Commons Sitting of 16 June 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES, Votes 1 to 6. EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—considered in Committee—Resolution [June 13] reported..
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Indian Marine [182]; Salmon Fishery Law Amendment (No. 2) [188]. Committee—Report—Common Law Procedure and Judicature Acts Amendment* [181].
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue* [150]; Bills of Sale (Ireland)* [45].
Withdrawn—Church of Scotland* [39].

QUESTIONS.
  CYPRUS—THE ORDINANCES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will re-consider his determination not to print as Parliamentary Papers even those of the Cyprus Ordinances, which are as peculiar in their nature as the following—namely,

    1909
    the Ordinance of 1879, giving power to the Cyprus Government to exile persons without trial; the Ordinance of 1878, prohibiting the sale of land in Cyprus to all persons not British or Turkish subjects; and the Ordinance of 1870, raising special taxation on all lands left uncultivated, and forfeiting unclaimed lands to the Government?
    MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he would place in the Library of the House Copies of the Ordinances referred to by the hon. Baronet; but he did not propose to lay them on the Table.

    IRELAND—THE FISHERIES OF SLIGO AND THE BONET RIVER.—QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it would not be desirable to hold an investigation into the manner in which the fisheries of the Sligo Fisheries and the Bonet River, County Leitrim, have been managed by Mr. Brady, Inspector of Fisheries, having regard to the fact that it has been shown by a Return furnished to the Government, at an inspection ordered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the quantity of salmon taken in these fisheries has considerably diminished since the year 1862 up to the present date, in consequence of bye-laws enacted by Mr. Brady, Inspector of Fisheries?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have not yet been able to get a full Report. If the Question is repeated, I shall be able to say more in a few days. I find an inquiry has been held into the matter by three Inspectors; so that the name of Mr. Brady ought only to be mentioned in conjunction with that of his colleagues.

    LOCAL FINANCE—ANNUAL STATEMENT—THE PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL—QUESTIONS.
    MR. PELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When Her Majesty's Government desire to make the Annual Statement on Local Finance which it was understood would be considered at the same time as the Budget?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, my hon. Friend asks when we "desire" to make the Statement to which he refers in his Question. We desire, of course, to make it as soon as possible;
    1910
    but with regard to what we propose to do, I have some little difficulty on account of the course of Business. It is essential that we should make that Statement soon, and obtain the authority of the House for the issue of what will be necessary for next year of the Public Works Loan. If we do not obtain that authority early in July, there will be serious difficulty, because there will be no funds to carry on the works. I hope, therefore, we may be able next week—say on Thursday week—to bring forward that proposal, and I shall connect it with the Public Works Loan Bill now before the House, trusting to introduce into that Bill a clause to give us the necessary powers.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked, If the Government intended to withdraw the Public Works Loan Bill now before the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No; the Bill I now refer to is the annual Bill authorizing the advances of the Commissioners.

    INDIA—PETITION OF MR. WILLIAM TAYLER—SIR FREDERICK HALLIDAY.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to a Petition presented to the House in February last by Mr. William Taylor, to which the attention of the House is to be called on the 1st proximo by the honourable Member for South Warwickshire, and in which the conduct of Sir Frederick Halliday, formerly Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, is seriously impugned, Whether any statement of the case has been submitted to the Secretary of State by Sir Frederick Halliday; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to lay such statement upon the Table of the House?
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the statement of Sir Frederick Halliday, referred to by the honourable and learned Member for Staffordshire, is a reply to the Petition of Mr. William Tayler, presented in February last to this House; or, whether it is a reply of some standing to memorials presented by Mr. Tayler to successive Secretaries of State, and especially to a Memorial addressed by him to the Duke of Argyll in 1868?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, it is true that a statement has been prepared by Sir Frederick Halliday, at my request, in view of the debate to be brought on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Warwickshire. It refers to a number of official documents contained in many volumes at the India Office. The question of producing that statement, or the official documents generally, is one of great difficulty. On the one hand, Sir Frederick Halliday, after many years of useful public service in India, has been exposed to violent attacks in several pamphlets, and I venture to express my respect for the forbearance which he has displayed, knowing that he could only defend himself by official documents. But, on the other hand, no public matter is involved, the Motion of the hon. Member for South Warwickshire raises no such question; and, therefore, my noble Friend does not, upon the whole, consider himself justified, either in producing the statement or the Papers generally, or in putting the country to the great expense of printing them.

    NORTHERN BORNEO—CESSION OF TERRITORY.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the cession of territory in Northern Borneo to a British Trading Company would, if approved by Her Majesty's Government, involve any responsibility on the part of this country; and, if so, what responsibility?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, the approval of this proposed cession would not, as far as we know, involve any responsibility on the part of this country other than the general responsibility which devolves on Her Majesty's Government of affording protection to British subjects in all parts of the world, so far as circumstances permit. But Her Majesty's Government have not at present given any such approval.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House, why the approval of Her Majesty's Government is asked, if there is no responsibility incurred?
    MR. BOURKE: That is a Question rather for the persons who ask for the approval, than for Her Majesty's Government.

    REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND (IRELAND)—LOANS TO CLARE FISHERMEN.—QUESTION.
    LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that several cases have lately occurred in Clare County, where, default having been made by fishermen in the repayment of an instalment of money borrowed by them from the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, they have been forced by legal process not only to repay the sums remaining undischarged, but also to pay over again the instalments which they had already paid before default?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I do not find that the matters have proceeded to the extremity the noble Lord's Question seems to indicate; but there were some difficulties of a legal character with regard to these loans. The Board of Works have been asked to report on the matter, and arrangements have been made which I hope will obviate all difficulties in the future.

    IRELAND—VOTE FOR CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE.—QUESTION.
    MRJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When Vote 35, Class 2, Chief Secretary for Ireland's Offices, will be taken?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I fool that I can give no very definite answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member. The Vote will be taken as soon as we are able to fix a day for commencing with Irish Votes, and Class 2 will be taken when we have disposed of Votes in Class 1.

    JAMAICA—COOLIES.—QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "New York Times," dated 30th May, which stated that a ship had arrived at Kingston, Jamaica, to carry back Coolies who had been serving under an indenture for employers in the parish of Charleston, and who, during the time of their servitude, had deposited large sums of money in the hands of the immigration agent for safe keeping; whether, on asking for it, they were told he could not pay it to them, and they were thereby defrauded; if it be true

    1913
    that the Governor of Jamaica refused to give protection to the immigrants in the matter, though the Chief Justice had stated they were entitled to be paid; and, further, if they have been paid?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the hon. Member has been good enough to send me the article in The New York Times upon which this Question is based. Iliad heard reports that a sub-immigration agent in Jamaica had improperly received money, by himself or his son, from the Coolies for whom he was responsible; but I knew nothing of the other statements quoted from the article, and I have at once directed the Governor to supply me with a full report on the subject.

  EGYPT—MR. VIVIAN—THE PAPERS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Vivian has been recalled from his post as Consul General in Egypt; and, if so, for what reason; whether Mr. Adams has been appointed to succeed Mr. Vivian; and, when the Papers relating to Egyptian matters will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    MR. BOURKE: No, Sir; Mr. Vivian has not been recalled from his post. Mr. Vivian has been permitted to come home for a short time on private affairs—affairs strictly of a private character—but it is not likely that Mr. Vivian's return to Egypt will be delayed beyond a few weeks. With regard to the next Question, Mr. Adams has not been appointed to succeed Mr. Vivian; but Mr. Lascelles, who for some time discharged Mr. Vivian's duties when he was absent for a short time, will again discharge the duties now. With regard to the Papers on Egyptian affairs, Her Majesty's Government have considered the subject very carefully, and are most anxious to produce them; but they are of opinion, under existing circumstances, that it would not be to the public interest to do so at the present moment.
    MR. OTWAYasked when they would be produced?
    MR. BOURKE: It depends on the communications now going on, when the Papers can be produced. The circumstances, I need not say, are not altogether in the control of Her Majesty's Government,
    MR. WHITWELLasked, if Mr. Lascelles was acting as Consul General?
    MR. BOURKE: he will perform the same functions which he performed before. I cannot understand that his position will be in any way different from that which Mr. Vivian's has been.

    THE RAILWAY COMMISSION BILL—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
    MR. MONKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to name a day on which he will ask leave to introduce the proposed Railway Commission Bill?
    VISCOUNT SANDON, in reply, said, he was not surprised at the anxiety manifested by the hon. Gentleman; but, in the present state of Public Business, it was impossible to name a day. It would be impossible, however, for Her Majesty's Government to allow the powers of the Royal Commission to lapse this year; and he was as anxious as the hon. Gentleman was to bring in the Bill; but he could not name a day.

    VICTORIA—THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.—QUESTION.
    MR. A. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, When his despatch to Lord Norman by, relating to the differences between the two Houses of the Legislature of the Colony of Victoria, will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether any further Correspondence has taken place on the subject since that already presented to Parliament?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the despatch to Lord Norman by should reach Melbourne in about 10 clays from this time, and I propose shortly after that date to present it, together with other Correspondence on the subject, to Parliament.

  NAVY—COALING AT ST. VINCENT'S.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How many tons of coal were supplied to the Transports at St. Vincent for the voyage to the Cape, at what price per ton it was supplied, and how many days each Transport was delayed in order to obtain the necessary quantity?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I stated, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), both how many tons of coal were supplied to the transports, and how long each vessel was occupied in coaling, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend will hardly wish me to repeat that statement; but the price at which the coal was supplied—the entire cost—was 28 s. a-ton in two cases, 30 s. in the case of 10 ships, and 32 s. in the case of two other ships.

