over the Suez Canal shall be at once exercised—and it cannot be more becomingly or more beneficially exercised than by the friendly intervention of Her Majesty's Government with M. de Lesseps and his colleagues on the Council at Paris in order to procure by amicable means the reinstatement of Sir Daniel Lange. His sole offence is that he has been too English in his feelings, for the plea of official irregularity is but a poor pretext for the dismissal of a man who has had more to do with the making of the Canal than any one except M. de Lesseps himself. I must, however, look for another reason for the dismissal of Sir Daniel Lange. It is complained that he com-
  1428
  municated with the late Government in a manner which betrayed too much leaning towards his own country, and too much English prejudice. I know that the official objection was, that these were unauthorized communications; but my belief is that the spirit of official pedantry cannot be so predominant in the Council of the Canal that this is the real reason. My opinion is, that the real reason was a little self-assertion on the part of M. de Lesseps. M. de Lesseps has read plenty of articles in the English newspapers; he has read the speeches of the ardent and glowing admirers of this transaction in its substance as well as its form. He was threatened with deposition from that throne on which he sits administering the supreme control of the affairs of the Canal, and it is not unnatural that he should say—"It is time for me to show the English Government and the English Press, and the world at large, that I intend to be master of my own house." If that was his intention, he could not possibly have adopted a more convenient and effective method of proving the reality of the power which he wields, and its complete concentration in his own hands—his determination that this country shall not cease either the control of this enterprize, or the influence in the conduct of its affairs which has been the result of these proceedings, than by this sudden and, I think, not very courteous dismissal of this most zealous, most indefatigable, and, I believe, able and faithful agent of the Company. I hope the Government will consider this matter. The people of this country cannot fail to perceive that it has a direct and serious bearing upon the existence of English influence. Sir Daniel Lange has been guilty of no offence that I am aware of, except that he loved his country a little too well, and was anxious that she should obtain a greater influence over the Canal. I am certain it is a matter of great satisfaction to all who are interested in the subject of the Suez Canal, if any hope is held out that this gentleman is to receive any—I will not say any compensation or reparation—but if any measures are to be taken with respect to him, which will have the effect of removing the consequences of the blow that has fallen upon him. There is yet another matter with regard to which I want to make a request of Her Majesty's Government. It is this—

  1429
  No contradiction has been given by the Government to the statement which reached us some time ago from the East, with regard to the new arrangements between M. de Lesseps and Colonel Stokes on the subject of the surtax, and I am very anxious that the Government should, at the earliest opportunity, explain to us the particulars of the arrangement, and the exact operation of that charge which has been made in respect to the trade of the Canal. As I read the figures—and my computations are not founded upon as large information as theirs—the effect of the charges will be to impose an increased burden, and a prolongation of the burden upon the trade passing through the Canal. If that be so, naturally the country will again be surprised at the operation of this new and commanding influence which we are constantly told we have acquired. But I speak subject to correction: my only request is, that correct information may be given us through the kindness of the Government at as early a period as may be convenient.
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman commenced by attributing to us some financial projects which were purely imaginary. An inquiry was addressed to me which I answered in frankness and without circumlocution, adding an observation which I felt it my duty to make, and which I was authorized to make. The right hon. Gentleman then creates a project or scheme of which he has no proof, and dissects and criticizes it at considerable length. Sir, I must protest against the introduction of imaginary projects on matters of this importance, precipitating events, arriving at premature conclusions, and not at all advancing the progress of Public Business in this House. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that, when negotiations are proceeding, whether with respect to the Suez Canal, or in answer to requests made by a foreign Potentate, he is at liberty to make comments which, I think, every man of sense and temper must feel may be productive of very injurious consequences. I cannot, therefore, gratify the curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman upon the first point, on which he dwelt at so much length. I think it will not be convenient to the public service to go further than I have gone upon this topic. I can only say that Her
  1430
  Majesty's Government will enter into no arrangements for sending Commissioners to Egypt or any other country, unless they believe that the course they are taking is for the public advantage, and they will guard the public interests entrusted to them to the best of their ability. With regard to the incident of Sir Daniel Lange, upon which the right hon. Gentleman also commented at length, I can only judge of it as others do, so far as Sir Daniel Lange is concerned, from the public journals. The right hon. Gentleman hints that we should make Sir Daniel Lange some compensation; but Sir Daniel Lange has made no communication to the Government, and no complaint has reached us from him upon the point mentioned by the right hen. Gentleman. I believe Sir Daniel Lange to be an estimable and able man, and in this matter of the Suez Canal he has rendered service, and I should be glad to protect his interests as I would any other of Her Majesty's subjects. If he makes any communication to the Government he will be listened to with attention. But at present we are in total ignorance of the feelings of Sir Daniel Lange; he has made no complaint, and has not placed himself in communication with us. I may say that I do know privately that a personal communication has been made by M. Charles Lesseps to our Ambassador at Paris; and certainly so far as regards the feelings entertained towards Sir Daniel Lange and the explanation of his withdrawal from the partial management of the Canal, those feelings were not of a hostile, but were of a conciliatory, character. I should hope, indeed, that explanations may be given which will be generally satisfactory; and perhaps we shall find that the right hen. Gentleman has been unnecessarily alarmed with respect to Sir Daniel Lange. As to the passages published from Sir Daniel Lange's letters, the propriety of which publication the right hon. Gentleman challenged so severely, I repeat that these letters did not appear through inadvertence. The question whether they should be published or not was well considered, and they were published according to the rules and accepted regulations of our Foreign Office. There are five despatches of Sir Daniel Lange addressed to the distinguished statesman

  1431
  who was then Secretary of State, and a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. They were not all "private and confidential." Two of them are not so marked, and they are the most important. They were considered necessary to give the House a clear conception and complete history of the relations of this country with the Suez Canal, and of the previous negotiations which had occurred in this country respecting it. Moreover, the letters were submitted to the distinguished Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman before they were published. Having received his sanction, and no complaint of their publication having been made by Sir Daniel Lange, I am still in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a perverted view of these transactions—that ultimately it will be found that Sir Daniel Lange has not suffered from the publication of the letters as the right hon. Gentleman supposes, and that he may be restored to the position he held in connection with the Canal. The right hon. Gentleman asks for some further information as to the result of the negotiations between Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps respecting the surtax on the navigation of the Canal. As Colonel Stokes is almost daily, I may say hourly, expected in England, I think the House will feel it would be but fair to us to have the advantage of conferring with Colonel Stokes before we have any debate in Parliament upon this subject. Let me also remind the House that these negotiations between Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps respecting the surtax and other matters connected with the Canal cannot be decided by the mere will of Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps; they must be submitted to the signatory Powers represented at the International Convention upon the Canal which met at Constantinople; and though I anticipate no difficulty, this is an affair which requires some time. The comity of nations requires that we should not attempt to decide these things without duly consulting the Powers concerned. I think, therefore, it will be on the whole more beneficial to discuss the question when it is completely settled rather than prematurely. At the same time, when Colonel Stokes comes over, and we have the documents in our hands, we shall be glad to give information and enter into explanations, on the understanding that we do so pro-
  1432
  visionally, subject to the ultimate acceptance and ratification of the terms by the other Powers. These, I think, are the three points noticed by the right hon. Gentleman. I protest against his imaginary project respecting the conduct and duties of the Commissioners whom, he says, we are going to send to Egypt. I hope that, notwithstanding the dark view he takes, the relations between the Suez Canal Company and Sir Daniel Lange are not of that tyrannical character which he indicates; and with regard to the negotiations respecting the surtax, I think the House, and even the right hon. Gentleman, will feel that our discussion on this subject had better be postponed till Colonel Stokes returns and the Papers are in our possession.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that before the Bill was read a third time he was anxious to express his regret at the manner in which the financial part of the operation had been carried out by Her Majesty's Government. He confessed that while fully recognizing the necessity of preserving our access to India and the desirability of assisting a friendly Power, he was unable to see in what manner we should have acquired any additional power by the purchase of the reversion of those shares; but even supposing that it was desirable to purchase the shares, the manner in which the operation was effected seemed to him open to very grave objection. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, said that the Government could not go to the Bank of England, because the Bank was by law forbidden to lend money to the Government. But that was no answer to the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Lowe and Mr. Gladstone), who urged that the Government would have done well to consult the authorities of the Bank, and if they had done so, they would certainly have obtained the money on much more favourable terms. It had been supposed that the intention, in the first instance, must have been that some mercantile house should purchase the shares for the £4,000,000, contracting at the same time to re-sell them to the Government at an advance of £100,000. If that had been done, and if Parliament had really been free to act, the case would have been very different. But as the operation was actually carried out, it was a simple loan to Government at 15 per cent.

  1433
  Now, what was the state of the money-market at the time? The purchase was made on the 25th November, at which time the rate of interest was very low, and money very plentiful. The Times City Article of the 24th of November said—
  "The figures continue daily to droop, and are now quoted at 2⅜ to ½. Money in large amounts has been returned on the banks by borrowers, who could find no profitable employment at all for it, and the rates charged for the day-to-day loans against the security of Government stock are purely nominal. To the great increasing abundance of money is due mainly the rise referred to in Consols through the purchases of bankers, who see no prospect at present of preventing their surplus balances from becoming troublesomely large."
  But then the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government said—"Oh, but the firm which lent us the money would of course have to sacrifice securities, and in doing so might easily lose even the whole of the 2½ per cent commission." That was no doubt the impression under which the right hon. Gentleman acted; but if he had consulted any confidential adviser in the City, that idea would have been dispelled; and he thought he was speaking quite within bounds when he said that if the proper course had been adopted the money might easily have been borrowed without paying any commission at all. We had been told that this was a very small matter. Economy was, no doubt, just now at a discount. A great deal, however, might be done with £100,000. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he came to submit his Budget, would be able to look upon £100,000 as being a matter of very little consequence; but it was not so much the amount of money which had been lost as the humiliating fact that England should at this moment be borrowing money at 15 per cent. Her Majesty's Government seemed to have thought there was a necessity for secrecy in the matter. There was no need for secrecy; there was a great need for publicity. And that brought him to the second aspect of the question, in which, also, as it seemed to him. Her Majesty's Government were seriously to blame. As soon as the purchase was made they ought surely to have announced it publicly. Why, if a railway company declared a dividend, the fact was at once made known; if a telegraph
  1434
  cable was broken, the public were at once informed. Yet here was an operation which must necessarily have had a great effect on prices, yet it was kept a secret; and those who were in the secret were enabled to make large profits at the expense of the public. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government did not deny that there were gigantic speculations, but he said that they were in consequence of telegraphic orders from Grand Cairo. But suppose they were, that did not affect the broad question at all. With regard to Mr. Cave's Report he did not know how far the telegraphic summary of it which had recently appeared was authentic. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Not at all.] Before sitting down he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider some of the advice which he had tendered to the Khedive. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Khedive had fallen into the error of parting with valuable and improving property for too low a price. He (Sir John Lubbock) ventured to say that the Khedive had done exactly the reverse. Many a man in this country had brought himself into pecuniary difficulties by borrowing money at 4 and 5 per cent to buy land which only paid 2 or 3. The Khedive was one of the largest landholders in the world; he was probably the largest farmer in the world, and one of the largest manufacturers and merchants, and these gigantic operations were carried on to a great extent by means of capital borrowed at a high rate of interest. In conclusion, he would only say—and he did so with regret—that whether this purchase was wise in itself or not, the manner in which it was carried out gave an unfortunate opportunity for speculation, and imposed an unnecessary expense upon the country.
  MR. MONKsaid, that in the publication of the despatches of Sir Daniel Lange it appeared that some letters marked "Private and confidential" had been published as well as those not so marked. He would like to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, first, whether, when Papers were marked "Private and confidential," it was usual to publish those so marked; and, secondly, whether it was usual to publish them without communicating with the

  1435
  writer? He heard with surprise from the Prime Minister, if he understood him rightly, that Lord Granville had given his consent to the publication of those letters. If so, he was convinced that Lord Granville must have felt satisfied that no injury could have accrued to Sir Daniel Lange. But, so far as appeared, the publication of those letters was most indiscreet. There were in the letters expressions which might have wounded the feelings of M. de Lesseps; but the whole correspondence did honour to Sir Daniel Lange, as an Englishman who had at heart the interests of his country, and at the same time faithfully represented the interests of the Company.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have only one observation to make on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. In speaking of the despatches addressed by Sir Daniel Lange to Lord Granville, the right hon. Gentleman stated that a copy of those despatches was sent to Lord Granville, and that it was with his consent they had been published. It is true that a copy of the despatches was sent to Lord Granville, but I have not been able to ascertain the circumstances under which it was sent, whether as a matter of courtesy or in accordance with the usual practice of the Foreign Office. But it is entirely a mistake to suppose that if the despatches were sent. Lord Granville was consulted as to their publication. No expression of opinion from Lord Granville was expected or asked; and Lord Granville would have gone entirely out of the way if he expressed any opinion as to the propriety of the publication or not. So far as my information goes, there was nothing in the despatches submitted to Lord Granville by the Government to show that they were private and confidential. If the House wishes, after having an opportunity of seeing Lord Granville, I can lay further information on the subject before it; but this I can state at once—that Lord Granville took no responsibility, nor was he expected to take any, in the matter of the publication.
  MR. DISRAELI: I did not for a moment wish to intimate that Lord Granville underwent any responsibility by reading those despatches, but only that it was usual for the Foreign Office to submit despatches which it had received
  1436
  to a late Foreign Secretary, and when they are submitted he has certainly an opportunity of objecting to their publication.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to say a word or two upon the subject of these despatches. It seemed to him that a very extraordinary doctrine had been propounded by the Prime Minister. Some of these despatches were "private and confidential," and the right hon. Gentleman said that they had been published by the Government notwithstanding. The meaning of that was, that the Government received information, given on the express condition by the informant, that it should be "private and confidential," and then, having gained the advantage of that information, assumed to itself the right to break the condition on which the information had been given, and thus subjected the person who had given it to great disadvantage and loss. He maintained that no Government had any right to do that. He utterly denied that any Government could discharge themselves of their moral obligation to preserve faith with people who had given them their confidence? And, further, he would say, even if those despatches were sent to Lord Granville,-and oven supposing he were asked his opinion as to whether they should be published or not, it was no more in the power of Lord Granville than of the right hon. Gentleman to break faith with the man who had given the information. One word more. The right hon. Gentleman the other evening was never tired of telling us of the immense influence and power we had gained by the purchase of the Suez Canal shares. Well, here was a fine opportunity of showing it. A most estimable person had been discharged from his place and put to a good deal of annoyance for doing a service to us. He could not imagine a more fitting occasion on which this great power and influence which we had gained could be shown. The right hon. Gentleman might say that though the Government had acquired great influence they did not want to abuse it. He did not want them to abuse it. But let them use that influence. Lord Derby, when boasting of the great influence we had obtained by the transaction, had said that even though we should receive no dividends for 19 years, and even if we should obtain no share in the direction,

  1437
  the man who did not see that we did gain immense additional influence by this expenditure of £4,000,000 it was useless to argue with. Now was the time to show what influence we had gained. In the case of any other person, instead of summary dismissal the matter would have been laid before Her Majesty's Government and some conferences or correspondence would have been entered into before any step was taken. But here a man had been summarily dismissed without any communication whatever with Her Majesty's Government. Could there be a better opportunity of showing that the Government had gained the power of which they spoke? On the other hand, could any one believe that we had influence if we could not redress an injury to a most meritorious man?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to say one word in explanation. He had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich whether the intention was to submit a Vote for £80,000 in Committee of Supply, but the Vote in Supply had already been taken for £4,080,000, and the only question now was how to find the Ways and Means for it. With respect to the issuing of Exchequer Bonds for £4,080,000, he did not expect to issue more than £4,000,000. The case was analogous to that of the Alabama Claims. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) took power to issue the whole, but he did not find it necessary to do so.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND. (£4,080,000) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND. (£4,080,000) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. DODSONasked what were the circumstances with regard to the fragmentary sum to be asked for?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, something was paid to the captain of the ship for bringing over the
  1438
  bonds, and that, with the interest, came to something more than £79,000. They took a Vote to cover the entire expenditure, but it was not certain yet as to what particular item the sum would be applied, but if it were found to be more than sufficient for the purpose, the balance would be surrendered to the Exchequer. Mr. Cave was expected in England in a few days, and the Government would have an opportunity of obtaining further information.
  MR. GLADSTONEconsidered that the more correct and Parliamentary course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have adopted would have been to have dealt separately with the sum which was to be paid to the Khedive and that which was to be paid to Messrs. Rothschild. He admitted, however, that it was now too late for that. With regard to the fragmentary sum also, the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed was rather an inconvenient deviation from Parliamentary practice—namely, to ask the House to vote a certain sum, however small, without any Estimate, and for the insufficient reason that it was to make up a round number. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently not the smallest knowledge as to what the sum was to be applied, and that was scarcely the way in which the voting of the public money ought to be conducted.
  Mr. SULLIVANwished, in justice to M. de Lesseps, to say that when the proper time arrived for discussing the dismissal or withdrawal of Sir Daniel Lange, it would be found quite an erroneous assumption which had run through the short debate, that M. de Lesseps had been actuated either by bitterness, heat, or injustice in his conduct. He would only add that the letters written by the representative of the Canal Company, while displaying that partiality which an Englishman ought to show to his own country, were wanting in loyalty to the president of the committee of which Sir Daniel Lange was the representative, and that there was no commercial nation on earth and no mercantile firm in England which would allow its representative or secretary to act as Sir Daniel Lange did on that occasion towards M. de Lesseps.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARMY ESTIMATES.—RESOLUTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON,in rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given Notice—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of the Nation do not demand any increased expenditure on the Land Forces."
said, that in common with the rest of the House, he heard with great admiration the clear and eloquent exposition of the Army Estimates made on Thursday night by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War. There was one sentence in the speech which pleased him much; it was when the right hon. Gentleman said with sincerity that there was no warmer friend of peace in the House than he was. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) believed in the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's assertion, and as he also was a friend of peace, they did not differ in their object, but only in their opinions, as to the best means of promoting it, and the question he brought forward was whether their large standing Army was really more likely to produce peace or to lead us into war. Having congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his speech, he wished that he could congratulate the Government upon a certain portion of the Queen's Speech. The Government had introduced a new system as regarded the form in which the Queen's Speech was delivered. They used formerly to be told that the Estimates would be laid before them with due regard to economy. But that was now entirely omitted. He did not know why it should be omitted, for, indeed, it indicated the temper of the country. He was not under the insane delusion that in bringing forward the Motion he was acting a popular part. Economy was the most unpopular of doctrines. The popular doctrine was thus represented—
"The jolly old soldier who lives on his pay.
And spends half-a-crown on his sixpence a-day."
The Government which spent money generously was far more popular than a cheeseparing Government which looked
1440
after the interests of the taxpayer. He and those who supported his views admitted that the country might not be with them at present; but he was content to follow the example of those right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench who spoke so much about the Suez Canal shares. This country was against them, but he honoured them all the more, as that was the time for men to speak out, and although the part they took was not popular now, they would have their reward hereafter. He was very glad that the debate of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) was over, because they need not be distracted by going into military details. They had a good many the other night; but when they got into Committee they would have to fight a good many more, and he wished the Secretary at War a good deliverance from them. He should like to know why they required this great standing Army. He was afraid that it was vain to ask why they had such an expenditure upon it. Without going into any administrative details, he hoped those who followed him in the debate would confine themselves to the policy of the country in this particular matter, for as the Prime Minister, in one of those maxims with which he sometimes favours the House, most truly said—"Expenditure depends on policy." That was the only opportunity they had of discussing the broad spirit of the question, and it was important that they should do so. Lord Derby, in one of his sensible speeches, talking about Army organization, said—"Let us decide what we want the Army for—what are its duties?" That was his sole object in bringing forward his Amendment. He wanted a statement from the Crown as to what was the object which they proposed to themselves in levying those forces. He asked the question every year, and never got an answer yet; but he was in hopes of getting an answer tonight. An Army must be for one of two objects—either for offence or defence. Besides, hon. Gentlemen must not forget the existence of the Fleet, which was sometimes utterly ignored on this question; and the Fleet, being now free from looking after slaves, could devote itself entirely to the protection of the country. He did not think that 500,000 armed men were required for the protection of this country from invasion. It might be

1441
that the Volunteers and Militia could not count for much; but he heard a glowing account from the Secretary at War the other night, and he proved that these branches of the Service contained some of the greatest warriors that the world had ever seen. Then, if they did not want so large an Army for home protection, it must be to enable them to interfere in foreign affairs. That was what he said they did not want an Army for. He had read a letter from the chaplain to the Forces, who spoke of the Army as "God's high police," but he would like to know from whence they got their high commission? He concurred in the opinion already expressed that the Army was corrupting the people. Some people contended that England was not to give up the European position to which she was entitled; but he thanked Heaven they had given up that notion altogether of interfering in Europe. They never suggested an interference to save Poland from injustice, and he did not know when the House was more stirred than when Prussia attacked Denmark. Then the French and German War broke out, and England sat by and allowed two great nations to cut each other's throats without going to make the mischief worse. He might also mention the Alabama settlement at which hon. Gentlemen opposite jeered the other night, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to his everlasting credit, took part in that settlement, by which England, in submitting fairly to the award, though it went against her, gained more honour than she could have won by the bloodiest victory on the battle-field. They had few opportunities now-a-days of obtaining preeminence by fighting, so they had lately adopted a new system of getting influence in the world—namely, by buying up shares. To accomplish what the head of the Government called a great political transaction, we gave a great price for shares with the coupons cut off. The country was delirious with delight at the purchase; and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) declared that it would make the Prime Minister's name memorable for all time, in which he quite agreed with him. Such a policy was certainly better than fighting; but if they adopted it they did not want so big an Army. The right hon. Gentleman had paid his £4,000,000 like a man; but why
1442
did he not knock off that sum from the Army Estimates? No one would miss it there. The settlement of disputes by force could be reduced to three alternatives. If they went to war it must be either with a Power that was stronger than themselves, or with a Power that was weaker than themselves, or with one that was exactly of the same strength as themselves. If they fought with a weaker Power they were cowardly; if they fought with a stronger Power they were foolish; and if they fought with a Power of equal strength, it was a toss up who should win. But then people would say that they must have a standing Army, and that what the Minister was doing was to provide for the efficiency of the Army. He asked them not to throw themselves into a fever for the purpose of obtaining efficiency. That was the sort of language that had been going on as long as he could remember—as long as he had had the honour of a seat in that House. In one of his speeches the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich said the plea of efficiency as a ground for extra charge ought not to be admitted without a great deal of careful security, for the result of his experience was that whenever there was a disposition to spend money it was invariably discovered that the services were inefficient. Years ago they were told that if they only got the Militia they would be safe. Well, they got the Militia, and then they wanted fortifications. The fortifications were erected at a great expense; but people were then as much alarmed as ever, and nothing would appease them but the enrolment of the Volunteers. The Volunteers were accordingly raised, and yet our military expenditure had been increasing ever since. Then came Lord Cardwell with his scheme for blending the Army into one harmonious whole—what they had been trying to do with the Liberal Party for the last two years; and now they had a mobilization scheme, the meaning of which nobody knew, and therefore he would not speak about it. But after all these changes, which were to work such wonders, an hon. Gentleman like the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) got up and, backed by some of the colonels, told them the whole thing was as rotten as any human institution could well be. Why, in 1876, were they asked for the largest peace

1443
establishment this country ever had? [An hon. MEMBER: NO.] Well, however that might be, it was far too large. Against whom were they arming so tremendously? In the Queen's Speech they were told that our relations with all foreign Powers were most cordial. They could not now have France as a bugbear, as in Lord Palmerston's time; while Prussia, on the other hand, had enough to do in looking after France. Then, as to Russia, to judge from the tone of public opinion, we were more likely now to fight by her side than against her. Having fought for the Turks 20 years ago, if we fought again, we should probably turn about and go against them. But, in his opinion, instead of fighting for the Christians of Herzegovina, we had better settle how to bury our own Dissenters. He knew what the answer of his right hon. Friend would most likely be. He would say very truthfully he had no doubt that he had no intention to disturb the peace of Europe and mix in their affairs, but that we must be ready for these little wars in Ashantee, Abyssinia, Malay, and on the Gold Coast, where our troops went out, and, after shooting a few Natives, came back and got decorated as if they had defeated the whole Prussian Army. But we had been able to carry on these little wars on our present establishments, and therefore there was no reason for increasing them. It was said that we might, in spite of all precautions, get into quarrels of a European kind; so we might, but then we might and ought to keep out of them. The Times, in an article the other day, summed up the matter in a few words, when they said that what a Minister had to do was to measure not possibilities but probabilities. That was so; let us then deal with probabilities like rational men. He had heard that Mr. Green, the aeronaut, lived to a great age, and the one reason of this was the living so much of his time up in the air in balloons, he did not run a risk of getting run over by cabs. It was said that we might get into these quarrels. So we might; but why did we put right hon. Gentlemen opposite into places of honour and profit for but that they might prevent England getting into these quarrels? If they did get into quarrels which they could not get settled without an appeal to force, they were, he maintained,
1444
failures in statesmanship; and he maintained that they were more tempted to cut the Gordian Knot with the sword and settle matters by brute force if they had a great army than a small one. The House would, he thought, agree with him that the present state of Europe was horrible and heart-rending. There were now 9,000,000 men in arms, at a yearly expenditure of £136,000,000. This might be called peace, but it was in reality nothing but smothered war. And yet most of these countries were professors of the Christian religion of peace on earth and good-will to men. Most of them had established Churches professing to be Christian Churches; but the real established religion in those countries was that of Mars as much as it had ever been in any country on the face of the earth, and at any time in the history of the world. England had now a great opportunity of setting a great example to the world. Indeed, there never was such an opportunity. Here we were without a whisper of discontent in any part of the United Kingdom. We had no unworthy objects to seek; we had no territorial disputes; we had no quarrel with any great Power. Surely, then, we might reduce armaments, which so cruelly pressed upon the springs of industry. He did not know what support he should get for his Motion. He did not expect much support from his hon. Friend opposite,' although he was happy to say that on a former occasion the Nestor of the Tory Party—the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire—had voted against this rapid increase of our armaments. But still he could not expect that many hon. Gentlemen opposite would vote with him, because having confidence in the Government they would naturally back them up in their Estimates. But the right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench were heirs of the traditions of the Whig Party. Let them show that they shared the opinions of the Party. The Whig Party had once won great laurels by advocating peace, retrenchment, and reform. Let right hon. Gentlemen now support the retrenchment which was the earnest of peace. They had heard a good deal lately of the height of our soldiers and their girth round the chest, and the House cheered loudly when they heard that that height and girth had not diminished. Well, he was not anxious about