  CRIMINAL CODE BILL—MEMORANDUM OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. HERSCHELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has received a memorandum from the Lord Chief Justice containing comments and suggestions in relation to the Criminal Code Bill, and, whether he will lay a Copy of the same upon the Table of the House?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER), in reply, said, he had received the Memorandum from the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the Criminal Code Bill, and he would be happy to lay it on the Table of the House.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had that day laid on the Table of the House the Report of the Commissioners in relation to the Code.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEasked, If it was intended to print the Report?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Certainly.

  ARMY—THE 42ND REGIMENT.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the 42nd Regiment is still suffering from the effects of the Cyprus fever; and, whether it is about to be brought home before the usual time in consequence of the ill-health of the men?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, the report of the health of the men of the 42nd Highlanders was not altogether satisfactory, and as there was likely to be a certain amount of fever at Gibraltar, it was thought expedient that this regiment should not be left there.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman please answer the first part of my Question?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I cannot say whether the men are suffering from Cyprus fever, because some of the men have suffered from fever contracted on the West Coast of Africa.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE FIGHT AT RORKE'S DRIFT.

    QUESTION.
    MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, If an order was issued by his or any other authority, that in consideration of the gallantry displayed by the non-commissioned officers and privates at Rorke's Drift, the issue of one flannel shirt and one pair of trousers to each man, in compensation for damage done to their clothing, is sanctioned?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, so far as I can understand, such an order was issued by the General Officer commanding the troops for the issue to the men of a flannel shirt and one pair of trousers, in compensation for damage done to the clothing. Whether regard was had to it as a reward for gallantry or not I cannot say.

    ARMY—BEARDS.—QUESTION.
    MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he sees any objection to permit all ranks of the Army to wear their beards, in accordance with the example sot by Field Marshal H.E.H. the Prince of Wales, H.S.H. the Prince of Saxe-Weimar, commanding the Southern District, and by the officers and men of the Royal Navy?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I do not presume, looking at all the bearded faces round me, to express an opinion whether any alleviation would be desirable or not; but, as a matter of fact, while beards are allowed to be worn where there are any sanitary reasons—climate or otherwise—the Queen's Regulations say that troops at home shall not wear boards, and from that there is no reason to depart.
    MR. STACPOOLEgave Notice that on going into Committee on the Army Estimates he should call attention to the subject.

  IRELAND—FORCIBLE DISPERSION OF A MEETING AT COOKSTOWN.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention

    1917
    has been drawn to the report which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of Friday, June 13, wherein it is stated that a meeting convened by the following placard extensively circulated:—
    "The Irish University Bill. A public meeting will be held in Cookstown on Thursday, 12th June, to support The O'Conor Don's University Bill. Chair to be taken at two o'clock. Friends of denominational education are earnestly requested to attend;"
    was dispersed and forcibly prevented from holding the meeting, by the police numbering upwards of one hundred men, under arms, under the command of Captain Waring, R.M., Mr. J. B. Moore, J.P., and County Inspector Murphy; that the authorities, through Captain Waring, ordered the police to charge, who did so at the double, and the processionists were thrown into the utmost confusion and were most unceremoniously huddled backwards at the point of a double line of bayonets; is it a fact, as stated in the same report, that—
    "The processionists were most orderly, nothing1 in the way of drunkenness being in the slightest degree visible," and that "for several years the town has been the scene of recurring saturnalias of the Orange party, and nothing in the way of let or hindrance goes to mar their proceedings;"
    whether Her Majesty's Government approve of such conduct on the part of Captain Waring and the police authorities, and are prepared to deny to the Catholics of Tyrone the right of public meeting to petition Parliament in favour of a Bill under the consideration of this House; and, whether any orders or instructions have been given by the Irish Executive to the said magistrates or inspector; and, if so, what is the purport of these orders or instructions, and is there any objection to lay them upon the Table of this House?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have seen the newspaper report to which the hon. Member refers; and the report, read in extenso, appears to give a very accurate account of the proceedings in question, although the extracts, taken by themselves, hardly convey a correct account of what took place. It appears, from what I am able to learn from all sources, that the procession was formed for the purpose of holding a meeting at a particular place. Among the processionists were men armed with revolvers and other weapons,
    1918
    which they appear to have made use of on their line of march when engaged in wrecking houses. There was also collected on the route proposed to be taken by the procession an opposition crowd, likewise armed, and posted there avowedly to stop the processionists by force. Sworn informations having been made that a breach of the peace was likely to occur, the resident magistrate, very properly as I think, prevented a collision by impartially dispersing both crowds. No special instructions were given by the Government as to the course to be adopted by the authorities on the spot, which appears to me to have been judicious as well as successful, and to have prevented a serious breach of the peace.
    MR. CALLAN: I beg to ask, in addition, as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to various sources of information, Whether it is on the authority of the police he states that the processionists were armed with revolvers?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I made that statement on official information received—not any special report, but information from various sources.
    MR. CALLAN: I want to ask if the information is from the authorities?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Yes, certainly; from the authorities, but not solely from the police.
    MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, I had a Notice on the Paper to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that a public meeting in favour of the Irish University Bill has been prevented in the County Tyrone by a body of constabulary charging with fixed bayonets a peaceful procession? but I will not now put the right hon. Gentleman to the trouble of answering it. However, I beg to give Notice that I will call attention, at an early opportunity, to the support of illegal associations by Her Majesty's Government in the North of Ireland.

    IRELAND—REGISTRARS OF COUNTY COURTS.—QUESTION.
    MR. MELDONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether any, and, if so, what measures have been taken to place the position of Registrars of the County Courts in Ireland on a satisfactory and permanent basis as to salary and duties?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The Lord Chancellor of Ireland has recently requested the Judges of the County Courts to meet and to select some of their body to confer with him as regards the duties of the Registrars.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. COURTNEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay on the Table a despatch of Sir Bartle Frere, which has been telegraphed to the "Standard" some time ago, relating to his interview with the Boers of the Transvaal, and to a memorial which they have presented to him for transmission to the home Government; also, whether the right hon. Gentleman is able to confirm the report which has since appeared, that the Volksraad of the Orange Free State have passed a resolution recommending the restoration of the independence of the Transvaal?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have received no information as to the resolution stated to have been passed by the Volksraad
    of the Orange Free State. The despatch from Sir Bartle Frere, which was telegraphed to The Standard, has reached me; but I cannot yet state when it can be presented to Parliament, as I think it would be fair to Sir Bartle Frere that other despatches which he has sent from the Transvaal should be published together with it, if this can be done without injury to the Public Service; and some of them must be still on their way, as the last received was dated some days before he left the Transvaal.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES. [Progress.]
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £50,600, Divine Service.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be very interesting to many people in Ireland, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would state to the Committee what pro-
  1920
  vision he had made for the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholic soldiers serving in South Africa. By a Return recently moved for and made in that House, it appeared that some of the regiments now employed in South Africa were very largely composed of Roman Catholic soldiers, and he and others were desirous to know what arrangements had been made for sending Roman Catholic chaplains out there to minister to the spiritual wants of the men.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he stated a few days ago what number of Catholic chaplains had been sent out to the Cape. That number was proportioned, as they considered it, to the ordinary requirements of a Force of the description now serving in South Africa. He also stated that he awaited, before sending any further chaplains out—Roman Catholic or otherwise—some demand from the General Officer commanding the Forces. He understood that there were clergymen of all denominations on the spot, whose services could be secured; and that a certain number of them had been employed under the general powers which the General Officer commanding possessed. He (Colonel Stanley) was not aware of any want in that respect, and until such want was notified to him, he did not think it necessary to send out more than the usual proportion of chaplains.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was sorry to find, from private communications he had had from South Africa, that matters in this respect were by no means as satisfactory as he was sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could himself wish. With very great respect personally, for now he was simply dealing with the Office the right hon. and gallant Gentleman held, he was bound to say that he could not accept the doctrine laid down by the Secretary of State for War—namely, that he was not to make provision for the spiritual wants of the soldiers serving abroad until some complaint was made to him on the subject. Surely, the spiritual wants of the soldiers were worth caring for by anticipation, as well as other wants. He had no doubt that the personal desire of the Secretary of State for War was to do what was right; but the system he had advocated was most objectionable. He (Mr. Sullivan) trusted implicitly in the private accounts he had

  1921
  received from South Africa, and he could say that the greatest dissatisfaction prevailed there at the conduct of some of the military authorities in reference to this matter. It was not always that the good disposition of the War Office was able to manifest itself in its subordinates, when they were at such a distance from London. Nothing but the word of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, sent out to the spot, would cause his wishes to be attended to. He trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that he would send out instructions on the subject. By the accounts he (Mr. Sullivan) had received from trustworthy sources, he knew that the military authorities treated in a very off-hand manner, and with scant courtesy, any applications as to the spiritual wants of the Catholic soldiers, who were shedding their blood under their colours in South Africa.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that under that Vote he wished to make a complaint and ask for information. He noticed an item for the payment of clergymen performing divine service for military prisoners. He was informed that at a very recent period, in the gaol at Taunton, there were between 50 and GO Catholic military prisoners; but that there was no provision whatever for service for them. The military prisoners of the other religions had every opportunity for assisting in divine worship, and did, in fact, on Sunday, attend the ministrations of their clergyman. The Catholic prisoners were strictly locked up on Sundays; while their comrades were able to attend church. He knew this state of affairs existed until a short time ago, and he was not sure that it had been remedied. He trusted that it had. If the present was an inconvenient time at which to ask for information on the subject, he should be glad to postpone the question.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that hon. Gentlemen would very materially assist them in carrying' out that which was their wish and the wish of the Committee, if they would forward to him any instances, properly authenticated, such as that cited by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). In cases of this description, he uniformly caused inquiry to be made. With regard to
  1922
  the present matter, he had to state that there was a standing rule that payments were made for officiating clergymen wherever there was a certain number of people of a particular religion to be provided for. There had been either some misrepresentation, or some fact had not been made known which prevented the usual rule applying in this instance. He should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would kindly forward him particulars of the case, and he would inquire into it. With regard to the Cape, what he wished to be understood was this—that he was not adverse to meet the spiritual wants of either the officers or men as far as possible; but that information had been given to him to the effect that there were already at the Cape a sufficient number of clergymen of the various persuasions who could perform the duties of military chaplains. Inasmuch as these clergymen were on the spot, he did not consider it for the advantage of the public or of the men themselves to send out others, so that there would be two people to do the work of one.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of Military Law, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  MAJOR O'BEIRNE MAJOR O'BEIRNE moved the reduction of the Vote by £2,000, the pay of the Judge Advocate General. He pointed out that in the evidence given before the Select Committee on the Army Discipline Bill it was stated by Mr. O'Dowd that the opinion of the Judge Advocate General had no legal effect whatever; that the Commander-in-Chief could set aside the opinion of the Judge Advocate General. If that wore the case, he could not see the use of the appointment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £2,000, for the Salary of I the Judge Advocate General, be omitted from j the proposed Vote."—(Major O'Beirne.)
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Committee would well understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was present and ready to answer all matters connected with his Department; but they would easily see why the duty of explaining the Vote and of showing its

  1923
  necessity should rather devolve upon him than upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. So far as he (Colonel Stanley) was able to speak, both from personal knowledge and otherwise, he was bound to demur to the doctrine the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major O'Beirne) had laid down, even though he might have quoted correctly the evidence given before the Select Committee by Mr. O'Dowd. That evidence, of course, required to be carefully examined, not only in itself, but in its context, and without having seen it, he did not feel in a position to express an opinion upon it. The Office of Judge Advocate General had been one which had been handed down from a remote time in one form or another; and there had always been felt to be a certain advantage in having, apart from the Administration of the Army, a perfectly independent tribunal to which courts martial could be sent, and which was not under the control of the War Office authorities. It had been always held that in having a Court of that nature considerable advantage resulted, both to the Service and to the soldier. The Office of Judge Advocate General must necessarily be, to a certain extent, influenced by the Bill which was now before the House, and he did not suppose that any office of that sort would be retained on the Estimates without due inquiry, and without their having satisfied themselves that every reason did exist for its maintenance. He was certainly not prepared at the present time, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne), or from what he had heard otherwise, to assent to the reduction of the Vote; but, on the contrary, he believed that the Judge Advocate General and his Office were very valuable, and ought to be preserved; because it was very desirable that there should be a careful examination of the proceedings of courts martial from an outside authority, such as the Judge Advocate General, who was entirely independent of the War Office. Up to the present, the Office had been attended with advantage, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not consider it his duty to press his Amendment at the present time, but allow the Vote to pass.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he had a similar Amendment upon the Paper to the one which had just been
  1924
  proposed; but he had been induced to withdraw it without the slightest consultation whatever with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major O'Beirne), and for a very different purpose. The object he had in view was to raise a special point of military law, upon which there had recently been a very grave and lamentable difference of opinion on the part of the Department which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself (Colonel Stanley) represented. The subject had, of late, been debated with very considerable and momentous, and, in some respects, lamentable results to the Public Service. It was with regard to the interpretation of that clause of the Army Reserve Act of 1867 which related to the employment or non-employment, in the recent despatch of reinforcements to the Cape, of those men of the Army Reserve who had expressed their willingness to volunteer for service. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members of the Committee, and in that of others, that very early in the present Session he asked a Question of the Secretary of State for War, as to whether he could not avail himself, under the 11th clause of the Army Reserve Act of 1867, and in the emergency which had recently occurred, of the very valuable and most efficient services of those men of the Army Reserve who were willing to volunteer for service? The answer which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave was in direct contradiction of the answer they received to a like Question last week. For this reason, it was necessary for the satisfaction of those persons interested in the matter that some explanation should be given. The answer which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave on the 21st of February to his (Sir Henry Havelock's) Question, as to whether the Army Reserve men who were willing to volunteer could be employed for service at the Cape, was as follows:—
  "Sir, as a matter of fact, I am not aware that any men of the Army Reserve have volunteered for service at the Cape, although I have no doubt, from all that I have heard, they would he very ready to do so if an opportunity were given. With regard to the second Question, I must speak with some reservation; hut, as I am advised at present, the men who have joined the Army Reserve are covered by the Statute Law of 1867, under which they are allowed to serve upon two conditions—first, a Proclamation under section 10 in case of a national emergency; and, secondly, by volunteering for duty. Under

  1925
  the first condition they can serve for six months after the emergency is over; but under the second—which would he the one applicable to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend—they can only serve for six months from the date of volunteering for service; and I do not think, under the circumstances, that it would be worth while to accept them for so short a time."—[3 Hansard, ccxliii. 1603–4.]
  It certainly was not for him (Sir Henry Havelock), although he had the honour of serving on the Committee appointed to consider the Army Discipline Bill, to protest against the opinion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  COLONEL STANLEY, in explanation, said, that, as a matter of fact, this question was not referred to the Judge Advocate General at all.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKcontended that if there was one official in the country more than another charged with the interpretation of military law, it was the Judge Advocate General, and it was for the purpose of raising that express point that he desired to make these remarks. Of course, if the Chairman ruled him out of Order he should be glad to raise the question at a later stage of the Estimates. To him (Sir Henry Havelock), however, the matter appeared pertinent to the question now before them.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Judge Advocate General was, according to the statement made by the Secretary of State, employed to assist in the administration of law, and to interpret the Mutiny Act. He was not the general Law Adviser of the War Office. Under those circumstances, the hon. and gallant Baronet would be more in Order if he were to introduce the question at a later stage.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, that what had just been said exactly cleared up the point in the direction he was indicating. It appeared that upon the Judge Advocate General devolved the duty of interpreting the Mutiny Act. Now, this matter was to be taken in connection with the Mutiny Act; and it appeared to him, as he had previously said, that the Judge Advocate General was, of all persons in tire country, the one specially charged, by test after test, with the interpretation of the Act, and that he ought at all times to be ready with an explanation. As this was a question of great importance, he had not the slightest doubt that the Committee would give
  1926
  him the opportunity of introducing it at a later period of the evening.
  COLONEL MUREobserved, that if the Judge Advocate General was not the person to whom the Secretary of State for War leaned for advice as to the Mutiny Act, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be kind enough to inform the Committee what the duties of the Judge Advocate General were?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANremarked, that there appeared to be some misapprehension in this matter. There was an official at the War Office who used to be called the Solicitor, but was now called the Legal Under Secretary. He was the person who advised the Secretary of State for War as to any ordinary legal subject. It was the Judge Advocate General who had to do with the administration of the law under the Mutiny Act; but he had only to do with judicial or criminal questions.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, it was quite unnecessary to say anything further upon the subject raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Havelock). He desired, however, to point out one matter which might be well taken into consideration by the Committee, and it was this—that the Vote, though it was headed "Administration of Military Law," did not deal with a very important item of expense of the military law—a severe expense incident to courts martial. His object in rising at the present moment was to throw out the suggestion that a good deal of expense might be saved, especially in connection with depôt centres; first, by having recourse to documentary evidence; and, secondly, by reducing the number of members who served upon courts martial. It was foolish to suppose that five officers were not as competent to administer justice as seven. It was certainly his experience that the greatest possible inconvenience had resulted, and great expense had been charged to the public, by it being insisted upon that no court should sit with less than seven members. If the Secretary of State for War would cause it to be understood that a lesser number than at present were sufficient to compose courts martial, considerable expense would be saved, and justice would be administered equally well.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that in respect to the point raised by the

  1927
  hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Havelock), he was bound to say that there was a very strong feeling in the Army that the public did not get out of the Office of Judge Advocate General as much advantage as they were entitled to, considering its cost. There was one duty which might very properly be put upon this Office—namely, the preparation of the Mutiny Bills which came before the House. The Judge Advocate General was specially appointed to interpret the Mutiny Act; but what did they now see? They had a Mutiny Bill before them, which had been prepared entirely by outsiders, by the civilian draftsmen of the Government. If ever there was a duty which might well devolve on the Judge Advocate General it was the preparation of the Mutiny Bill. He knew not what the expense might be of employing Sir Henry Thring to prepare the Bill; butheknewthis—that he ought to receive a large sum indeed, to compensate him for the labour and trouble he had taken in the matter. There was a Judge Advocate General receiving £2,000 a-year, as well as a Legal Secretary at the War Office; but neither of them had anything to do with the preparation of the Bill. Another Gentleman had to be employed, who had told the Committee that he knew nothing of the subject. They need not, therefore, be surprised if the Bill was a long time in getting through the Committee. He was of opinion that the Judge Advocate General's Department ought to be employed more in connection with military affairs than they were, and there were many occasions on which the Judge Advocate General might rise in the House, with very great benefit, to explain certain questions and thus assist the Secretary of State for War, who was now undergoing a great strain in carrying the Army Bill through Parliament.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the various drafts and other matters had been constantly before the Office of the Judge Advocate General; but it was utterly impossible that the Judge Advocate General could prepare a Bill such as that now before the Committee, because he had not the means of doing so. As regarded himself, he was at all times perfectly ready to answer any question put to him, or to give any assistance to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, or to any
  1928
  hon. Gentleman who chose to seek it. His right hon. and gallant Friend knew that he was willing to perform any part of the duty he had taken upon himself; but it was certainly not his desire to throw himself unduly before the House. He had now answered the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon), and he should be glad if he could afford any information to other hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that it was not the wish of the Committee that, in the discussion in which they were now engaged, there should be even an appearance of a reflection upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Judge Advocate General. Furthermore, in rising to take part in the discussion, it was not his wish, in any degree, to make remarks which might be personally distasteful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; nor, in point of fact, did he wish to raise a question as to the ability with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman fulfilled the duties of his post. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said, in justification of this Vote, that the Office of Judge Advocate General had been handed down from a remote period. No doubt, it had been handed down from a remote period, and that many distinguished gentlemen had held the Office. But the Committee ought, at all events, to recollect this—that within their own experience there had boon a period within which the Judge Advocate General had not been required at all; that there was a time during which the Office was allowed to remain in abeyance. They remembered that the late Sir Colman O'Loghlen retired from that Office, and that for some months there was no successor appointed. At length, however, it became convenient for the Minister of the day to appoint to the Office a right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been removed from one position, but whom it was desirable to retain in the Public Service. It appeared to him (Mr. Rylands) that when they were voting this £2,000, the Committee was entitled to know what were the duties and powers of the Judge Advocate General. It seemed possible for the Office always to remain in abeyance; or, at all events, for its duties to be performed by the Deputy Judge Advocate General and the other gentle-