1445
the stature and proportions of the British soldier, but he was anxious about the stature of British statesmen, and he did hope that the occupants of the front Opposition bench would show that in this respect there was no degeneracy, either in their heads or their hearts. If they voted with him they would, at any rate, show that there was some difference between them and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for they could not go to the country on the cry of Sir Daniel Lange. There was certainly a small number of hon. Members on that side of the House—let them be called if they liked a wretched minority, or a Radical residuum—who would vote with him on that Motion, and thus declare that in their opinion mighty armaments were not the glory, but the disgrace of a country, and that true statesmanship consisted, not in providing the machinery for human slaughter, but in gradually leading the minds of men to that superior way of settlement which was in accordance with peace, justice, religion, and humanity. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution.
MR. RICHARD: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle; and, in doing so, I cannot but express my deep regret that we should be called upon to vote £600,000 additional to our military expenditure this year. And that is not all; for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, with that perfect frankness which we should have expected from him, has told us that, if we accept his proposals, there will be a considerable prospective expenditure, stretching over many years to come. The only hope of reduction he holds out to us gleams upon us through a vista of 36 years a-head; for if any of us undertake to live to the year 1912, he promises us a diminution of £50,000 at that period in one of the items. And yet, compared with the preposterous and extravagant demands and expectations put forth in some quarters, perhaps we ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his moderation. But surely an Army expenditure of £15,000,000 during peace is monstrous. No country in Europe has so little justification as we have for a large expenditure on its army; and, in my opinion, no country in Europe gets so little for what it does expend. For the mortifying and discouraging fact is,
1446
that we seem to gain nothing as regards even our professed objects by lavishing such enormous sums on our armaments. I have watched with some attention the gradual growth of our naval and military establishments for the last 35 or 40 years; and what I observe is this, that in proportion as we add to what are called our national defences does the sense of insecurity increase, if we can trust those whom I may designate as the professional alarmists. I am old enough to remember 1835, when, under the Administration of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, we were satisfied with a little more than £11,500,000 for all our fighting establishments—Army, Navy, and Ordnance. And certainly we were then perfectly calm and contented, able to sleep comfortably in our beds, far more so than we can, or at least ought to do now, according to the views of the alarmists. And there is this further peculiarity about the case, that when you have conceded anything to the clamours of those who demand large armaments, what they have obtained becomes comparatively worthless in their estimation, and is immediately made a point of departure for demanding something else. So it has been with the Militia, the Volunteers, the Fortifications, the Army and Militia Reserve, the localization of the Forces, and other changes introduced by Lord Cardwell; and so it will be, I have no doubt, with the mobilization scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. When gotten, everything is utterly unsatisfactory, and we want something else. Thus we find, in an article in the current number of The Edinburgh Review, the writer tells us, after all that has been done for the last 30 or 40 years; after raising our forces from 100,000 men in 1835 to more than 500,000 in 1876, after spending more than £320,000,000 sterling on the Army alone within 20 years, from 1856 to 1876, "as respects the guarding of our national honour, and providing for the national defence, we are in a faulty, ruinous, and dangerous condition." But surely if, after these prodigious sums have been lavished on the Army, we are now told that we have no effectual defence, the people of this country have a right to ask—"What have you done with our money?" Now, there was a sentence once uttered in this House, by Sir Robert

1447
Peel, which I would respectfully recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to have inscribed in large letters upon the wall of the War Office, opposite the spot where his desk is placed, that he may have it continually before his eyes. It is this—
"If the House listens to the opinions of military men, who were naturally prejudiced upon this subject, they would involve the country in an outlay that no revenue could bear."
I hope I shall not offend the many hon. and gallant and quasi gallant Gentlemen with whom this House abounds by what I am about to say. But it is with me a matter of deep and earnest conviction, that one of the greatest calamities under which Europe is suffering at this moment, and has been suffering for many years, arises from the fact that its policy is so much under the influence of the military class. Everywhere—in the Courts of Kings, in the councils of Cabinets, in the deliberations of Parliament—their influence predominates, and that influence is constantly and stedfastly employed to propel the Governments deeper and deeper into that fatal system of rivalry in armaments under which all the nations of Europe are groaning, as a burden too heavy to be borne. I do not mean to say or insinuate, that military men love or desire war for its own sake, or that they are reckless of human slaughter and human suffering. On the contrary, I believe there are among them men as generous and humane, and as full of kind and benevolent sentiment as any class of the community. It is not among military men, especially if they have been engaged in actual service in the field, that we shall find those who speak of going to war with a light heart. And probably there are many of them who would sympathize with the sentiment of a very distinguished member of their profession. General Trochu, who, in a work published by him in 1867, uses these remarkable words. After a very vivid description of the evils inflicted by war on inoffensive populations, he continues—
"The spectacle of these devastations and sufferings is distressing to military men who have any elevation of spirit. They are astonished that modern civilization, which is so proud of having everywhere, in individual transactions, substituted for force the principles of law, still leaves international differences to be settled by
1448
letting loose the scourge of war. Their minds are filled with contempt for those men of the drawing-room (ces hommes de salon) who welcome and celebrate war in conventional language, which only reveals their own vanity, their ignorance, their ambition, and selfishness."
And I cannot but recall with pleasure that when I brought forward and carried in this House a Motion in favour of international arbitration as a substitute for war, I was supported by the votes of a considerable number of hon. and gallant Gentlemen. Still I cannot but feel that it is a great evil that a large body of intelligent and active-minded men, who perhaps have nothing particular to do during these piping times of peace, should have all their faculties and energies devoted to extending the fighting establishments of the world. I do not blame them. Like all other professions, they do what they can to magnify their own office. But, unhappily, their professional prejudices colour everything they look upon. By dwelling continually upon one class of ideas, these grow into such proportions as to occupy the whole sphere of their vision, so that they cannot conceive of civilized and Christian nations as existing in any other relation to each other than that of armed and mutual menace. I know no remedy for this, but for the people of Europe to take the management of their affairs out of the hands of the military class into their own. On this ground I feel grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) that he, as a civilian, should, with such laborious diligence, have sought to master the details of our military system, and expose what he considers its defects. It required a great deal of courage to do this, for he must have known that he was thrusting his hand into a hornets' nest, and that the military wasps would come out and buzz about his head as they have done, and, I have no doubt, will continue to do. Now, I must repeat the question already asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, what do we want all these forces for? Is it to defend ourselves against attack? But from whom do we apprehend attack? France used to be the great God-send of the panic-mongers, and I think few can look back without humiliation and shame to the series of ignoble panics to which we delivered ourselves as a nation as respects France. It mattered not under what Government France was placed,

1449
whether a Constitutional Monarchy, or a Republic, or an Empire. It mattered not how France was engaged, whether in the agonies of a domestic revolution, trying to construct a Constitution for itself out of the ruins of that which preceded it, or fighting the Austrians in Italy, or negotiating Commercial Treaties with this country, we were required to believe that France was always meditating mischief against this country. Nay, when we were in close and friendly alliance for purposes of peace it was all the same, for I remember the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, in rebuking one of these panics, said—
"At the very time when Prance was working with you for the common weal of humanity, her ruler is hold up as a bandit and a corsair, who was about piratically invading this country, without the slightest warning or previous cause of quarrel."
But the circumstances of France are now such that the wildest of the alarmists cannot profess to apprehend danger from her. Then, for what other purpose do we want a large Army? We have renounced the policy of intervention in the quarrels of the Continent, at least all our statesmen have done so—Conservative as well as Liberal. In proof of this I may cite the words of Lord Derby, the Foreign Secretary. In addressing his constituents at King's Lynn, when he was a Member of this House, adverting to the debate on the Dano-Grerman War, which had taken place in 1864, he said—
"The ostensible object of that debate was to take the sense of this House as to whether the Danish negotiations had been mismanaged, but the object with which many Members—I among the rest—went into it, was to obtain from Parliament a distinct and decided expression of opinion in favour of a policy of non-intervention in Continental disputes; in that we perfectly succeeded."
The right hon. Gentleman himself the Secretary for War made an admirable speech in the same debate, in which, referring to the facts of the Dano-Ger-man War, and the part we had taken in the matter, he said—
"I say that facts point to the conclusion that the position of England, free from Continental complications and embarrassments, fits her for being the mediator of Europe. They point out that, having nothing to gain from the oppression of the smaller States, nor from the damage of the larger, she is qualified to occupy a posi-
1450
tion of dignified neutrality, a position in which she can wield more influence than she could ever gain by war."—[3 Hansard, clxxvi. 1022.]"
It seems to me, Sir, that the only hope of salvation for Europe is, by the Governments beginning to retrace their footsteps—that, as they have been going on for generations, adding to their armaments on a system of rivalry to which there is absolutely no limit—so they should agree to enter on a process of mutual and simultaneous disarmament. I am happy to say that there is au important movement in this direction going on on the Continent of Europe. A proposal, backed by a largo number of Members, has been laid before the Austrian Reichsrath, proposing not only that there should be a reduction in the Austrian Army, but that the Imperial Government should "use its best endeavours to promote the idea of such a general, proportionate, and simultaneous reduction of armies, as would not affect the balance of power of the various States." A similar movement is contemplated in Germany, and it is probable that, before long, a proposition to the same purport will be submitted to the Gorman Parliament. I should like, if an opportunity offers during the present Session, to ask the opinion of this House on the same subject. I should rejoice, indeed, if our country were to have the honour of taking the initiative in so be-nificent an enterprize. There were words once uttered in this House by the present Prime Minister, which I should like to hear uttered again. They were words which he recommended the Government then in office to address to the Government of France. I wish he would now address these words not to the Government of France only, but to all the Governments of Europe, and I am confident that his voice would awaken a cordial and general response, at least among the nations of Europe, whatever the Governments might say. These are the words, and with them I conclude my observations—
"Let us terminate this disastrous system of wild expenditure by mutually agreeing, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and under circumstances which admit of no doubt, by the reduction of our armaments—that peace is really our policy."
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the Word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words

1451
"in the opinion of this House, the interests of the Nation do not demand an increased expenditure on the Land Forces,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawnson,)
—instead thereof.
MR. J. HOLMSsaid he must express, as others had done, their debt to the Secretary for War for the remarkably clear manner in which he had introduced the Army Estimates, and for the index which made reference to them comparatively easy. Although he could not express unqualified approval of the Army Estimates, yet the right hon. Gentleman had made many proposals that were in the right direction, and among them was the increase of pay to non-commissioned officers and to the Reserve. While admitting that we must see more of our Reserves in the future than we had in the past, he doubted the policy of calling them out for too long a period. In Prussia, after men had been made thorough soldiers they were allowed to go home, and were scarcely called out at all afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give 2d. a-day extra to all ranks below that of non-commissioned officers. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: Not to those who come on the pension list after 12 years.] As all except these were to receive 2d. a-day extra, he scarcely thought the House was in a position to tell what would be the exact cost of the Army for 1876–7. The Estimate provided for an increase of 3,600 men, and of £603,900 in expenditure. The pay amounted to £163,000, and that sum would have a great deal of duty to do. The right hon. Gentleman said that the increase required for non-commissioned officers' pay amounted to £104,000, of which sum India was to provide £37,000. The lodging expenses for non-commissioned officers amounted to £15,000, the additional pay to the Foot Guards to £8,000, and that for the men passing into the Reserve to £13,000, making in all, roundly, £126,500, or leaving £36,000 only for the pay of the 3,600 men who were to be added, or £10 per man, which seemed to show that they were at last beginning to pursue a policy of economy in respect of the British Army. But taking the pay at the moderate sum of £25, it would amount in all to £95,000 less the £37,000 which was provided, leaving a deficit of £58,000. His calculation, therefore, was
1452
that the increase of the Estimates would be £656,900. There remained the question of the deferred pay. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, 2d. a-day would not now be given to all privates, but all would expect it, and if withheld they would see greater dissatisfaction than ever. Now, on the 1st of January, 1875, the number of effectives borne on the Estimates was 155,000 men. This number receiving the increased pay of £3 0s. 10 d. a-year would involve an expenditure which would amount roundly to £470,000, but the Estimate only provided for £13,000, leaving £457,000 to be provided for; and, moreover, the Reserves were to receive an increase of £2 a man, or £19,000, for which no provision was made. He did not complain that those sums were not to be found in the Estimates, as the custom was that only the sum required for the current year appeared there. He thought, however, that it ought to be made clear to the House and the country that the proposal of the Government pointed at an increase of £476,000 a-year. Of that sum no less than £204,000 a-year would be contributed by the taxpayers of India. Hon. Members from Lancashire who were seeking for a reduction of the tax upon their goods should bear this fact in mind. He wished also to say a word or two as to recruiting. In 1861 the number of effectives which we had at the end of the year was 206,500, and to that number we had to get only 10,600 recruits. Three years later the number of men we had at the end of the year was 194,000, whilst we took 16,000 recruits; and in 1872–3 and 1874 we had 188,700 men, but the recruits were no fewer than 21,000. He must further say that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had said nothing as to the rivalry which existed between the recruiting sergeants of the Militia and the Line, and which undoubtedly affected India in the obtaining of recruits. Comparing the condition of our Army at present with what it was in 1861, he wished to point out that whilst the number of recruits required had gradually increased, whilst the number of effectives at the end of the year was absolutely fewer showing that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was right, and that whilst more men and money were asked for, we had at the present time a weaker force than before.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he would frankly confess that he had not been able distinctly to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), but he would say this generally, that with regard to all questions of deferred pay and the increase of the Army, that the amount required had been made up by those who made up the Estimates, and he was assured that the Estimates would cover the demand for the year. There might, however, be a greater number of deaths or a greater number of men discharged in a particular year than was allowed for; and, therefore, in all cases there could only be a rough estimate formed. He was sorry not to have been able to lay on the Table that day the Paper moved for by the hon. Member for Beading. The instant, however, it would be ready—and that would be soon—he would lay it on the Table, He found that in the final calculations the Army and the Reserves had been mixed together, and the figures would not have conveyed to the House the clear information which he wished the House to have. When it was in the hands of hon. Members it would be seen how and to What extent the calculations were made, not for this year, but for the ensuing years. The calculations he was, how-over, bound to say could only be founded on somewhat rough Estimates for each particular year. As to the additional Forces which were to be added to the Army, the hon. Member for Hackney seemed to have assumed that every recruit was paid from the first day of the year, though that was, of course, a complete fallacy. Some men did not join until the very last month of the year, and therefore, when the hon. Member assumed that a very large sum would come in course of payment during the year, the amount should really be put at one-half or one-third of that at which he put it. With respect to the calling out of the Reserve, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it ought to be done with great delicacy and consideration for the men; but what he and the country wanted to see was that the men came into the ranks; that they did not come merely for pay, but that they were prepared to put themselves in a position in which they would be ready for service. The Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was founded upon
1454
the assertion that the expenditure on the Army was excessive, and he asked what was the object of the Army? Well, the Army was intended for the defence of India, of our colonies, and of our own country; and, further, it was intended for offensive purposes also, should the necessity unhappily arise. These were the essential purposes for which we maintained our' Army, which was certainly not a large one compared with those of other countries in Europe. When those facts were considered he did not think that the Estimates before the House could be regarded as excessive. Certainly, when our Army was compared with those of other European Powers, no one could say that it was maintained for the purposes of offence. For himself, he must state that, if he thought that European complications were at hand, he should have proposed greater additions, lest at the last moment he might be obliged to do what his Predecessor in office had done—namely, under circumstances of great haste and confusion to bring up at once, probably 20,000 recruits. Now, what had been the consequences of bringing up 20,000 recruits in one year? the consequence was, that the Army was affected for years after by it, as they could not under such pressure get the kind of recruits that they required. That 20,000 being hurriedly raised had brought discredit upon the Army, from which it had scarcely recovered yet. With respect to the general question, he thought the House would admit that if they were to keep up their stores, fortifications, and armaments, and to lay the basis of an efficient Reserve, the proposed expenditure was necessary. Not only was all that he asked for necessary, but if he were to press for more he thought he could make out a strong case in support of such a proposal, and that the House would see the repression he had been obliged to exercise, and in some instances not without apprehension. But his endeavour had been to cut down the Estimates to that which he considered to be absolutely necessary. In that way his hon. Friend twitted him with studying "efficiency only;" but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich to which he referred, terminated in a very different way from what the hon. Baronet seemed to infer. The right hon. Gentleman

1455
said do not listen to the cry of "efficiency" without carefully scrutinising it, but look into it to see that that which you were doing might tend to promote it. He (Mr. Hardy) had never asked the House to give anything without a careful scrutiny, and he was far from wishing the House to give him anything without careful scrutiny, or to debar hon. Members from taking the sense of the House upon it, and discussing the subject at any length they might desire. Now, with respect to the increased expenditure, the new fortifications and barracks could not be kept up at the same expense as the barracks previous to that time, and, generally speaking, these large buildings could not be maintained without an increased expenditure, which must have been foreseen by those who were parties to planning and building them. His object, like that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, was peace; but, at the same time, he meant to be in such a position that he should not, in case of emergency, be driven into excessive haste—not driven to do anything under panic—and he could assure them he was under no panic now, or he should have proposed very different Estimates. He wanted to guard against haste, against panic, against uneasiness of mind, against false economy, which led to vast expenditure afterwards, and also against the suspicion that this great country could leave itself in a position which was founded upon the hope or expectation that it would always be at peace. He did not believe that the world at large had arrived at such a purely Christian state as had been spoken of by some hon. Members, so that it was incapable of going to war. He saw, indeed, every indication of the reverse of such a state of things, and, therefore, he wanted to lay a foundation of national defence which, if not large, should be solid. He had done something, he believed, to secure that result by a better treatment of the noncommissioned officers and soldiers, and by proposing measures to put the Army Reserve in such a position that it might be regarded as a reliable force. For these reasons, he might almost ask for the votes of the two hon. Gentlemen who had moved the reduction of the Army.
MAJOR BEAUMONTsaid, that he should vote for the Amendment with the
1456
view of saving money and not for the purpose of diminishing the efficiency of the Army. He should not attempt to reply to the shadowy arguments of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, because it would be like the Quixotic attempt of kicking a windmill—or, more properly, a water-mill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 63: Majority 129.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 132,884, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and for Depôts for the training of Recruits for Service at Home and Abroad, including Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, from the 1st day of April 1876 to the 31st day of March. 1877, inclusive."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 122,884, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and for Depôts for the training of Recruits for Service at Home and Abroad, including Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, from the 1st day of April 1876 to the 31st day of March 1877, inclusive."—(Mr. Pease.)
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he wished for further information than had yet been afforded as to the guns which were proposed to be placed in the fortifications, and he also desired to know why Major Moncrieff was no longer employed to carry out his system of gun carriages, and whether or not those carriages had been found efficient? Something had been said by the Minister for War in introducing the Estimates with regard to balloting for the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it would be necessary to put the system of recruiting for the Militia on a more satisfactory footing. Well, the country was somewhat apt to look upon that as a threat that they might have the ballot for the Militia; but if it was not intended

  1457
  to institute ballot for the Militia, why had it been broached? The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps inform the Committee why he had introduced the subject. Then as to Militia adjutants, he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether Volunteer adjutants could not be put on the same footing as regarded retirement as Militia adjutants. He wished also to know what would happen in the event of a Volunteer regiment or a Militia regiment being without its commanding officer and majors in the field? Would the Militia or Volunteer captain take command, or would it devolve upon the adjutant, seeing he, as a full-pay captain, had seniority over all Reserve Force captains. The arrangement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Army Reserve was a very good one. But with regard to the Militia there were two points which he (Mr. Anderson) would like to call attention to. One was this—that the Militia was made a back door through which incapable officers were transferred into the Line without passing through any examination, by favouritism on the part of the commanding officer of a Militia regiment. That was a most improper way of admitting officers into the Army. The other point was with reference to the want of rifle practice amongst the Militia. The men were never taught to shoot at all, and he had proved that last time he addressed the House on the subject, by the respective quantities of ammunition used. It was all very well to say that the Militia were a very efficient body of men, and that they were fit to be put with the Line regiments in drill; but what on earth was the use of efficiency in drill if the men could not shoot? He considered it was a mistake also to give up the practice of requiring officers to pass through class firing. He cordially agreed with the proposals to grant deferred pay and to increase the pay of the men in the Guards. He thought it very proper that the deferred pay should be forfeited by deserters, but hoped that in cases of death it would be paid to the surviving relatives. As far as the Guards were concerned, he thought better men would be induced to join if the time taken up by sentry duty was reduced. With regard to systematic desertion, which consisted in men going from regiment to regiment, he was very glad to find that
  1458
  the right hon. Gentleman had thought it worth while to take into consideration the proposition he (Mr. Anderson) had thrown out—of marking of all men who entered the Army. He believed that would be a complete safeguard against repeated desertion—a much better safeguard, at all events, than the old practice of branding was, for the deserter could not be marked until he had been caught. Marking, if made general, would, no doubt, cease to be looked upon as a disgrace; but of course it would require to be optional for the officers and men now in the Army. He disapproved of the proposal to increase the Estimates and the number of men, and thought that the recruits who were required could have been got without those new and expensive arrangements. The right hon Gentleman could have kept 18 regiments up to their full strength—up even to 1,000 men strong—without increasing the Vote, or adding to the number of men. It could have been done by keeping some of the regiments at two-thirds, or even a half, their proper strength, though of these the full staff of officers and non-commissioned officers should be maintained. It would be very easy to get such regiments to a thoroughly efficient state in a short space of time. Then it was costly to have large barracks in different parts of the country, and the necessity for this would be obviated if the number of men actually in the ranks in the Army were not increased. These institutions were nothing more nor less than moral plague spots in the country, and it was absurd to say that they were necessary. It looked as if they were kept for the purpose of overawing the country, and of keeping it in subjection, and he was sure no one would say that was necessary.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it was all very well to speak of marking the men as an honour, but he thought the people of the country were too shrewd not to see the real object of the marking. It was because the soldiers were distrusted, and because it was wished to keep them from deserting from the regiments. If he might offer counsel to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department, he should say—"Be very cautious before you take the step suggested." This was a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman would do well

  1459
  not to trust too much to the opinions of military men because they were biassed in favour of their profession. It was civilians who had no connection with the Army who were most competent to form a sound opinion on the subject. The marking had hitherto been a brand of ignominy, and he very much doubted whether the country would ever view it as a brand of honour. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had at length decided the vexed question of hospitals. It was more than 20 years since he (Sir Alexander Gordon) became an advocate of the general hospital system, and he knew what opposition had been offered to that in favour of the regimental system. The regimental system was all very well in time of peace, but in time of war it broke down. He was very glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had decided to hear no more complaints on the subject, and to carry out the general hospital system. He was less gratified, however, to find that the retiring age of medical officers had been fixed at 60. The work of those officers, being mainly administrative, could be as well performed by men at 60 as at 55, and by compelling them to retire at 60 we should be deprived of their great experience and ripe judgment. It was of no use endeavouring to popularize the service with the younger branches, while they made it unpopular with the older branches; and thus while increasing the non-Effective Vote they would deprive the country of the services of the most able and experienced men. There was one point in the right hon. Gentleman's statement on which he thought the House required more information, and that was with regard to the plan for a tactical station in the North of England. In 1872 the House of Commons voted £3,500,000 for carrying out the scheme of localization, and £300,000 of that sum was intended to be devoted to the formation of a tactical station in the North of England, partly because it was required for a corps to protect the Northeastern Coast. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been unable to find sufficient land for a tactical station, but that he had purchased a tract of land four miles distant from the town of York, and proposed out of the balance of the £300,000 to purchase 6,000 acres at Aldershot. He thought the House ought to be informed how much of the
  1460
  £300,000 had been applied to the one purpose, and how much to the other. In his opinion, the additional land at Aldershot would not compensate for the tactical station in the North, because the ground in the neighbourhood of Aldershot was so well known that manœuvres held there could not be of much practical utility. The mobilization scheme, which he believed was not yet generally understood, had been described as a scheme for the defence of the country from invasion. For his part he agreed with a statement made some time ago by the Commander-in-Chief, that a successful invasion of this country was almost impossible. At the same time, he thought it desirable that the subject should be placed in a little clearer light. By that scheme it was intended that England, should be prepared from whatever quarter an attack might come, and unless she were attacked by all the world, any scheme of defence that was applicable to all the world would be inappropriate. If England were at peace with France, and a war were to arise with Germany and Russia, the arrangements for the defence of the country would be different from what they would have been if they were at war with France and at peace with Russia and Germany. It was said that the soldier was to know by the scheme where he was to go; but it was because they were not all called to go to the front that he took exception to it. In the Channel Islands, which, if a war were to arise, would be a point of some interest to the Government, as it was a part of our dominions very likely to be attacked, one of the two regiments kept there during times of peace for the maintenance of order would be at once sent away to Petersfield, and the defence of these Islands would be left to the remaining regiment and the Militia, who had hardly ever been called out since the Peninsular War, except on holidays like the Queen's birthday. The defence of the Islands was in a marvellous condition, and he could not understand what the framer of the scheme had been thinking of. So also with troops at Shorncliffe, Brighton, and elsewhere on the South Coast which, in the event of a threatened invasion, were at once to march into the interior of the country. He also objected to the manner in which the scheme had been put forward. In fact, the scheme had appeared suddenly one morning in the

  1461
  Army List without any name attached guaranteeing that it had been considered by a competent authority. He wished to point out that there was a great omission with regard to the colonies. The troops had been withdrawn and centred at home, although it was well-known and admitted that if England were attacked her colonies would be attacked also.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said he wished to give the present system of recruiting a fair trial. But what was the present system? He had asked the question several times, but he could get no answer. It was neither short service nor long service, but something between. If they looked to the letter of the recruiting regulations he approved it as far as it went. He had asked what effect had been given to the regulation by which men, after serving throe years, were to pass into the Reserve but he had got no satisfactory answer. Again, as to long service men, it appeared from the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting about 2,000 had been recruited for the long service instead of 3,750. It was clear, therefore, that the regulations were not properly complied with, for they said that 25 per cent should be long service men, whilst they were in reality only 15 per cent. He trusted proper effect would be given to the regulations, for if they were carried out they would have a short service force from which the Reserve could be supplied and another which would be fitted for service in India. He feared the truth was that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to kill two birds with one stone, while the birds were so far apart that he would be apt not to succeed in hitting either of them. He might point to the opinion of a distinguished military authority, as set forth in a late article in a magazine, to show how very ineffectual the six years' system was likely to be for the purposes of our Reserve. Under it, it was argued, boys were enlisted before they were able to learn a trade, while they would be too old to learn one when they loft the Army. As to the Militia, he was not disposed to go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms), and he thought the right course to pursue would be to amalgamate the Militia and the Reserve,
  1462
  taking men for short service and returning them when sufficiently drilled to the Reserve. He believed by that plan they would get the bone and sinew of the country for its defence. In order, on the other hand, to make provision for the requirements of India and our colonies, it was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary to maintain a professional Army. He entirely concurred with the writer of another article in a a monthly periodical, who also was a high military authority and a Member of that House, who said that our Indian Empire had not been saved at the time of great peril by raw soldiers, who had only seen two or three years' service, but by veterans, who had been inured to long service. It was with 800 such veterans that the father of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to whom he referred took Cawnpore, which a distinguished Crimean officer, General Wyndham, found himself unable to keep with six, or eight, or ten times the number of unseasoned troops. In order, therefore, to provide that efficient force, he thought that a soldier should serve at least six years in that country, and longer if possible. He thought that we should be running the risk of a great military disaster in India if the right hon. Gentleman were to determine to commit the safety of that country, not to long service men, but to young soldiers, who, as it wore, would be continually coming and going. He was quite ready to admit the justice of the statement that the interests of England must not be considered to the sacrifice of those of India. India could, and in his opinion ought to pay for a sufficient number of long service men to preserve that Empire, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman had some system by which long service soldiers might be sent to that country.
  COLONEL NORTHhoped the right hon. Gentleman would lose no time in laying before the House the Report of the Royal Commission on Promotion and Retirement, as great discontent prevailed in the Service in consequence of nothing having been done, although the Commission had been sitting 14 months. He was sure the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners for the Sale of Commissions would require £172,000 less than they did last year was a strong proof that officers would not retire until something more