  1929
  men connected with the Department. Therefore they were entitled to know what were the special duties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman performed. He thought they were also entitled to know how far the Office of Judge Advocate General did assist in maintaining the proper discipline of the Army. It must be known to the Committee that, at the present time, there was a very grave doubt as to the position of the Judge Advocate General; and, unless he was mistaken, there was no attempt made in the Bill now before Parliament to remove the difficulty which they had in evidence before the Committee which was presided over by his lion, and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt). On that Committee there was a question as to how far the Judge Advocate General was a Judge at all, and it was stated that he was in no sense a Judge, but that, in fact, he was simply an assessor who could give advice under certain conditions; but whose advice might be treated with perfect indifference. One remarkable case was mentioned before the Committee, and that was of a soldier who lost his ramrod. He was charged under the Articles of War with having lost this ramrod; he was also charged with having disposed of it, or with having lost it by neglect. The court martial simply found that he had lost the ramrod by carelessness, and, therefore, no crime attached to him. When this soldier came to be discharged, it was found that the conviction under the sentence of the court martial was entered on the regimental records, and in consequence of this conviction the man, who had not been found guilty of any crime, forfeited his good-conduct pay. The matter came up before the Judge Advocate General's Office, and they were of opinion that the man ought not to forfeit his good-conduct pay. They thought that, instead of a conviction, an acquittal ought to have been entered. Well, what happened then? One would suppose that if the Judge Advocate General had any power at all, he would have the power of securing that this amount of justice should be done to the private soldier. But it was found that he had no power whatever. The matter was sent before the War Office, and the War Office found, for some reason or the other, that it would be inconvenient
  1930
  to support the decision of the Judge Advocate General, and they referred it to the Law Officers of the Crown to ascertain whether the decision of the Judge Advocate General was a decision which the War Office was bound to respect, or whether it was simply advice which they might disregard or not, as they found most convenient. Now, the statement was that the Law Officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that it was no binding decision, and that the Judge Advocate General was not a Judge, but merely a person whose advice might be asked. And in that particular case, the soldier, who was neither morally nor legally guilty, incurred all the consequences of a conviction. He thought that when they were voting the salary for that important Office, they were entitled to know what power the holder of that Office had in the administration of the Army, and what work was now clone which was not done before the Office was re-established. His object was to strengthen the Office, and to secure that there should be some sort of appeal against the decisions of courts martial. In the case he had alluded to, a serious amount of injustice had been done; and if he were satisfied on that point, he should vote this money with very much more confidence than he felt at that moment.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, he was not present at the commencement of the debate; but, if he was in Order, he would rather suggest an increase than a decrease in the salary of the Judge Advocate General. He would make that Office infinitely more important than it was at the present moment. Referring to the case which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he would say that when a man deserted his kit was at once examined by a non-commissioned officer; a memorandum was then made of any articles found to be deficient, and the ordinary after-charge made against him, would be for "having made away with, or lost by neglect" the articles which were proved to be missing. This wording was necessary, because of the obvious difficulty of proving how the things were disposed of. With regard to the Judge Advocate General's Department, anything he might say was not intended to be personal in the slightest degree. He would desire to see the

  1931
  position of that official raised very considerably. It was a position of vital importance to the discipline of the Army. Whether it really was so or not, he considered it should be a judicial position; that the Judge Advocate General should occupy the position of an acting Judge, and who should be perfectly independent of Party or of politics, and not be removable in consequence of a change of Government. Such an officer should be selected from amongst the best known barristers of the day, who had had great experience in Criminal Law. His deputy, also, should be selected very much for the same reason. Indifferent lawyers and briefless barristers appointed to the Judge Advocate's Department had, from time to time, done infinite mischief as regarded discipline and military law. He considered that in the Judge Advocate General's Department there ought to be a considerably greater military element than now existed. They ought to have in the Department officers of considerable regimental experience, and men whose specialité had been courts martial. There were such men in every regiment, and they should be selected for this Department by a strong test examination. In his opinion, there ought also to be a strong and closer connection between, at all events, the military element of the Judge Advocate General's Department and the Adjutant General's Department at the Horse Guards. A Commander-in-Chief might now be really and totally ignorant of the decision of the Judge Advocate General, and might himself give orders entirely contrary to what had been ruled by the Judge Advocate General to the General Officer commanding a division, and the Committee would agree with him that such a state of affairs was not desirable. He could quote so many instances where the Judge Advocate General's Department, apart from political reasons and sometimes from positive ignorance, had given very incorrect decisions, that he contended the Department ought to be thoroughly reformed and specially so organized as to be above political interest, He could remember a Judge Advocate General, who was a Liberal, standing for a borough at a General Election for re-election, and he was very nearly beaten, and lost 40 or 50 votes entirely by the other Party condescending to get up a cry that he had advocated
  1932
  what they untruthfully called "branding" with B.C. He (General Shute) was sure the Committee would agree with him that an officer who was almost a Judge should be independent of that sort of cry. He knew the majority of the House were very much opposed to anything like marking; but he was satisfied it was the only way in which they should get over the great difficulty with regard to desertion and fraudulent re-enlistment. Marking with the letters "B.C." was not done in the least as a military punishment, and it was done with as little pain as possible by merely tattooing. Officers on courts martial often used to very much object to marking men of previously fair character with the letter "D;" but when a court martial did not make this a part of its sentence for desertion, the President was ordered to append a letter to the proceedings explaining the reason for the omission, so great an object was it in those days considered by the War Department to, by this means, protect the taxpaying public from fraud. In the same way, with regard to "B. C," he did not see how they could possibly improve the Army if, whenever they got rid of a blackguard out of one regiment, they were not able to mark him, so that he might be prevented from enlisting in another corps.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was now wandering from the subject before the Committee.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, his object was to show that the Judge Advocate General, to whose election he had referred, was perfectly right in advocating marking, and yet he very nearly lost his seat by it. If the late Mr. Butt were still in the House, he would know of a case which occurred in Cork—a case of a court martial on Fenian prisoners. One of them would be remembered by some hon. Members present as Sergeant Darrah. Two non-commissioned officers were tried for cases of most outrageous mutiny. Both were sentenced to death; but the proceedings of the first court martial were quashed, and the prisoner returned to his duty, because the Judge Advocate General decided that the evidence was contrary to law, showing either utter ignorance of the law of evidence as regards co-conspirators, or, as some thought, fear of his constituents.

  1933
  Fortunately for the maintenance of discipline when this decision was promulgated, the proceedings of the court on the second prisoner tried, Sergeant Darrah, had not yet been forwarded to London, and the General commanding in Ireland had yet time to urge that the proceedings of this exactly similar case might be submitted to the Judges or Law Officers of the Crown, whose decision was quite contrary to that of the Judge Advocate General. The proceedings were approved and confirmed; but the sentence of "death" was commuted to penal servitude for life. There was a case, in which, through ignorance or policy—he could not say which—a very gross miscarriage of justice occurred. Another important point he very much objected to. Hitherto, the Judge Advocate Generals had boon almost "annuals." They were very flourishing annuals, he admitted; but, nevertheless, they wanted a more lasting flower. Since 1870 there had been no less than six holders of the Office, and whilst they had these constant changes they could hardly expect the duty to be well done. He was perfectly satisfied that if it had not been for those changes they would never have required the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, because the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act would have been from time to time properly revised or re-drawn. The present Mutiny Act and Articles of War might, in their present form, be a puzzle even to hon. and learned Gentlemen in that House; but they were perfectly well understood in the Army, and the old soldiers were able to explain to the young ones the meaning of different clauses; but if the new Bill were passed, it would be a long time before they were able to do so.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied that "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," and they could discuss the Army Discipline Bill sufficiently without entering upon it now. The question before the Committee was, what were the duties of his right hon. and learned Friend; and he confessed he did not see how the question of so-called branding was exactly concerned in the matter, as it was not, nor had it been, any part of those duties. The actual duties of the Judge Advocate General were functions of advice in all matters connected with the Mutiny Act, but not in respect of
  1934
  other Acts that affected the soldier. With regard to the want of connection between the Judge Advocate General and the military authorities, whatever might have been the case formerly, it was certainly not the case now, for it came within his knowledge recently that communication upon a doubtful point had taken place between the Judge Advocate General and military authorities. There was every desire to insure that military justice should be carefully examined and revised by the Judge Advocate General. The proceedings of every court martial were sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Office and carefully revised, and he was bound to say they derived considerable advantage from that revision. He did not suppose an absolute agreement could be expected; but in all cases there was an entire willingness on the part of the Military Service to cordially accept the decisions of the Judge Advocate General. There might be much to be said in the abstract for making the Office one of a high judicial character, not depending in any manner upon the Votes of Parliament; but he did not think the Courts Martial Commission, which sat in 1868 and 1869, advised any change in the position of the Judge Advocate General. He hoped that with this further explanation to the Committee the Vote might be allowed to pass, although he admitted the matter was one quite worthy of discussion.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would support in every possible way the institution of the Judge Advocate General's Office, and would desire to see it made quite independent. He thought an office of that character was actually necessary for the protection of the common soldier. He did not wish to reflect upon any officer of any regiment, but they knew those gentlemen had not legal information or instruction; and he believed he was quite speaking the truth when he said that in many cases, whether intentionally or not, very grossly unjust decisions had been given by courts martial, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General was the only place where these decisions could be revised. There was only one particular in which he thought the Office might be improved. He believed the Adjutant General and Quartermaster General and the Staff at the Horse Guards exercised too much power in reference to these legal trans-

  1935
  actions; and if he were to venture to make a suggestion, it would be that in any reorganization of the Office it should be made independent of the Horse Guards' Staff. He thought that would be taken as a boon to the Army, in having men who were independent of His Royal Highness and the Horse Guards' Staff. There were cases of very great difficulty arising from time to time, and by strengthening the Office he thought improved results might be attained in the administration of military justice.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had called attention to the subject, simply on the ground that the Office was not efficiently administered. In the first place, there was constituted something like a civil tribunal; but then, if the Commander-in-Chief had the power of setting aside the decisions of that tribunal, the House of Commons, in assenting to that proceeding, was really stultifying itself. They must either improve the position of the Judge Advocate General, and render it more authoritative and efficient, or they must restrict, to some extent, the position of the Commander-in-Chief. That had been proved by professional testimony in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), who cited a case where the Judge Advocate General set aside the decision of a court martial; but, notwithstanding that, the Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Forces, who was in the neighbourhood of Dublin Castle, and was probably subject to political influences, set aside the decision of the Judge Advocate General, and thus the whole affair was placed in a state of confusion. [General SHUTE dissented.] Well, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Shute) shook his head at that statement, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was sorry if he had misapprehended the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in one part of his speech, to refer to the case of Sergeant Darrah and others who were tried on a particular charge. No doubt, accusations of a very dreadful nature were brought against them; but he should say, from a study of the subject, that the most disgraceful part of the business was sending soldiers to long terms of imprisonment for alleged political of-
  1936
  fences. If anything could be done by the Judge Advocate General's Office towards independent control over those tribunals, some good would have been accomplished; but, in his opinion, the root of the evil had not been touched up to this point. He believed that the dissatisfaction which the decisions of courts martial generally give rise to arose from the fact that the prisoner who was tried before them was not represented by counsel, in the same way as if he were tried before a Civil Court for a civil offence. There could be no doubt that the common soldier standing his trial for any offence in the Army was in a very disadvantageous position compared to that of the criminal who was brought before a civil tribunal; and until the law was so altered as to give facilities to the military prisoner as regarded cross-examination of witnesses and legal defence in every shape and form, they might expect to find that these decisions, when they came to be reviewed, wore of a very doubtful and ambiguous character. This Vote called upon the Committee to make certain provision for military prisons; and he should like to know whether the treatment which military prisoners received in times of political excitement in England and in Ireland was a subject to which the Judge Advocate General had devoted any attention? All these questions of military law and punishment were at the very root of the strength and efficiency of the Army, and great complaints were frequently made of the manner in which military offences had been punished in times of political excitement. Instead of abolishing the Office of Judge Advocate General, he thought they should endeavour to secure the services of someone who was well posted in military law. It ought also to be a permanent Office, and the holder of it should not be liable to be changed by the incoming or the outgoing of any political Party. Still, at the same time, it should remain under the control of the people's Representatives in that House; for although the Office might be held permanently by one Gentleman, his acts, as a subordinate of the Government, would, of course, be subject to the examination and control of Parliament. Well, an attempt had been made to describe the Judge Advocate General as he at present existed; and he thought

  1937
  it had been clearly proved that that officer was not a Judge, that he was not an advocate, that he was not a general, and that his title was a very gross misnomer, conveying no idea whatever of the functions which that person was called upon to discharge. In turning over the pages of the Army Discipline Bill, on which they were promised an interesting discussion to-morrow, he found no attempt whatever had been made to remedy the complaints of the manner in which courts martial had hitherto been permitted to hear evidence; and it seemed to him that there was the real root of the difficulty with which they had to deal. If they could not raise an effective discussion in this Committee, he hoped that when that Bill came on they would insist on a proper investigation of the subject.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General one or two questions about the forms of courts martial. He believed they were not treated of in any way in the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, the old Military Act, or the Articles of War; and, therefore, they would not have an opportunity of discussing in Committee on that measure the subject he wished to raise. He wished to know whether the Department of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley), or the military authorities, were responsible for the form in which these proceedings wore conducted? They differed from Courts of Law, in that everything was required to be in writing. Where prisoners pleaded guilty in a civil Court, there was very little evidence taken, unless, in some exceptional cases, the Court desired it; while in a court martial the evidence was taken just the same, and it all had to be written exactly as if the prisoner were denying the accusations. In his opinion, all this was a very great waste of time, and he wanted to know who was responsible for it? Every question and every answer at present had either to be written out, and checked by six or seven members, or written by a clerk. The charge also had to be written: first, at the commencement of the proceedings; again, when given in evidence; and, thirdly, when the sentence was passed; although the man might only be charged with making away with a few of the articles of his kit. Very often, in the
  1938
  civil Courts, heavy cases, which took up a great deal of time before magistrates, were settled in three or four minutes at the trial by the prisoner pleading guilty. There was then a statement as to character, and sentence was given. But in a court martial all that evidence would have to be given again, and written out again. Another objection to this system of writing everything at length was that it was fatal to cross-examination. A witness who was giving false evidence or exaggerated evidence was put upon his guard, and was able to consider his replies in the intervals between the answers, so that all the value of cross-examination was lost. Again, this system told against questions, for though, of course, a prisoner might insist on having questions put when the Court objected, if he did so, it must tell against him with the Court. These were all points of considerable importance, and as he did not know how he could raise them on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, he should like to ask, now, who was responsible for the forms of court martial. Were they governed by the Military Act and the Articles of War? Was the Judge Advocate General responsible, or the military authorities? The present system, in his belief, was excessively bad, and not of the slightest use. Besides, the attention of the Court was centred on writing out the evidence rather than on considering its bearings. He did not, of course, mean to say that the verdicts of courts martial were not fair; but he did maintain that the system was a very great waste of time, and that it was often prejudicial to the prisoner.
  MR. SULLIVANconsidered it was evident that in the Office of Judge Advocate General they had either too much or too little. There could be no doubt that the judicial element in the Office ought to be strengthened for the protection of soldiers in the Army. It had been suggested that the Office should be made a permanent one. The officials there at present, no doubt, were efficient and, he believed, exceedingly able; but from the fact of the head of the Office being removable, there resulted, as had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), a great indecision and want of continuity in the supreme direction of affairs. It seemed to be a refuge for anyone in the

  1939
  Ministry who was either too able or too ornamental for any other position on the Treasury Bench. Occasionally they had men of ability in the Office; but, in face of the circumstances narrated by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, he would ask whether some change was not necessary? They now had it, on the authority of that hon. and gallant Member, that a man was sentenced to death by a court martial on proceedings which the then Lord Advocate (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) declared to be illegal. Notwithstanding that opinion from a man whose high legal ability certainly on-titled him to sit upon the Bench, it was over-ruled in a moment of intense political excitement by the authorities in Dublin, and the man was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Perhaps the Judge Advocate General would be able to tell them whether this was the man who died in prison? The gentleman filling this post should be a man eminent for legal ability, who would hold a firm hand over the military authorities whose opinion he might have to set aside, and a person whose opinion would carry immense moral, as well as official, weight. Of course, the authorities would snap their fingers at an ornamental Judge Advocate, and would not care what he advised. With regard to the forms of courts martial, it was an anomaly too painful to be permitted to continue, that cross-examination, even in cases where a man was on trial for his life, should be conducted in this old-fashioned and wasteful way. He would appeal to the legal Gentlemen in the Committee whether it would be possible to shake the testimony of any man in cross-examination, when every answer had to be written, and so he had time given him to think over his replies.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEbegged to point out that he had received no reply to his question, as to whether the Commander-in-Chief had power to set aside the opinion of the Judge Advocate General. That was his main objection to this appointment, and that point had been evaded.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that he had no absolute power in himself to set aside the decisions of the Judge Advocate General, although, of course, it might happen that in matters relating to the Prerogative of the Crown, and not appertaining to proceedings arising
  1940
  out of courts martial, the decision might not be in accord with the views of the Judge Advocate General. With regard to the forms of the procedure of courts martial, it seemed to him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) was mistaken when he said that no part of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill dealt with this subject. Clause 69 laid down the rules of procedure, and gave the Secretary of State for War power to make rules, and so on. These rules had to be laid on the Table of the House, and they would be treated in the same manner as the judicial rules. With regard to taking down the evidence by a shorthand writer, it was much more easy to agree with the proposition than to carry it out. In the first place, in a very great number of courts martial there was no cross-examination at all, as the prisoner did not desire any opening for cross-examination. It was impossible to assimilate the proceedings of courts martial to those of ordinary Law Courts. For instance, when a prisoner pleaded guilty, proceedings were easily stopped in a Civil Court, while that could not be the case in a court martial, because a prisoner might sometimes plead guilty of an offence he had never committed, in order to get sentenced to a certain punishment. It was, therefore, necessary to go through all the forms of a court martial. It must be remembered also, with regard to a shorthand writer, there were practical difficulties in the way. No doubt, such assistance was of considerable value, and there was a good deal in the suggestion; but, at the same time, it would entail considerable expense, and there would, of course, be considerable difficulty in arranging the details. Summing up what had been said during the debate, it appeared there was a certain current of fooling, with which he could not sympathize, in favour of making this tribunal independent of the military authorities; but that was a very different thing from condemning the whole system at present connected with that Office. All wished, of course, to see that tribunal made as strong as possible. His right hon. and learned Friend had examined very carefully, and in a very independent manner, all decisions on matters of military law, and he reported upon them. These reports did not cause any conflict with