  1463
  was known on that point. A great deal had been said about the disgraceful desertions in our Army; but there was a general opinion in the Service that they were in great part owing to the extraordinary decisions arrived at in the office of the Judge Advocate General, where the officers of the Army were not supported as they ought to be in maintaining discipline. It had been laid down that a man could not be tried as a deserter unless it could be proved that he intended to desert; but how could any one prove what a man's intention was? Another stranger case was this. A soldier in private clothes, passing under an assumed name, and having in his possession a ticket for America, was about to sail, and was brought on shore, and in that case it was ruled that he could not be tried as a deserter because he had in his pocket an unexpired furlough. Those decisions might possibly be in accordance with the law, but if so the law ought to be altered, as they undoubtedly threw considerable impedimenta in the way of preventing desertions. He therefore hoped that before the Mutiny Bill came on for discussion his right hon. Friend would direct his attention to this unsatisfactory state of things. Nearly 20 years had elapsed since he first suggested that officers of the Army who held Staff appointments should have money advanced to them to enable them to furnish their houses, such sums to be repaid with interest. The military authorities, he believed, did recommend that this should be done, but it was refused by the Treasury, and he thought it only fair that the saddle should be put on the right horse. In conclusion, he remarked that the suggestions of the last speaker respecting long service in India well deserved consideration.
  MR. MUNTZagreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that in India there ought to be an Army of an age adapted to the climate, for young troops were physically unfitted for duties required of them in that country, and the difficulty of obtaining troops there was greater than in any other part of the Empire. He would proceed to explain why fie should vote against the Amendment of the bon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). In 1872 he himself proposed a reduction of 10,000 men, as his hon. Friend had now done. That
  1464
  proposal was rejected, but in the succeeding year Lord Cardwell reduced the force by 8,500 men, and at present further reduction was inexpedient. The force had since consisted in round numbers of 126,000 men, and the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to add 3,500 men, in order to put 18 battalions in such a condition that at a fortnight's notice they could sail to any part of the world. He was far from saying that reductions in the military expenditure of the country were not both necessary and desirable; but he thought the time for fixing the nature and amount of such reductions would not arrive until the Secretary of State for War had a Reserve Force of 40,000 or 50,000 men, and the system on which the Reserve Force was based had been fully and satisfactorily tested. The system laid down by Lord Cardwell was the result of long and careful consideration, and he should deprecate any attempt to alter it until it had been submitted to a full and fair trial. Otherwise perpetual changes would so worry the Army that they would not know what they were about. What he argued against was any reduction in the number of men which would place the Army below a state of efficiency. He was not an alarmist. He had no fear of this country being attacked; but he could not lose sight of the fact that, in addition to guarding against possible attack—or difficulties arising in India—England had vast commercial interests in all parts of the world which required protection, and he could not, therefore, support any proposal for reducing the strength of the Army below the point at which the responsible Ministers of the Crown thought it should be maintained in order to protect the honour and interests of the Empire. He had observed with much pleasure the way in which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department had mastered the details of his office, and also the remarkable clearness with which he had laid his proposals before the Committee. Credit must be given to the Government for knowing what was requisite, and he could not, therefore, support a proposal to reduce the Vote by so large a number as 10,000 men.
  COLONEL KENNARDexpressed his approval of the system of deferred pay, which had been tried some years ago in

  1465
  the Marines with great success. The Marine service was then exceedingly popular, and was able to get a number of recruits of the very best kind. He understood that the system had been discontinued, and that the popularity of the service had in consequence fallen away. He felt sure that the effect of the system of deferred pay would be to encourage long service and to diminish desertions. In America, where it had been tried with considerable success, the desertions last year had diminished to the extent of 43 per cent. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) seemed to think that soldiers would not appreciate the advantages of deferred pay. To meet that difficulty, he would suggest that at the end of every year the amount due to the soldier should be made up, inserted in his pocket-ledger, and certified by the captain of his company. He had always thought that the Army laboured under a great disadvantage as compared with the Navy in the matter of training schools. He would, therefore, suggest that training schools might be made an excellent reserve from which to draw our non-commissioned officers and soldiers, and that those training schools might be fed from the reformatories. By training young persons in such schools, we might in a great measure get over the difficulty which had been experienced with respect to the supply of non-commissioned officers; and what training could do had been shown by the heroism exhibited by the boys at the burning of the Goliath. How much admiration the conduct of the boys had excited in that case had been shown by a graceful acknowledgment made by an Indian Prince, an act which was greatly appreciated in England.
  MR. DUNBARsaid, that the East India Finance Committee of 1874, on which he served as a Member, directed its attention to the question of military service; and he believed that there was scarcely any Member of that Committee who did not think that, as a local Army could not be re-established, some kind of long service was required for India. Under the old East India Company recruiting was done at an average cost of £20 per head, whereas at present it was £100, and for two years' service that was a costly system. With regard to the Army Medical Department, the
  1466
  right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had stated the other night that he intended to give £1,000 to those who had served in that department for 10 years, to enable them to purchase a practice. That might do very well in England or Scotland, but purchasing a practice was a thing unknown in Ireland. At present, if an Irishman entered the medical department, he chose that pursuit for life; and if after 10 years' service he had to retire with £1,000, he would be placed at a disadvantage compared with those who had been in the medical schools at the same time and had settled down to practise at home. Such a man would be in much the same position as a barrister who had come from India after 10 years there, and then tried to get on at the Bar in this country. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to do something for those who were at the top and bottom, but would he not do something for those who were in the middle? There were 430 surgeon-majors, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what he would do for them. There was another point which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider—What could be done for those who had been in the Service for, say, nine years? If anything could be done for that class, he believed it would tend very much to remove the dissatisfaction which existed in that department of the Service. The right hon. Gentleman said that, under the new system, six men would be promoted from the temporary to the permanent list: he should like to know whether the intention was to reduce the establishment, and maintain only such a number as would be kept up by six promotions every year. If steps were taken to clear away the block which now existed with regard to surgeon-majors much dissatisfaction would be removed.
  LORD ELCHOcongratulated his right hon. Friend on the great approval which his exposition of the Army Estimates had met with on every side of the House. He (Lord Elcho), unfortunately, was not able to be present last week, when they were introduced by his right hon. Friend; but looking to the candour, the frankness, and the courage which characterized it, he must say he entirely sympathized with that approval. There were many excellent points in it. If he ventured in anything to differ from his right hon. Friend it would not be

  1467
  in any unfriendly or captious spirit, and his right hon. Friend was the last man to object to any fair criticism. The first important matter to which he would refer was as to the Report of the Commission on Promotion and Retirement. It was not ready yet, but if rumour spoke correctly, it only awaited the signature of the Commissioners, and their signature only waited for the completion of certain actuarial calculations which had to be filled up. He thought, therefore, with a little pressure put on the actuaries the Report might be laid on the Table, signed by the Commissioners, in a short time. It was desirable that that should be done, because there was a block of promotion in the Army, and there was a natural dissatisfaction that the promise made by that House in 1871—that the flow of promotion should go on under the new system as under the old—had not been carried out. He hoped his right hon. Friend would press forward the Report, for every day's delay was a wrong to the officers and an injury to the Service. When it was produced the House of Commons and the country would know what this whistle of the Trevelyan family had cost them, and he believed it would be found to be about £1,000,000 a-year for ever, so that the change was dear at the money. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that 80 officers had been brought from half to full pay, but he did not tell them at what cost. He had also told them that the Yeomanry were to be simply Light Cavalry, and that their guns were to be done away with. He (Lord Elcho) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not agree to make them Rifle Cavalry; for, as such, they would be more useful than as Light Cavalry. He now came to a point on which he was sorry to be at issue with his right hon. Friend, and that was with regard to the new military decoration—the Order of the Broad Arrow, or Anderson's brand. It was seriously proposed by a Member of that House, and the Government proposed to consider it, that because there was a difficulty in dealing with a certain number of fraudulent deserters they should ask every man who served Her Majesty, from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief to the lowest drummer boy, to have stamped on his cuticle the same mark as that stamped on every military pigskin saddle. That
  1468
  seemed to him one of the most monstrous propositions possible. It was an absolute giving up of their system, for it showed that the system was so bad that they could not attract men into the Service, and that when they had got them they could not keep them. This new military Order, instead of flowing from the fountain of honour, the Queen, was to flow from the fountain of dishonour, the fraudulent deserter. If this new Order were adopted, he hoped there would be, as in the case of the Bath, a civil branch, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would set a good example by submitting their cuticles to this honourable distinction, and that they would be followed by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite now in the Reserve and anxiously waiting for their deferred pay. There were matters in the speech of his right hon. Friend which all must agree in praising without qualification. There was the purchase of the ground at Aldershot, and there was the sum to be spent in stores. Incidentally, in connection with stores, a discussion had been raised with reference to the Martini-Henry rifle, and he wished to say that he had been a Member of the second Committee which sat on that subject. When he entered the Committee he was hostile to the arm; but when he knew the testing experiments to which it had been subjected before it was adopted by the first Committee, he was convinced that there must have been some fault in the subsequent manufacture of the arm. He should like to know what stores of small arms there ought to be, and what we actually had in store. He also wanted to know how Gibraltar and Malta were off for stores if they had to stand a siege. They must all agree as to the wisdom of what was to be done for the non-commissioned officers. He also approved of raising 18 regiments to 820 men, and so with respect to the calling out of two corps. He thought it eminently desirable that we should test the existence of the Reserves to see whether they would come out. He now came to what was called the mobilization scheme. A few officers said the mobilization scheme was mere waste paper. But it had been prepared by most able officers, who had considered every detail as far as they had materials. Therefore, he thought we ought to be extremely grateful to the officers who

  1469
  prepared it, and grateful to the Government for having the courage to bring it forward. It required courage to do so, because it exposed the deficiencies of the existing system, comparing that scheme with the number of men and materials on the Estimates. He had made out that if we had to put our existing force on a war footing, making allowance for Army Hospital Corps, &c., we should require, in addition to what we had, 105,000 men and 58,000 horses. The horses could be procured without much difficulty; it was not so easy to get the men. We had 342 guns in the Artillery, but we required a great many more, say, 800, to complete the requisite number. There were two ways in which our Artillery Force might be increased at little or no expense. In the first place, the system of employing the powerful horses engaged in agricultural work might be extended, the men being obtained in the shape of volunteers, and the horses being ready harnessed and fit for employment at little or no cost. That was tried in a Volunteer review, and it was found that they could do 30 miles a-day. That system might be extended throughout the country ad infinitum. An enormous Artillery Force could be got up in that way. This was the only country in Europe which in time of peace had its batteries complete. We had plenty of Artillery drivers, and with one waggon to each battery we could double our effective force. But the main difficulty was the question how to keep up our Army. 'His right hon. Friend proposed to do that by various means. He proposed to give increased pay to the Guards, to which no one could object, for if a good article was wanted, they must give a good price for it. He proposed also that furlough pay should be increased to men on furlough; and, lastly, came the question of deferred pay. He (Lord Elcho) had always thought that a pension was preferable to deferred pay; but the giving of deferred pay appeared to be well worth trying, and he thought his right hon. Friend had done wisely in testing it. His right hon. Friend said when once we had given men money we could not get it back from the men to whom we had engaged to pay it. But if the plan did not answer, deferred pay could be cut off from those who came in afterwards, provided we got them on different
  1470
  terms. His right hon. Friend had proposed to give to a man in the Guards 1d. a-day more than to a Linesman, because in stature, &c., a Guardsman was a more valuable article than a Linesman. His right hon. Friend should carry downwards that principle of payment, according to the value of the article. Let a line be drawn at 20 years of age for the purpose of testing the value of a man, and do not give deferred pay to a man below 20, or whose physique, in the opinion of a military surgeon, was not equal to that of a full-grown man at 20. As to the age of recruits, his right hon. Friend said we could not get recruits enough if we limited the age of recruits to 20 years. Nobody had proposed that that should be done. But this was urged on the House last Session—that recruits should not be sent abroad until they were grown men. Notwithstanding the promise that was given on that subject, he found that 1,144 men under 20 years of age had been sent to India. He earnestly hoped that we should have an improvement, not only as to the number of our men, but as to their age and physique, for on looking through the last statistics respecting the Army he found that if the recruits were measured round the chest in the same manner as the police, out of 178,276 men; only 39,353 would be accepted by the police, and out of 112,424 infantry only 23,370 would be so accepted. Although the present Government had already done something, he thought that more should be done in giving employment in the Civil Service to soldiers. If the War Office Department were open to soldiers, it would be a great inducement to men to enter the Army. We could have much more work done and at much less cost than at present in the War Department if soldiers and officers were employed there. He was greatly disappointed by his right hon. Friend not having completely grappled with the question of the Militia. An hon. Member had been going about the country during the last Autumn, and had done a great deal of good in showing our military deficiencies, but he suggested that the Militia should be swept away. He might as well talk of sweeping away the Established Church, trial by jury, or any other of our institutions. Englishmen when they reformed their institutions were not in the habit of knocking them down like a pack of cards. No one knew so well as the Secretary for

  1471
  War that our Militia was the foundation of our military system; but, nevertheless, he had declined to deal with that branch of the Service this year. The subject was, doubtless, a difficult one, and the righthon. Gentleman had adopted the motto, Festina lente with regard to it, and would probably deal with it next year. And what was the state of this back-bone of our military system? Its total force, including the permanent Staff, was 107,114. Of that number, 27,213 belonged to the Militia Reserve, who in time of war would have to go into the Regular Army; 18,717 were under 19 years of age, and, therefore, were unfit for the hardships of warfare; and 10,000 were absent without leave at the last training, and would therefore, not be likely to turn up when their services were required in the field. This left the real force of the Militia at 70,755 only, which showed that the Force was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and that the backbone of our military system was almost invertebrate. This view of the state of affairs was amply borne out by the Report of the Inspector of Recruiting, whom he congratulated upon his clear, candid statements, in which he pointed out that only 18,000 men joined the Service in 1876, whereas 20,000 joined it in the previous year. That gallant officer further considered the Militia to be in a very unsatisfactory position, and pointed out that that Force was much below the authorized strength, that the recruits were enrolled at an earlier age than was contemplated in the regulations, and that it was necessary to alter the system on which the Militia was raised, so as to ensure its efficiency. Rumour stated that the right hon. Gentleman was not himself satisfied with the state of the Militia, and that in November last there was a serious intention on his part to have effected considerable alterations in its conditions. The fence, however, was an ugly one to deal with, and therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman had put in the spurs to try to get over it, he was still on the wrong side of the hedge. He, however, felt satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would not be deterred from doing his duty by the Army, of which he was the head, by any fear of unpopularity. The spirit which had recently been evoked in this country by the conduct of the Government in reference to the Suez Canal must
  1472
  convince any Minister that he would be fully supported in doing what was necessary to make this nation secure both at home and in her Colonies; and we must all feel that nothing added so much as a strong England to the security of the peace of Europe.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked that it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that he should not be held responsible for the increase of the Army Estimates for the present year, inasmuch as that increase was the inevitable result of the changes which had been introduced into the constitution of the Army by his Predecessor in office, whose system he had endeavoured loyally and faithfully to carry out. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman whilst so acting would give his close attention to those economical measures which would bring the expenditure under the amount which the country would bear. He earnestly urged the attention of the Committee to the speech on the Army Estimates of Sir John Pakington (now Lord Hampton.) In 1868 Sir John Pakington, on introducing the Army Estimates on 23rd March of that year, called attention to the vast expenditure which he was obliged to propose—£13,699,466—which he described as an enormous sum. But this year the amount was still larger, for it amounted to £13,989,500, being the net amount when, as in Sir John Pakington's time, all items not properly chargeable against the Army were deducted. This sum was however not to be compared with that in the time of Sir John Pakington, for the cost of the surveys had been transferred from the Army Estimates to the Civil Charges, and apparently the expenses of depotsô borne in 1868 for India were not now altogether charged on the Army. When the heavy charge for retirement and for ensuring a flow of promotion became a necessity, and probably at an early date, then next year no doubt, there would be a considerable addition to some of the items, and it was not likely the new system now proposed could be carried out without an increase of some £2,000,000. He believed that there would be a loud cry for a diminution of this enormous expenditure, and unless timely measures were adopted to cut down useless and unnecessary charges the end would be that the nation would insist on reductions

  1473
  that would be injurious to the efficiency of the Army. With respect to the question of the quantity of stores at Gibraltar and Malta, he believed that great endeavours had been made to keep those places well supplied. He observed that there was in these Estimates a very large expenditure upon stores for the Navy. It would be far better that the Navy should pay for its own stores and the Army for its own transport. As it was, there was extravagance on both sides. This question had been mooted by General Peel in his speech on 7th March, 1867, and in the following year by Sir John Pakington in his speech on 23rd March, 1868. Both had urged a separation of these charges, and Sir John Pakington whilst at the War Office had taken an active interest in the question. It was surely owing to a change in the Administration that the separation had not been effected. An examination of the large sums borne by the Army for the naval guns and stores of the Navy would show the great burden borne by the Army for such supplies, whereas the charges for the vessels kept up by the Navy for Army transports did not exceed one third of the amount borne by the Army Estimates. The proposal to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers was no doubt a wise one; but a better plan was that adopted in India, of creating warrant officers, who should rank above the non-commissioned officers, with some additional pay and prospects. All these measures were for the purpose of obtaining men for recruiting the Army, but one unfailing obstacle to recruiting in the Regular Forces was the competition between the Army and the Militia. As to the mobilization scheme, it was very nearly a copy of the German system; and, like most English adaptations of foreign originals, it was planned on a most extravagant scale. An examination of the tables of the Army German Corps with the table of the English Corps, would startle the people of this country with the enormous staff of Generals and other officers in contrast with those ranks in the German Corps. He earnestly deprecated this waste, and urged that the organization of the whole Service should be closely examined into, with a view to cut off those superfluities which everywhere so unwisely existed.
  MR. ONSLOWtook exception to the present system of billeting soldiers in
  1474
  passing through towns. During the last five years 9,489 men of the Regular troops and 9,438 horses passed through the borough of Guildford. He could assure the Secretary for War that there would not be room for a single man or horse thus passing through in the barracks which had been built in that town. The result would be, if something were not done, that the billeting system would be carried out as extensively in the future as at present. It often happened that a horse was billeted on a public-house which had no accommodation in the rear, and the publican was obliged to find some other place for the animal, for which he had to pay, at a loss to himself, the sum allowed for a horse being only 6d a-day. That was inadequate, and the entire system called for alteration. With respect to the soldier's deferred pay, he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the soldier's friends, in case of his death, should be entitled to receive it. Branding the soldier had been referred to, but he hoped the day would not come when such a mark would be placed upon the British soldier. He thought it would have the effect of preventing the men from enlisting. He thought the inducement held out to old soldiers to re-enlist and join the Reserve too small, and he might state in the case of Militiamen that many of them declined to re-enlist because the inducement offered was too small. He therefore hoped the Secretary for War would be able soon, if not this year, to increase the pay of the Militia, and thereby induce good men to enlist in that service. Before Lord Cardwell held the office of Secretary for War, the Militia bounty amounted to £6, but the noble Lord added a year to the time of service, and did not increase the bounty. This the men felt to be a grievance, and they said—"We have to put in a year, and are docked of £1." He believed that if a little more inducement were held out, old soldiers, who now held aloof from the Militia, would be drawn to its ranks—greatly to the benefit of that branch of the Service. He hoped also that when the Militia Reserve was drafted off to the Regular Army, as proposed, some means would be taken to keep up the Militia regiments at their proper strength. Some remarks had been hazarded by an hon. Member near him on the advisability of making some change in the pe-

  1475
  riod of reliefs in India, so that they might not arrive in this country from a hot climate in the cold weather as at present; but the fact was, that if they marched through India to the coast, except in the cold season, the amount of illness and the number of deaths would be twenty-fold. On the whole, he believed the Army would be well satisfied with the Government proposals, and that under the increased inducements offered, a large number of recruits would come in.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREdesired to draw attention to the increased charge which would result from the proposal as to deferred pay. The right hon. Gentleman told the House the other day that the charge for the present year would amount to £13,000, but that it would be more in future years, but he did not state what it would ultimately amount to. The right hon. Gentleman had intended to lay upon the Table that evening a table which would throw light on the subject, but unfortunately it was not in such a condition that he could present it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to give the Committee an idea as to what the ultimate charge would be. He did not like to say he was opposed to the proposal, but he thought the Committee ought not to accept it without serious consideration. In the absence of an estimate he had endeavoured to calculate what the charge would be and he found that 2d. a-day to be paid to 160,000 rank and file would amount to £480,000, of which over £150,000 would have to be borne by India. There would be the Reserve men in addition, who were to receive additional pay, so that while the charge would be but £13,000 for the year, ultimately, and perhaps in 10 or 12 years, it would amount to no less than £500,000. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the representatives of deceased soldiers would be entitled to the deferred pay due to them at the time of their death; and what would be the effect upon men who entered upon long service—would they be entitled to the 2d. a-day in addition to their pensions? [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: No.] Well, these matters ought to be made clear to the Committee. They ought to keep clearly before them the effect of the proposal—namely, that though they were now asked for £13,000 only, eventually the charge would amount to about
  1476
  £500,000. What was now done for the Army would, he presumed, be also necessary for the Navy and Marines before very long.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that so far from wishing the House to vote under any disguise, those who had done him the honour to listen to his statement on Thursday would remember that so far from understating what the charge would be, he overstated it when he said that the deferred pay would cost £17,000 this year, and in the result would be £225,000, while in the year 1890 it would rise to about £325,000. Probably when these sums came to be carefully considered there would be some variation, according to the number of men voted in each year. He agreed that it was desirable that the Report of the Commission on Promotion and Retirement should be before the House as soon as possible. It was true it had not yet been signed; but immediately after it had been placed before Her Majesty it would be laid upon the Table. The conclusions of the Commission would very much depend on the calculations of the actuaries, which, he understood, it would take three months to complete. With respect to the pension after 12 years, he had had an actuarial calculation made. He found that the pension after 12 years to 21 years was equivalent to 6½d. a-day, as against the deferred pay of 2d., and that was a gain so large that it seemed unreasonable to give those men deferred pay in addition. With regard to the question as to billeting, it must be kept up for the Regular troops, because it was never known in what direction they would have to go, and it was impossible to make permanent engagements. He was anxious not to put undue pressure on those upon whom the men were billeted; but the billet pay had been increased of late years, and where there was a constant flow of troops he was told that if anyone would undertake it as a speculation to accommodate them, it might be made to pay. He was still strongly of opinion that it would be well to have training barracks for the Militia, as they were unaccustomed to live under canvas and in bad weather met with great difficulties in the way of keeping their clothes dry, cleanliness, and other matters. Until barracks were built the system of billeting for the Militia must, therefore, be

  1477
  kept up here and there. The men received money enough to obtain lodgings in many parts of the town, which were practically as good as those that they got at the public-houses. With regard to the alleged falling-off in the Militia, he found that the enlistments in 1875 were 29,961; in 1874, 29,831, and in 1873, 25,361. So that, notwithstanding all difficulties, recruiting for the Militia was kept up pretty well, although there was a slight falling-off in the re-enrolment owing, as he thought, to the change of bounty which had not been properly understood. The employment of a greater number of boys had been pressed upon him, and he had given a great deal of attention to this subject. When, however, he had got a young man of 18 he was told by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) and others that he ought not to pay him as a soldier; and if he had to pay £60 for two years previous training for a lad of 18, and should have to meet his noble Friend in conflict as to whether that lad was a soldier, the question became more difficult. The boys, no doubt, would be well trained, and would in time make good non-commissioned officers, but only a certain number could be used up in that way, and to set up training schools for boys would involve so great an expense that he was by no means sure it would not be far more expensive than the present system. He had been told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) that his mobilization scheme had been copied from the German system, while the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) said that the reverse was the case, and as the two hon. Gentlemen sat so near together, he might leave the point in dispute to be settled in conversation between them. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) seemed to think that he had a proposal for immediately bringing the Ballot into force for the Militia; but, in fact, he was one of those who looked upon the Ballot as the last resource; but if the voluntary system for the Militia failed, the Ballot would be, he thought, a most justifiable thing to adopt. The Militia were not sent out of the United Kingdom, and as they would only be called out to defend their own homes there would not be the least injustice in calling upon every man of proper age to take his chance of the Ballot. He would admit that the pre-
  1478
  sent system of Ballot was unfair, unequal, and difficult to work, and long before we might want it it would be well to set it in proper order; and although he could not hope to find sufficient time to deal with the matter during the present Session, yet it should be well weighed in order to see what defects existed and how the Ballot could be adapted for an emergency should it ever arise. Then came the question raised by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) of the encouragement to be given to the Army by offering places in the Civil Service to men of good character. Now, he had stated the other night that it was an illusion to hold out to the Army that there were so many places as it was sometimes represented at the disposal of the Civil Service which could be reserved for them. He was quite willing that this question should be tested before a Select Committee, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), who had a Motion on the subject, would change it so as to move for a Committee he should be willing to agree to it. Another hon. Member had referred to the supplies at Malta and Gibraltar. He could not quite understand whether stores or food were meant. With regard to food, two questions arose—a food supply for the garrison and one for the inhabitants. As to the duty of Government to supply food for the garrison there could be no doubt, and the time might come when it would be necessary to supply the inhabitants. The question was, however, whether it was the duty of the Government to go to the enormous cost of keeping stores for the latter purpose. This was a question of importance, because the time might come when the inhabitants of the place might be exposed to the danger of dying of starvation, but that could not be if we had the command of the sea. At the same time, it was a vast expense to keep up stores at a place like Malta, and the matter was one which had to be weighed along with fifty others. The questions that had been raised with respect to fortifications were too large to be discussed on the Estimates. Nor was that of coaling stations less complex; for instance, if the Suez Canal were stopped up by accident or warlike measures, it would be necessary to send troops round by the Cape, and Simon's Bay would

  1479
  then become important. There was a coaling station at Jamaica; and, indeed, all over the world there were stations the importance of which would be great in the event of certain possible contingencies. It would be unjustifiable to cast the whole expenditure in these cases on the Estimates of the year; it ought rather to be treated as we had treated the expenditure for fortifications and for the brigade depôts. In giving the figures as to the measurement of the recruits, he quoted, not from one Paper, but from two Papers, having, as he stated at the time, when he was furnished with the averages, asked for the maximum and the minimum in each case—except those in which it was fixed—and these extremes he read to the Committee. As to the age of recruits, he protested against his noble Friend taking only men of 20 and saying that they would not be fit for their work until they were 21. He believed the Army would contain as many men of the age of 20 this year as it did last; and in Germany they were taken at the age of 19.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had no objection to their being taken under the age of 20, so long as they were not reckoned as effectives until they reached the age of 20.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not get younger men at less pay, and he did not mean to change the system of recruiting, under which selection had been carried so far last year that only 18,000 out of 27,000 who offered themselves had been enlisted. As to the deficiencies of Army Corps, they were not meant to be filled up to the strength of Army Corps abroad; they were only meant to be cadres. Of Artillery, we had 63 batteries manned and horsed—with 378 guns, and we had in reserve 43 batteries, of course not manned and horsed—with 258 guns, so that we had 106 batteries with 636 guns, which would be in readiness by the beginning of next year. [Colonel MURE: Are they fully manned?] The guns he had referred to as such were manned and horsed; and he need not say our Artillery was horsed beyond that of any other Power. He had not attempted to keep the plan of mobilization secret because he should have occupied an unpleasant position in being continually asked Questions about it. For two Sessions the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George
  1480
  Campbell) had repeated Questions the answers to which he could not understand, and he had reiterated in fifty shapes the speech he had made that night. He could scarcely understand how the hon. Member had misapprehended him so far, for what he had said was, that he was doing the best he could to obtain men who would serve five years in India. He had had a Departmental Committee examining officers, and among them that great authority upon the subject, for whom he had a great respect in his place, Lord Sandhurst; but neither his reputation nor that of his article in The Edinburgh, Review would induce him to accept the noble Lord as his guide in this matter. The article in the Review was a theoretical one. No doubt nothing could be more advisable than to exercise men three years in the Militia and then draft them into the Army if you could do it. But it could not be done. If the Militia would do it they would please him excessively and improve the Army; but he could not compel them to do it. The proposition in the article would not bear argument; and with great respect for the noble Lord, who was to take part in a public meeting to-day—Tuesday—on the subject of the Knightsbridge Barracks, he must object to his Lordship setting himself up as an infallible authority on either question. With regard to the three years' enlistment, it was never intended that the War Department should take the initiative, but that only on the recommendation of commanding officers should these men be transferred to the Reserve. If there was a real steady flow of recruits, such as would keep the Army up to the full amount, with a certain overflow, then it might be easy to pass three years' men into the Reserve; but, if they could not keep up their Regular forces without retaining the men longer, then they could not wonder if commanding officers were not ready to allow those who had served only three years to pass into the Reserve. But no impediments were offered to that by him or by any one in the War Department. He had been asked by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire about the number of small arms which they had. Of the Martini-Henry this year there would be 316,000, and of Sniders 240,000. Then with regard to guns for fortifications, 30 38-ton guns would, he thought, be placed in position in the course of this