  1941
  the military authorities; but, on the contrary, were productive of great advantage to the Service.
  MR. RYLANDSthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had clearly evaded the point which had been put by the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne). A distinct question had been asked. Could the Judge Advocate maintain the authority of his decisions? The reply was, that the Commander-in-Chief could no doubt disallow his decisions. The question was—had his decisions any legal force whatever? When they talked about the Office as a Court of Review, the question was, whether it was a Court with any power of maintaining its decisions? The question was, whether this Office of Judge Advocate General was not merely that of an assessor, who gave an opinion, but had no power to enforce it? He thought they were entitled to inquire into a matter of this kind, for, surely, when they paid a salary, they ought to be sure that the Office was something more than a name, and the officer something more than an assessor. They would vote this money with much more satisfaction, if they had reason to believe that steps would be taken to give the Office more authority. He quite agreed that it was very desirable that the post should be held by a barrister of high authority, because then they would be certain that justice would be given whore it was not now always given.
  MR. CALLANhad listened to the debate for some time; but he was even now in great difficulty as to what were the duties of the Judge Advocate General. Surely, as that right hon. and learned Gentleman was present, they ought to have, and it was most desirable they should have, an explanation from him, as to his powers and authorities. As a mere matter of respect, he should explain to the Committee what were the powers and authorities of the office, before they were asked to vote this sum of £2,000 as a salary.
  MAJOR NOLANpointed out that oven now they did not know who was responsible for those forms. Was it the Secretary of State for War, or the judicial department, or the military department? Of course, as had been pointed out, it was sometimes necessary to go into the circumstances of the case, even where the prisoner pleaded guilty; but in the
  1942
  several cases to which he had referred that always could be done, if necessary. What he complained of was that the courts martial were obliged to try out a case, even when a man pleaded guilty where he was obviously guilty, and where, accordingly, much time was wasted in the procedure. He would suggest that some plan might be found for shortening this procedure. They might have shorthand writers in some cases, and whore that was not possible, then they could follow the old plan. At present, it was necessary to put down every bit of evidence, even when no one desired it. People seemed to think that officers' time was of no value, and that, therefore, all this rubbish should be stuck down, when a slight change might save a great deal of work. For his part, he had never known anyone having experience on the subject who did not think that these proceedings might be shortened with great advantage.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that the procedure had been shortened a good deal of late by the adoption of printed forms, and he thought something more might be done in that direction. As to cases where a man pleaded guilty, he had known one where the prisoner was afterwards asked if he had anything to say, and his statement showed that he was not guilty.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTagreed that it would be very undesirable not to re cord the proceedings where men pleaded guilty, for he had known a case also where a man pleaded guilty, and afterwards made a long statement which showed that he always meant to plead not guilty.
  MR. SULLIVANwould like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (General Shute), whether he correctly understood him to say that the decision of Sir Colman O'Loghlen, in the case of Sergeant Darrah, was overruled by the Commander-in-Chief?
  GENERAL SHUTEreplied that he never said anything of the kind.
  MR. PARNELLthought it would be very satisfactory if the hon. and gallant General, in such circumstances, would inform the Committee what he actually did say. He (Mr. Parnell) listened very attentively to his statement. It was true that he did not

  1943
  mention the name of Sir Colman O'Loghlen; but he stated that the Judge Advocate General in Ireland, at the time of the trial of Sergeant Darrah, decided that the evidence at the trial was illegal, and directed that the proceedings should be quashed; and that the Commander-in-Chief came to a different conclusion, and prevented the proceedings from being so quashed. It seemed rather difficult to discover what were the duties and functions of the Judge Advocate General. The Office seemed to him very much in the nature of a sinecure, and it would be very desirable if the functions of that Office could be defined and protected from the Commander-in-Chief or the War Office. There seemed to be considerable doubt even in the mind of the Secretary of State for War on the question, whether the Judge Advocate General could be interfered with by the Commander-in-Chief; and it would, therefore, be very satisfactory if he would introduce some Amendment which would carry out the views of the Committee, that the authority of the Judge Advocate General should be protected from interference. It was suggested that the present holder of the Office received it as a reward for his energetic obstruction of the Irish Church Act, the Irish Land Act, and the Ballot Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly very energetic in opposing those measures; but, although obstruction was a very high function, which ought to be protected in every way, it did not necessarily entitle the person who exercised it to an Office when his Party came into power.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought the question could not be left where it was now, and he was very strongly inclined to support the appeal made to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton. He certainly understood the hon. and gallant General to refer to a conflict of opinions between the Judge Advocate General and the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland; and if that was not what he intended to convey, he should like to hear anyone in the House, except himself, explain exactly what it was he did intend to say. He was also anxious to have some further explanation about this Office, because the Secretary of State for War seemed to have no definite idea of the respective powers of the Judge
  1944
  Advocate General and the Commander in-Chief. It seemed that when there was a conflict of opinion between them, the Commander-in-Chief had power to set aside the decision of the Judge Advocate General.
  MAJOR NOLANreally thought he was entitled to an answer as to the forms of these courts martial. It was a substantial point, and while the answer was of importance it might be very easily given. If the Secretary of State for War acknowledged his responsibility, they would know who was responsible for them; but, at the present time, it was very uncertain who drew up these forms, and who enforced them.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that the hon. and gallant Member certainly should know who was responsible for those forms, inasmuch as they appeared in the Queen's Regulations, signed by the Adjutant General. They could scarcely tell whether precisely the same policy would obtain in the future, because these rules would now for the first time be laid on the Table. As to the position of the Judge Advocate General, his decisions could be technically overruled; but, practically, they never were.
  MR. CALLANthought, when a question had been put, it certainly should be answered by the person to whom it was addressed. He remembered the House for 10 years, and when he first came into it, he had a high respect for the Office of Judge Advocate General, which had been filled by several able men, such as Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Headlam, and then, in 1868, by Sir Colman O'Loghlen, who was always ready to stand between offenders tried at a court martial and the Horse Guards. When he resigned, the Office was filled by one of the most eminent members of the Northern Circuit, until the present Government appointed the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to that post. He supposed that he was appointed because of his conversational qualities, for in that House he had never heard any statement by him showing his legal ability. The country required that the Office should be filled by one who was competent at least to explain to the Committee what were the powers and authorities he possessed, more especially when the Vote under discussion was whether they should vote him £2,000 a-

  1945
  year or not. But, at present, the Committee was in a state of complete mystification; and unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman would condescend to explain what were his duties, they could only assume that he was in a state of mystification himself regarding them.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought that the hon. Member who had spoken last (Mr. Callan) could not have been in his place during the whole of the discussion, or he would have heard the explanation that he had asked for, given at least three or four times, to the Committee. The principal duties of the Office which he had the honour to hold were to act as a Court of Review over all the district and general courts martial that were held elsewhere than in India; and he had, besides, to advise Her Majesty as to the confirmation of the findings of all general courts martial held on officers or soldiers. These were responsible duties in the highest degree. He had also to advise upon the construction of the Mutiny Act as far as related to criminal matters. The jurisdiction in matters arising out of the Mutiny Act not criminal belonged to the authorities at the War Office. It was also his duty to peruse the proceedings of every general and district court martial which came before him. In that work he was assisted by a deputy, who was a civilian, and by throe other able officers. Two of those were not appointed by himself. One of them distinguished himself greatly by his knowledge of the subject before the Committee last year; and the third, and last appointed, was not only a Colonel in the Army, but he was also a barrister. That was, surety, a good guarantee that the duties of this Office were properly discharged. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had remarked that he gained his Office as a reward for obstruction, and he could only reply that when the hon. Member could say that he had obtained an Office of that quality, as a reward for his Parliamentary services, he should be very glad to see the day.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEpointed out that while the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) had said that the Commander-in-Chief never overruled the decision of the Judge Advocate General, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had given
  1946
  an instance where that had been done. It might often suit the financial arrangements of the War Office to do that; for if a purchasing officer were tried, they might set aside the verdict, and so confiscate his money. He should take a Division, unless a satisfactory reply were given.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that he had taken no part in that debate, because it seemed to him a great many of the questions raised might more properly be discussed in Committee on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. They could not, in Committee of Supply, alter the functions of the Judge Advocate General. He was not at all prepared to say that it would not be a good thing, in many respects, to alter the Office, as he understood the Judge Advocate General was not really a Judge at all; but he was an assessor to the military authorities, advising them upon the legality of any transactions which might have taken place at courts martial. Of course, that decision was not binding, any more than a decision of any assessor would be binding. The Judge Advocate General stood to the War Office, in fact, exactly in the same position that the Law Officers of the Crown did to Her Majesty's Government. They were generally guided by their opinion, and they would incur a very great responsibility if they departed from that advice; yet, if they chose, they were at liberty to do so. In the same way, the military authorities were at liberty to pass over the advice of the Judge Advocate General. He did think at one time that the law should be altered, and that the decision of the Judge Advocate General should be binding; but he withdrew that opinion, in consequence of the argument, which he thought an admirable one, that to do so would be to destroy the responsibility of the military authorities. At present, if they took any course which was unjustifiable, the House could call them to account; but if they could shelter themselves behind the decision of the Judge Advocate General, and could say they had no power to over-rule his decision, then the highest military authorities would be able to impose this authority of the Judge Advocate General between themselves and the country. With regard to the Vote, he had not heard anybody suggest that the duties of the Office