  1481
  year. He should have wished to place a few more, if the Estimates were not so high; but under present circumstances, he would allow that wish to remain in abeyance. There was a great number of new fortifications, the gradual armament of which would be a work of considerable expense, and if artillerists went on demanding heavier guns, he was afraid that would be a matter for his successors to deal with, because he assumed that the country would desire to arm its forts with the best possible ordnance. With respect to Major Moncrieff's system, Major Moncrieff had really completed the work he had to do at the War Office, and had been paid the sum that was agreed upon at the conclusion of his services. Nothing more ingenious could be imagined than that officer's system, which had been carefully examined and found very useful in many ways; but it was not applicable in all cases. He did not know that Major Moncrieff had any complaint, because he had received the terms on which he was engaged. An hon. Friend behind him had made some remarks about desertion, and the noble Lord had requested him to submit to be stamped in his own person as belonging to Her Majesty's service. Well, if any good would be obtained for the country by it, he would submit to that with the greatest pleasure. He was not the least ashamed of serving Her Majesty or afraid of the indignity, if such it was, which would be put upon him in that shape. The noble Lord went too far in speaking of conclusions having been come to on that subject, because there had been no such conclusion. The hon. Member for Glasgow, in view of these frequent desertions, had suggested a thing which might be applied without detriment to anybody—namely, that as every recruit was vaccinated, the operation should be performed in a particular way to show that it had been done in the Army. The hon. Member for Glasgow said that all men at present in the Army ought to be exempted from the process unless they liked it, and therefore no injury would be done to anyone. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) wanted some alteration of the law respecting desertion, and said it was impossible to prove a man's intention to desert. Now, his hon. and gallant Friend was an ex-
  1482
  cellent magistrate, and no doubt in his own county he had known many a man to be convicted whose intentions had been proved by his acts and his words. If a man broke open a place without actually stealing anything from it, there might be circumstances in the case which would lead a jury to convict him of intending to steal. And so if a man belonging to the Army was found to have taken a passage to America and to have gone off, there would be no real difficulty in proving that it was his intention to desert. Yet it might be necessary, though he did not say that it was so, to make some slight alteration in the Mutiny Act as to soldiers attempting to desert. The hon. and learned Member for New Ross (Mr. Dunbar) had asked him a question about Irish surgeons in the Army. Now he had always thought that Irish surgeons and English surgeons were the same until the hon. and learned Gentleman told him there was a difference between them. The Irish surgeons, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, never wanted to leave, and then he rather inconsistently asked him what provision he would make for those who wished to retire after 10 years' service? There were a great many Irish surgeons in the Army. In fact, if it had not been for the supply of surgeons from the Irish schools, he did not know how they could have got on in the medical department of the Service. One might, however, he thought, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, purchase a practice in Ireland, for when a man had a property in his tenant right he could not understand how it was that the goodwill of a business should not find as ready a sale in Ireland as in any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not know all the property his countrymen possessed. He really could not dwell on a difficulty of that sort; but if Irish surgeons, as he declared, did not wish to retire, and were selected on account of their ability, to go on for promotion, we should soon have a long roll of the highest officers in the department speaking with a most elegant brogue. His belief, however, was that Irish surgeons would very willingly pocket their money at the end of 10 years, and lay it out as profitably as their English fellow-officers; if they were not selected to re-

  1483
  main in the Service, as he had no doubt many of them would be. As for the Volunteer adjutants their position was being very considerably improved, and they were relieved of the necessity of recruiting, at which they had no great opportunity of doing much. In the matter of precedence, they would, of course, follow their rank, but he believed they were never put in command of a regiment. The hon. Member for Glasgow had complained that the Militia were made a back-door for incapable officers to get into the Army. Well, it was not in his time that that connection between the Militia and the Army had been established. The relations existing between the two Forces might be open to objection; but he did not see how any incapable officers could pass from the one to the other, as had been described. In the first place, Militia officers before entering the Army required to have two years' training and to pass an examination, which was much harder now than formerly, and which was being made harder by degrees. The examination no doubt was held at a later age than for the Army; but then there was the advantage of the two years' training and of whatever extra pains the officer might take to qualify himself for his position. He was not aware that any incapable officers had got into the Army in this way, although some who had failed in the earlier examination had succeeded in the second. As for shooting, it was quite true that a month's training was not sufficient to make the Militia very expert in that; but animated as they were with the spirit of Englishmen, it was hardly likely Militiamen would have a rifle in their hands for a month without learning to use it with some effect. Under existing circumstances it was perhaps impossible to give them all the facilities for learning to shoot that might be desirable; but he would take care to call the attention of the Inspector General of the Auxiliary Forces to the subject in order to see how far the present system might be improved. The question of sentinel duty had been raised. Well, it was necessary that all regiments should have experience of sentinel duty, and although he was prepared to make the soldier's life as agreeable as possible, it was important that the men should be well tested in time of peace. He hoped to
  1484
  give the Guards a little relief. Hitherto they had gone from one place to another where there was a great deal of this duty to be performed, but it was now proposed to send them to Shorncliffe or elsewhere in the country where they would have a period of rest. The hon. Member for Glasgow had regretted that there was going to be an increase in the number of men; but that subject he (Mr. Hardy) had already gone into so fully, that he would only now observe that regiments to be properly worked must have a certain amount of solidity, and that they might be reduced to too much of a skeleton' form for practical purposes. The new Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had raised several objections to proposals before the House. He (Mr. Hardy) was very glad he was going to have the benefit of the hon. and gallant Member's criticism on military questions, drawn as it would be from practical experience. The points to which the hon. and gallant Member had objected, however, happened just to be those with which he was, perhaps, not practically acquainted. As to the compulsory retirement of medical officers, it was no doubt true that a man might be fit for something at 60; but there were other considerations to be borne in mind. There were other people who particularly wanted to step into their shoes. He had a great consideration for those gentlemen of 60, many of whom no doubt were perfectly fit for service, but there was a multitude of aspirants to their places, and promotion was the soul of the Service. Without promotion there would be no hope, without hope no emulation, and without emulation the Service would be dead and apathetic. He was, therefore, most anxious to assist the promotion of the medical officers. He denied that he had forgotten the non-Effective service; he had said he could not deal with a reduction of that service. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) had referred to the tactical station in the North; but he could assure him that if he could look into all the facts, he would see that a right conclusion had been come to on the subject. Great advantages would be derived from their being at York. The stores would all be in the neighbourhood of York, and there would be excellent ground there, if not for manœuvres, for training. They would have at least

  1485
  1,115 acres, and Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry would have an opportunity of training together. The Militia called upon to take part in the training would also derive great advantages. With respect to Aldershot he had looked out for more ground there, and he hoped to get between 6,000 and 7,000 acres. This would enable them to have much more extensive manœuvres, without putting anyone to inconvenience. His hon. Friend spoke of disguise; but he (Mr. Hardy) did not wish to do anything in the dark. That was the last thing he should attempt to do in the House. With respect to mobilization, the steps they had taken would enable them in case the pressure was on the colonies and not on England to send troops to the colonies; and if the pressure was on England and not on the colonies, they should be able to keep the troops at home. A great deal depended on the Fleet in the first instance. He did not forget that there were accidents—accidents which were quite unforseen; and he must not suppose the Fleet to be always in the exact place in which it might be most needed. He hoped that this country would keep command of the seas. Even Mr. Cobden said that the English Navy ought to be throe times as strong as any Continental Navy. It ought to be sufficient to afford us security under all ordinary circumstances; but extraordinary circumstances might happen, and it would be madness to be taken unprovided in such a contingency. He should be the last person in the world to depreciate the Navy. His object was that under any possible circumstances they should be ready as far as they possibly could, without the country being put to unreasonable expense, to meet circumstances as they arose. With respect to the enormous Army which they had, let him call attention to what their neighbours had. We had in this country about 90,000 soldiers; and in the colonies about 24,000. They had an Army Reserve of 6,000—that was, in round numbers, they had available from 120,000 to 130,000 trained men. France had, as its peace establishment (without looking at her territorial reserve), 450,000, and a war establishment of 1,100,000 men. Germany had a peace establishment of 400,000, and a war establishment of 1,250,000 men—the Landsturm not in-
  1486
  cluded. Russia Europe had a peace establishment of 846,000, and a war establishment of 1,250,000, irregular troops not included. Austria had a peace establishment of 271,451, and a war establishment of 776,487, not including the reserve. Italy had a peace establishment of 220,441 men, and a war establishment of 456,330 men. Belgium—a little country of 5,000,000 inhabitants—had a peace establishment of 48,000, and in war 104,000 men. Looking at these facts, and remembering the enormous interests which were at stake in this country, he did not think he was asking for anything exorbitant in the number of men comprised in the Vote now under discussion; and he could not believe that after the Committee had declared earlier in the evening that it would not reduce the proposed expenditure, it Would now take the nibbling course of striking off 10,000 men from our Regular Forces at the bidding of his hon. Friend.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that as far as he was personally concerned, he had no wish to put the House to the trouble of a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £4,722,200, Pay and Allowances, &c. of Land Forces.
  MR. GOSCHENasked what would be the effect of the deferred pay on the Estimates of the next three or four years?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had already stated that the ultimate sum would be £325,000. The rise in the Estimates, however, would be very gradual, and in the first few years would not, probably, exceed £50,000 or £60,000 a-year.
  MR. GOSCHENasked whether the nation did not become liable to those who remained in the Force to the extent of £3 a-year, so that, supposing there were 160,000 men, we should be liable to £480,000 loss what was forfeited by deserters and others or recouped by India?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the liability attached to the nation, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, but the money would not be paid until it became actually due. Meanwhile it would be recorded in the soldier's small book, so that he and his officers would know the amount of his claim.
  COLONEL HAYTERagreed with the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that the best way to furnish a stimulus to recruiting would be to give immediate, and not deferred, pay. The enormous proportion of desertions from the Royal Artillery might, perhaps, be counteracted by giving that force an additional 1d. a-day. As to the deficiency in the Foot Guards, that might be easily accounted for. The daily average of sick in the troops generally was 37·47 per 1,000; in Infantry regiments it was 31·98, in the Foot Guards 45·20. This high average in the Guards was entirely caused by the enormous sentry duty to which they were exposed, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make some reduction of duty in the West End.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, as the Secretary for War had instituted a new mobilization scheme, and the pay and allowances of the Staff which would in consequence be necessary would cost the country £400,000 a-year, it was important to know how the Staff was appointed. Some 15 years ago a Staff College was instituted, and it was declared that only officers who had been distinguished in the field or who had passed through that college would in future be eligible for Staff appointments. Instead of that principle being carried out, the great bulk of the Staff appointments were given to whomsoever the Horse Guards chose to select. Thus only 23 appointments out of 180 had been given to those who had passed through the Staff College, and these were the lowest appointments on the Staff.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Queen's Regulations did not lay down that the Staff College should have an absolute right to these appointments, but only to a portion of them. He thought very great consideration should be given to the claims of those who had passed the examinations; and to a certain extent that had been done. As far as he was concerned, he should approve of giving those appointments requiring intelligence to intelligent men.
  MR. MUNTZthought that if those officers in the Staff College did not receive the rewards which were supposed to be incidental to their appointment, they had better be quit of it altogether.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTcontended that if the Staff College was
  1488
  worth anything to the country it ought to be fully encouraged. As he understood, the great object was to get the best men to go through the Staff College examination; but if only 23 out of 180 officers who had gone through all the labour of preparing for the examination, and had given up their regimental service for the purpose, received places, then he thought a gross injustice was inflicted upon them.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £49,200, Divine Service.
  (4.) £27,900, Administration of Military Law.
  (5.) £262,400, Medical Establishments.
  MR. WARDsaid, he would take advantage of that occasion to say that the proposal of the Government for the improvement of the position of medical men in the Army was a mere temporary scheme, which was entirely due to the fact that they could not, as things stood, induce competent candidates to offer themselves for the service. He complained that they did nothing for those who had done all the hard work, and only held out fresh inducements to the new men.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £672,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Militia Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1876 to the 31st day of March 1877, inclusive."
  COLONEL HAYTERmoved that, as there was likely to be some discussion on the details of this proposal, Progress should be reported.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