  1947
  were not discharged well and thoroughly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had advised the military authorities for some years, and they had never heard that his advice was not sound and right. Therefore, under such circumstances, he thought it would be far more convenient to discuss these suggestions for alterations in Committee on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, and to proceed with their work so far as this Vote was concerned.
  MR. SULLIVANconsidered that this was the first time that they had heard any real explanation of the duties of the Office; and it was sufficient, in his opinion, to justify his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Beirne) in not taking a Division.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEdesired to withdraw his opposition, now that the proper explanation had been given them of the duties of the Office, although he had had to wait a very considerable time for the explanation.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the Committee had received an explanation which he could assure them was not correct. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was under the impression that the Judge Advocate General was only the adviser of the military authorities, and that they could take his advice or not as they thought proper. That was a mistake. The Judge Advocate General was responsible for the legal part of all general courts martial. He took the Sovereign's pleasure himself upon that point, and if he advised the Sovereign that a court martial was illegal, the military authorities could take no action. He was not simply the legal authority of the military authorities; but he was the Legal Adviser of the Sovereign, and in direct personal communication with her.
  MR. CALLANthought they were worse off than ever, for they had had a lengthy explanation from most of the ablest lawyers in the House, and then they were assured by one of the most experienced military Members of the Committee that that explanation was not correct. All he could say was that if the Judge Advocate General was merely a legal assessor, it was the dearest Office to the county, and the best paid one in Her Majesty's Service.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLwished to bring one or two small points under the attention of the Secretary of State for War. Under sub-head B, the payment of acting Judge Advocate in the Colonies last year was only £20, this year the amount was £50. Then, again, the Colonial charges were £130; while this year they were only £100. This appeared to him to indicate some looseness in drawing the Estimates.
  COLONEL STANLEYexplained that in dealing with many portions of the Estimates, when the amounts fluctuated, they had to be guided by the experience of the past, and that was the explanation of the difference in this case.
  MR. PARNELLpointed out that the rewards for the apprehension of deserters had risen very fast even compared with last year. There was an increase of 25 per cent, while there had also been a steady increase in the amounts for the last five or six years, and, in fact, ever since Mr. Cardwell's Government. In 1875–6 the amount was £1,800; in 1876–7 it was £2,000, in 1878–9 it was £3,000, and this year it was £4,000. He was afraid this indicated collusion in certain eases between the people who got the rewards and the deserters. The amount given was very large. They might have men committing desertion in order to obtain the reward.
  MAJOR NOLANdid not believe that there was any collusion, as had been suggested; but still this item ought to be very carefully watched. He believed the police very often apprehended soldiers who were not deserters, but were simply absent without leave, in order to get the reward of a pound. Very often a man overstays his leave and deserved punishment; but would yet come back if he were not apprehended. But it was not merely a case of a reward to the police, for an expensive escort had to be sent to fetch the man, and they had besides, the trouble and expense of his trial.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERalso thought the item should be very carefully watched. A short time ago, when private soldiers were allowed to apprehend deserters, men used to agree to divide the reward, and the thing at last become so apparent that an Order was issued forbidding private soldiers to receive it. Now, a magistrate had to cer-

  1949
  tify that the policeman in question was entitled to the reward, and that had to be countersigned by the commanding officer of the batalion.
  COLONEL STANLEYquite agreed that this item required very carefully watching. Last year, the amount was exceptionally high, because there were an unusual number of enlistments, and he was sorry to say the ratio of desertion followed that of enlistment. He knew that in the past there was certainly some ground for suspecting collusion; but he did not believe it existed at all now. He hoped next year they would find a, falling off in this item.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £266,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Medical Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  LORD ELCHOsaid, there were two points connected with the Vote to which he wished to call attention. One, with reference to the health of our troops in India; and the other, as to the provision made for the sick and wounded in South Africa. His attention had been drawn to the first subject by Lieutenant General Lord Mark Kerr, who thought it was not conducive to the health of the troops that the same hours for meals should be kept in India as in England. At present they got their dinners in the middle of the day, and the result was that the troops suffered a good deal, and there was great loss of life. Lord Mark Kerr said that when he altered the hours of meals, he found the men much better in health than under the old system. This, however, being a new practice, objections were raised, and he was ordered to discontinue it. He brought the matter before the authorities in England, and a Correspondence ensued on the subject, which His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge marked as a matter of grave moment. He (Lord Elcho) was anxious to get copies of this Correspondence, for the matter seriously affected our troops; but there was great difficulty in doing so. There was no record of this Correspondence at the War Office, although marked as of grave importance by the Commander-in-Chief. It had been sent out to India, it was said, nine months ago; but now
  1950
  that the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had been drawn to this matter, he hoped he would take care that the question was not allowed to drop. He hoped, also, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would see if it was right that the change should be made. As to the second point, rightly or wrongly, an impression appeared to prevail that, so far as the Government was concerned, sufficient provision had not been made for the sick and wounded in South Africa. It was believed that the provision was inadequate, and that the supply of doctors and of medical stores was insufficient, and that nurses were wanted. If that was the case, it was a very serious question, and told very badly for the administration of the War Office. It was incredible, after the sums of money that had been voted, that our soldiers should be in the state described. Committees had been formed by ladies and gentlemen, at the head of which were persons of both sexes, who had shown on many occasions their zeal and kindly feeling; among them being Lady Burdett Coutts and the Duke of Sutherland, who were exerting themselves in the matter to do what ought to have been done by the Government. At the church which he attended, the day before, the preacher asked them to subscribe double, not only for the hospitals, but also to enable him to send aid for the benefit of our sick and wounded soldiers in South Africa. It was discreditable to the Government, and to all concerned, if they were in such a state, that, at the commencement of a war with a small nation of savages, these committees should be required, and that there should be these collections for their soldiers in their churches. Such a thing should not be necessary, and it did not reflect credit upon the Government for their administration. He was inclined to believe, however, that they were ill-informed, and that stores did abound. He had seen a statement, as he supposed, in the nature of a, communiqué, which stated that not only were the stores fully sufficient, but that the amusement and comforts of the soldiers had been attended to. Of course, everyone would be willing to give subscriptions, if needed; but if they were not necessary, they would only look foolish in the eyes of Europe, if they were thus to ask for private aid.
  DR. LUSHhoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of the difficulty of providing properly-qualified medical officers for the Army, would carefully consider the whole subject. Even at the present time, when we were engaged in a war of considerable dimensions, the number of surgeons who joined the Army in the year was absolutely less than it was last year; while, at the same time, the increase in the allowances had gone up from £11,000 to £19,000. He could only suppose that that arose from calling in the aid of civilians. It seemed to him that this was the proper time to press upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should consider the position of the medical officers in the Army, in order to induce a more free enlistment. He was well aware that there was a strong indisposition to enter Her Majesty's Service, and he earnestly trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would do his best to provide properly-educated men for the Service.
  MR. ONSLOWbegged to state that he was nine months with a British regiment in Calcutta, and he never once heard either an officer or non-commissioned officer express a wish that the time of the meals should be changed. If they wore altered to the evening instead of the middle of the day, bow was it possible for the British soldier to get any exercise? Parades, after a late meal, were utterly impossible, and anybody who had any experience of India must know that it would be highly injurious for the British soldier to take violent exercise so soon after the dinner hour. It must be recollected that in the hot season, the evening was the only time during which out-door amusements could be prosecuted. He hoped his right hon. and gallant Friend would not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, which he believed would be very detrimental to the Army in India.
  LORD ELCHOreplied, that the hon. Member had spoken on a matter of which he could have no knowledge as there had apparently been no trial of the change of system in the regiment to which he had referred. His (Lord Elcho's) statement rested on the experience of a General Officer who did make a change, and found, as a result, not only that the sick list greatly diminished, and that the regiments were more effi-
  1952
  cient, but that the men had ample time to perform their military duties.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not understand that the noble Lord intended to advise this change, but only to ask for the Correspondence on the matter between the authorities at home and in India, and to request that he should endeavour to hasten the printing and publication of the Correspondence on the subject. He had already verbally assured his noble Friend that he would do so. The Correspondence, a short time ago, was sent to India for certain observations, and he would have inquiries made about it. Then he was asked, with great justice, as to the provision for the sick at the Cape. All he could say was that though, undoubtedly, there was a certain amount of sickness, for the climate there, itself, was very bad—the heat during the day being great, and the cold by night great, which was always followed by a certain amount of climatic fever—still, from all he could hear, that fever was by no means severe, and, from the last Report, the percentage of sick was something approaching 5·76, which would be low even for this country. He gave the figures, however, with great caution, because they had to be corrected. But the inference to be drawn from them certainly was that the amount of sickness was by no means excessive. With regard to the wounded, there were, comparatively speaking, but a small number of them, and for various reasons there would most likely be a large number brought to the station hospitals. He was informed, however, that the hospital accommodation was far in excess of anything contemplated short of two or three general actions of very large dimensions. With regard to want of medical comforts, so far from that being the case, he was able to say, having a very largo correspondence, both public and private, with officers at various parts of the field, that in only one case had he heard of any deficiency named, and that was one which would be remedied. On the Lower Tugela an extra allowance of quinine had been given out, and an apprehension existed that the supplies would run short, in consequence. The last Report he had received, however, stated that the hospitals were fully equipped, and expressly made no demand whatever for any further medical comforts, or for any addition to the