TELEGRAPHS (MONEY) BILL— [BILL 90.]
(Mr. Raikes, Lord John Manners, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
TELEGRAPHS (MONEY) BILL— [BILL 90.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord John Manners.)
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the House ought to have full explanation of the purposes for which the £500,000 proposed to he raised was required. It was desirable they should know whether the money was to he exclusively applied in payment of the purchase of railway lines of telegraph, or for the amount agreed upon some time ago, together with the interest since accrued?
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he wanted to ask three questions—namely, 1. What the total capital expenditure on the telegraphs, up to the present time had been; 2, how much it was thought would still have to be paid to close the capital account as far as the agreements of 1868–70 were concerned; 3, with how many railway companies the price of the purchase of their interest in the lines of telegraph was not yet settled, and what companies those were?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) was well aware that the late Government undertook the duty of purchasing the telegraphs, and that the Act of 1873 provided for £1,250,000 for various charges arising under the earlier Acts. Certain arbitrations had been concluded this year to meet the awards on which no fund existed. They amounted to about £200,000, of which £169,000 or so had been awarded to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. There still remained the claims of several other railway companies, and he hoped that £300,000 would be sufficient to meet those claims, which were inherited by the present from preceding Governments, and accrued under the Act of 1868 and 1869. The awards in each case included interest. It would be hard at this time to charge upon revenue more than the actual cost of the service and the interest on the capital sum which represented the charge for acquiring it. Under the Act of 1873 provision was made for the commutation of pensions to the extent of £230,000. He regretted being the organ to ask for a large sum which possibly did not represent the total claims for completing the acquisition of the telegraphs; but he trusted they would soon arrive at the end of the account, and no exertion would be spared on the part of the Treasury to bring about that result. The total of the capital account to the present time, so far as was ascertained, was £9,250,000, of which there was a ba-
  1490
  lance left of £87,000, which, however, was due to the fund set apart under the Act of 1873 for the commutation of pensions.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHdoubted whether the House had heard a more discreditable statement in connection with the purchase of the telegraphs than that just made. He could not but say that it was desirable that the hon. Gentleman should give the House more information on the subject, and that it should know the entire amount to be taken for the railway companies: £700,000 had been granted lately, and now £500,000 was asked for. Perhaps the noble Lord the Postmaster General would inform the House how it was that money had been paid for some of those telegraphs twice over?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had not the Papers at hand showing the total amount, but in the case of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, which claimed £1,129,814, with interest amounting to £137,460, and £1 per mile per wire annually for way leave, the amount awarded was £169,197, and 1s. per mile per wire annually for way leave; and in the case of the Great Eastern Company, whose claim was £412,680, and £200 per annum for way leave, with £22,349 as interest, and £1 per mile per wire annually for way leave, only £73,315 was awarded. The claims of the railway companies were increased by the passing of the monopoly clauses, and he contended that the Government were simply carrying out the intentions of the Legislature in meeting the claims which were preferred by the railway companies under the Act of Parliament and settled by arbitration.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

DRUGGING OF ANIMALS BILL.
(Sir John Astley Mr. Chaplin, Air. Bidwell)
DRUGGING OF ANIMALS BILL.

  [BILL 85.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Sir John Astley.)
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, the hon. Baronet owed it to the House, if he un-

  1491
  derstood the meaning of his own measure, to explain its object. It was impossible the Bill could be allowed to pass without material alterations in Committee, and he trusted they would receive an assurance from those who had it in charge that such Amendments would not be resisted.
  SIR JOHN ASTLEYsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. Member for the opinion he entertained of him. He evidently thought him (Sir John Astley) no more fit for his position in that House than any menial position outside. He knew his brains were not as clear as those of his hon. Friend, and if they were of the same calibre, they would be useless or worse to him, because they would only stir up small matters in his mind which would interfere very much with the comfort of his life. Some people thought, because he was fond of racing, he was now trying to legislate for racehorses, but that was not so. His Bill was intended to prevent the administration of arsenic and other deleterious drugs to horses, which, was frequently done to improve the appearance of the animals, but which injured their constitution and eventually killed them. He had been urged by a large body of his constituents to bring in the Bill, and he thought it his bounden duty to do so. He hoped his hon. Friend would vote for the measure, and he really thought his only reason for objecting to it was to get him (Sir John Astley) on his legs.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

PRIVATE BILLS-CANVASSING IN THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKIN,pursuant to Notice, rose to move—
"That the solicitation of Members of this House to oppose or support Private Bills on Second Reading by Members connected in any way with interests concerned in that opposition or support, has a tendency to restore the evils which this House sought to redress by the present system of Private Bill Committees chosen by a Committee of Selection."
The hon. Member said, he made the Motion in consequence of what took place the other day on the second reading of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, which was rejected on grounds which would not have stood for a moment the closer
1492
examination of a Select Committee. It could not, therefore, be denied that a great wrong was done by the summary and unjust rejection of that Bill. He denied that there was anything in that Bill contrary to precedent or to previous legislation sanctioned by the House. He stated, and it could not be contradicted, that not one word of previous Notice had been given of opposition to either of the two hon. Members whose names were on the back of the Bill. And why was it rejected? Because the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claud John Hamilton) sent out a circular to his private Friends, entreating them to come down and vote against the measure, because it was to be proposed or supported by a certain Member of that House whom he named. He asked whether such a personal allusion was either usual or allowable? Why was it made? Simply to prejudice the issue. He was painfully conscious that in any question of comparative popularity he stood no chance with the noble Lord. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had led a hard and laborious life, full of conflicts, and he might, therefore, have many enemies. The noble Lord, on the other hand, moved in high circles, had charming manners, many influential friends, and had neither lived long enough, nor, so far, done anything sufficiently great or useful, to surround him with any animosities. The noble Lord was a paid railway director. So was he. The noble Lord was also deputy Chairman of a railway and paid in that capacity, the same as he (Sir Edward Watkin) was as Chairman of a railway. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had been elected to a seat in that House four times, and that was his ninth Session, and never in all that time had he solicited by speech or writing any Member to vote for or against any Bill which he believed to be favourable to or inimical to any undertaking of which he was a director. The noble Lord the deputy Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway and his co-director the hon. Member for Essex (Colonel Makins) marshalled their forces and defeated the Bill, and he wanted to know whether the House thought that was a proper course? If so, on another occasion, it could be done on the other side; and all the old evils of General Committees which the House had rid itself of years ago by appointing Select Committees

1493
would be brought back; dishonour would light upon the House with respect to private legislation; and the confidence of the public would be shaken in the purity, and honour, and honesty of its proceedings with respect to Private Bills. Again, such proceedings seriously affected the constitutional right of every subject to petition that House and to have his petition heard. In the case he had quoted a hearing had been refused not owing to reasons, or argument or evidence, but because of secret and private canvass by hon. Members distinctly interested in the issue. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the solicitation of Members of this House to oppose or support Private Bills on Second Reading by Members connected in any way with interests concerned in that opposition or support, has a tendency to restore the evils which this House sought to redress by the present system of Private Bill Committees chosen by a Committee of Selection."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he had voted against the Bill because it was a most objectionable one, and denied that he had been solicited to do so. The Motion was, he considered, the result of private feeling against the noble Lord on the part of the hon. Member for Hythe. It could not be said that, because the noble Lord had written to a few Friends, he had canvassed for votes, as the words were generally understood. He was a Friend of the noble Lord, and had never heard of the Bill till he came down to the House; but this he could say, that there was one clause in the Bill which was sufficient to secure its rejection. When such a statement as they had just heard was made, he thought it right that it should be at once contradicted. It was much to be regretted that almost on every Private Bill there was canvassing for votes. The system was wrong and ought to be put a stop to; certainly when it was done as openly as it was in the Lobby of the House of Commons.
LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member impugned the power of the House of Commons to reject Private Bills on the second reading—a power which he contended had exorcised a most salutary effect upon the purity and honesty of private legislation. If he were at
1494
liberty to go into the merits of the Bill in question, he could show that it was a much worse measure than the House thought it when they rejected it. He denied that the House had ever resigned its power of rejecting Private Bills on second reading. The majority of 65 by which the Bill was thrown out was conclusive as to its demerits. He admitted that he was deputy Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, and that he wrote to a certain and limited number of his Friends sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, requesting their attendance on the second reading of the "Metropolitan Railway Bill, promoted by Sir Edward Watkin." He was assured by high authorities that, regard being had to the glaring defects of the Bill, the course he took was straightforward and according to precedent, and he trusted that the House would acquit him of having done anything unworthy of the position of one of its Members.
MR. WHITBREADdeprecated the course pursued by the noble Lord, and said that if it was to be resorted to in future, the time of the House, which ought to be devoted to Public Business, would be wasted and taken up by animated and personal squabbles on Private Bills. It was wrong, he thought, for any individual Member to usurp to himself the functions of a Select Committee. He hoped that the hon. Member for Hythe would be satisfied with the discussion, and not divide the House on his Resolution, because it was so wide in its terms that it would prevent any one Member from speaking to any other Member on a Bill before the House.
MR. RAIKEStook a similar view, and remarked that of late years a most objectionable practice had sprung up of soliciting the assistance of personal Friends in regard to Private Bills. If the practice were continued, he was afraid that the confidence of the public in the Private Bill legislation of the House would not be maintained. He did not, however, think that the course of the noble Lord in this instance was open to any special objection. It was to be regretted that the more important Members of the House seldom took any part in reference to Private Bill legislation, so as to guide others in the course they should take. He concurred with the hon. Member for Bedford in the hope that the Motion would, after the discus-

1495
sion which had taken place, he withdrawn.
MR. RITCHIEthought that the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading was justified, and if no previous intimation of opposition had been given there would have been probably but very few Members present. The circular sent round had been sent more to secure an attendance than to influence the opinion of Members.
SIR EDWARD WATKIN,while thinking an important Constitutional principle at stake, offered, in deference to the suggestions made, to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No," and "Divide!"]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONhoped that the Motion would be permitted to be withdrawn, or a division might place them in a false position.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERconcurred in the suggestion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REFEREES ON PRIVATE BILLS.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Referees on Private Bills do consist of Twenty-one Members."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that the Committee should consist of 23 Members, and complained that so few Irish Members were proposed on the Committee. In the event of his Amendment being carried, he should propose two Irish Members, one from each side of the House; and if it was rejected he intended to propose an Amendment on each name.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Twenty-one," in order to insert the words "Twenty-three,"—(Mr. Sullivan,)—instead thereof.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had no objection to increase the number. The Motion was drawn in the usual form, and there was no intention to cast any slight on the Irish Representatives.
  Question put, "That the words 'Twenty-one' stand part of the Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 21: Majority 52.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he would move the omission of the name of Mr. Spencer Walpole, and would propose to substitute in its place the name of Lord Robert Montagu.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. and gallant Member was out of Order, such a Motion not being competent without Notice. He could move the omission of any name from the list.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he would amend his Motion in the manner indicated.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Spencer Walpole be a Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 11: Majority 68.
  MR. WARDsaid, he would move the omission of the name of Mr. Dodson from the list.
  MR. GOLDSMIDappealed to the Irish Members not to continue dividing the House against the wishes of a largo majority of hon. Members present.
  MR. SULLIVANthought it a reflection on the Irish Members that out of a total of 103 only two of their body had been chosen to sit on this important Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out the duties of the Select Committee on Referees on Private Bills. It was important to have Gentlemen of great experience of Private Business, and it was not at all a question of obtaining Gentlemen from one part of the country or the other.
  MR. W. E. FOESTERsupported the appointment of the Committee as proposed in the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Dodson be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 11: Majority 66.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Mowbray be one other Member of the said Committee."
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought that, if a delay were granted, some arrangement might be come to for the addition of the names of two Irish Members on the Committee, and therefore he would propose the Adjournment of the Debate

  1497
  with the view of seeing whether that course could be adopted.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he hoped that course would not be persisted in, as it was necessary to appoint the Committee without any delay, as it would soon have to enter upon its duty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he fully concurred in the remark of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Captain Nolan.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 68: Majority 51.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move the omission of the name of Mr. Mowbray.
  Question put, "That Mr. Mowbray be one other Member of the said Committee.
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 10: Majority 66.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Sclater-Booth be one other Member of the said Committee.
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 9: Majority 65.
  Sir Edward Colebrooke nominated one other Member of the said Committee.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Pemberton be one other Member of the said Committee.
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 9: Majority 65.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Whitbread be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 9: Majority 65.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Basil Woodd be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 9: Majority 65.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Sir John St. Aubyn be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 8: Majority 66.
  Mr. Kavanagh and The O'Conor Don nominated other Members of the said Committee.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Heygate be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 7: Majority 64.
  Sir Francis Goldsmid nominated one other Member of the said Committee.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Mills be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 3: Majority 72.
  Mr. Dillwyn nominated one other Member of the said Committee.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Rodwell be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 3: Majority 71.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Monk be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 3: Majority 71.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Staveley Hill be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 3: Majority 72.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Muntz be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 3: Majority 72.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. John Talbot be one other Member of the said Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 3: Majority 71.
  Mr. Anderson nominated one other Member of the said Committee.
  Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

OYSTER FISHERIES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what are the reasons for the present

  1499
  scarcity of Oysters, and what has been the effect of the measures relating to Oyster Fisheries adopted by Parliament subsequently to the Report of the Royal Commission on Sea Fisheries in 1866."—(Sir Charles Legard.)
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words "and to report what further legislative measures may, in the opinion of the Committee, be desirable."—(Mr. Cawley.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire what are the reasons for the present scarcity of Oysters, and what has been the effect of the measures relating to Oyster Fisheries adopted by Parliament subsequently to the Report of the Royal Commission on Sea Fisheries in 1866, and to report what further legislative measures may, in the opinion of the Committee, be desirable."
  And, on March 9, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Viscount HOLMESDALE, Mr. HERBERT, Colonel LEARMONTH, Mr. DILLWYN, Lord RENDLESHAM, Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN, Mr. MALCOLM, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. O'CONOR, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. EUSTACE SMITH, Major WALPOLE, Mr. ARTHUR VIVIAN, Mr. ASHBURY, Mr. WADDY, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL, and Sir CHARLES LEGARD:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on March 15, Lord CLAUD HAMILTON and Mr. FULLER MAITLAND added.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock in the morning.