  1953
  Staff. That must be received as evidence of very considerable weight, and he saw no reason to apprehend that the hospital arrangements would be found insufficient for the requirements of the Service. He hoped the Committee would allow him to point out in how very difficult and delicate a position he was placed. On the one hand, no demands had been made for further aid; and, on the other hand, he was extremely averse to stand forward, either officially or otherwise, between a very natural, kind-hearted and spontaneous desire in the country to render aid. Nobody, of course, was so well off but that they could afford to be better off; and, no doubt, from this feeling, people were anxious to do all that lay in their power, in the hope of giving some assistance and of rendering some relief, although there was no positive want. His lion, and gallant Friend near him (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), the Chairman of the National Aid Society, had been good enough to inform him that he had sent out a credit of a considerable amount to an officer of experience, who was one of the Commissariat in Africa, and had exerted himself in similar ways in other countries; that that officer had drawn upon the fund to a very small amount indeed; and the purposes for which he had drawn upon it had been to provide comforts which some people would call luxurious, such as tobacco, and things of that sort, for the men. That all seemed to him to point to the fact that, at the present time, the medical wants were fairly supplied, and even more than fairly supplied. He could not say that at some particular places on the line of march, or out of it, that there wore not some cases of need. They did not expect to find a whole chemist's shop in the Highlands. The difficulty had simply, therefore, been one of transport; and, as far as he could understand, wherever it was possible hospitals had been established and medical comforts had been provided, which had proved fully sufficient. If he were aware of anything to the contrary, by accident or otherwise, it would be his duty at once to make it known to the House. At the present time, how ever, he believed that that was not at all so. Although a considerable quantity of stores went down in the steamship Clyde, and were lost, yet immediately that was known in this country, and without waiting for transport, steps
  1954
  were taken to send out supplies by the mail boats, as fast as was possible. It would be of interest to the Committee that they should know exactly the number of men on the spot. At the present moment, in the Medical Department proper, there were 58 officers at the Capo, 7 on the passage, and 13 under orders. Of the Naval Medical Department—present, 4; on passage, 2. Several surgeons, exclusive of those employed locally—38 present and 2 on passage. Army Hospital Corps, 8 present and 1 on passage. Non-commissioned officers, 275 present and 108 on passage. He might add that within the last few days, though no demand had been made upon him, he had thought it advisable to place under orders 1 lady superintendent and 6 nurses attached to the hospital at homo, which was in addition to any medical aid afforded by private enterprize in the Cape. He believed that no Army in the field had over had its medical wants so far met in proportion to its strength; and he felt sure the Committee would have confidence that if any further medical demands were made they would be met to the best of their power. With regard to the Medical Department, he was sorry to say that, even at this period of the year, he was not able to speak with entire certainty. These matters of revising the conditions of service were always matters of considerable delay; but, speaking generally, he might say that, provided he could obtain the assent of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, it was his intention, as far as possible, to carry out the recommendations made by the Committee appointed by his Predecessor, as to the pay and the status of the medical officers. It was, for obvious reasons, not very expedient to deal, with details at that moment; and he did not apprehend that it was entirely a matter upon which it would be wise to lay down abstract principles. But there was one point which had given him and those who acted with him and for whose assistance he was deeply obliged, very considerable difficulty. That was a recommendation which he feared had given rise to a good deal of misapprehension—that certain medical bodies should have the power of nominating candidates for the medical service. It was

  1955
  suggested that vacancies which had arisen should be filled, as to one-half, from qualified candidates, to be proposed by the Governing Bodies of the various Schools of Medicine in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies. And it was proposed that the candidates so nominated should have certificates from the body nominating them, according to a standard to be laid down by the Secretary of State for War, and approved by the Director of the Medical Department. It would be necessary, in such a case, to fix the order of precedence and the proportion in which the several Schools of Medicine should be offered nominations. He was afraid that that proposition—made with very good intentions, and one which, in his opinion, had much to recommend it—was received somewhat unkindly on its appearance in the world. It was said to be a reversion to the system of nominations, and the Government were charged with departing from the principle of competition. But he must point out that competition ceased when there were not enough competitors for the vacancies; while, on the other hand, there seemed to be very much to encourage him to believe that it would be wise to endeavour to enlist on their behalf the sympathy of the Schools of Medicine. They might help the Government by selecting a certain number from their pupils who might wish to take to the Army as a profession for life; and he did think it was a proposal from which they would derive considerable advantage. He hoped to derive some help of this kind from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) and his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). Those Gentlemen had been good enough to say that when the time arrived—as he now hoped it had arrived—that other matters should be disposed of, that they would be quite willing to confer with him on the subject. He hoped, from their great knowledge of the medical service outside, and from their acquaintance with the general condition of the Profession, to derive considerable advice and assistance. If this nomination system could be carried through, and it were used in the sense intended, it would be a matter of unmixed benefit to the Army Medical Department, and in a certain sense, also,
  1956
  to the Colleges which had these nominations to assign. If, on the other hand, the scheme were not properly taken up, the arrangements would certainly be exceedingly objectionable. He would not go into all the details of the question; but it certainly was a subject of great interest, and he was not sorry to have had that opportunity of explaining what action the Government were proposing to take.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that notwithstanding the fact that this Vote had been reduced by the transfer of the sum of £9,700 for treatment of lunatics to Vote 23, the total amount of the present Estimate had increased by £9,653, an increase which arose from the additional payment of £9,898 to the Medical Department, and £9,480 for Militia surgeons and civilian medical practitioners. But, although he presumed that the number of medical officers had been increased proportionately, it was a remarkable circumstance that the amount of charge for the cost of medical stores remained precisely the same as it was in the previous year—namely, £23,000. On that ground, therefore, he could not understand why the salaries to medical officers should have been increased to the extent of £18,000, or thereabouts; and he trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be able to afford an explanation of the circumstances rendering necessary this additional charge. Again, he wished for some explanation as to why the amount of £9,700, charged for the treatment of lunatics in the Army, had this year increased to £17,200, as would be found to be the case by reference to Vote 23, page 123. The amount, according to the Estimates, had very nearly doubled since last year. He had never heard any reason why lunatics in the Army should have increased at such a rapid rate.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the method adopted by the War Office in transferring the charges for lunatics to Votes 19 and 23 was not in accordance with the recommendations of the Controller and Auditor General. As the Audit was a very recent institution, and was, to a certain extent, upon its trial, he thought it most important that the recommendations of the Controller and Auditor General should be carried out;

  1957
  and it would be very greatly to be regretted if the Audit were to be vitiated by failing to carry out those recommendations. It would be quite impossible for the Controller and Auditor General to audit the accounts unless the system proposed by him were followed. He saw, on page 30 of the Estimates, that the charge for military and civilian clerks and messengers, which last year stood at £1,716, was, in the present Estimate, only £732. Inasmuch as this charge, in his opinion, was almost of a fixed kind, he could not understand how the reduction had been brought about. While upon the subject of the Medical Vote, he might, perhaps, be permitted to refer to a matter which arose out of the last question which was before the House—namely, the treatment of the wounded in South Africa. The Committee, he was sure, had listened with a great deal of satisfaction to the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that there was ample provision in South Africa for the treatment of the wounded. Although the subject was a painful and disagreeable one, he still felt it his duty to bring before the Committee that although in war it was always customary and usual to bring the wounded belonging to the enemy into hospital, and give them the same treatment as your own wounded, he had seen no instance during the war in South Africa in which the wounded enemy had been so treated. The number of wounded, however, must be very great; and he felt sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he had not already done so, would give directions that the Zulus should be treated as civilized enemies, and not as if they were savages: and that when taken prisoners they should be cared for as kindly as if they were our own soldiers.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASER, referring to the opinion of a general officer of great eminence who had served in all parts of the world, that—
  "If you wish to benefit the soldier, the attention of the War Office should be directed to rendering- the condition of dental surgery in the Army more efficient; there is hardly anything from which a soldier suffers more than from the imperfect manner in which this is attended to both at home and abroad;"
  said, he believed that during the last few years a certain number of medical
  1958
  officers had gone through a course of instruction in dental surgery. Although, of course, it was necessary that liver complaints should be attended to in India and elsewhere, yet a man could get on better with a tolerably bad liver than with unsound teeth—particularly considering the kind of food which soldiers had to eat—if these were unsound, there would be but imperfect assimilation. He would be glad to know whether any means whatever existed by which soldiers could get rid of their torments from toothache, or have them at least ameliorated?
  COLONEL STANLEYwas not aware that any complaint had been made in the Army with reference to the condition of dental surgery; but he would cause inquiry to be made into the matter. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he could not remember to have seen in any official document that mention was made of the Zulu wounded being treated in hospital. It was very well known that, in almost all circumstances, savage nations would contrive to carry off their wounded, and he fancied, therefore, it was owing to that circumstance that very few wounded had been under treatment in hospital. But he did remember having seen in another document that some sick Zulu prisoners had been brought to Fort Tenedos, and there treated precisely as were our own men. Whatever might be the faults of the British soldier, cruelty to prisoners could not be reckoned amongst them; and he felt sure that the wounded Zulus would receive every necessary attention which it was possible to afford them. It was, perhaps, another question whether they could be treated in hospital, because the duty of the surgeon would be to consider first the men of the British. Service, after which the Zulus would, no doubt, be treated with all possible kindness and attention. With regard to the increased charge for pay, he had been very anxious to give effect, as far as possible, to some improvements suggested in the Army and Navy Services; and, therefore, with the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had taken a round sum for this purpose. The increase was partly accounted for in that way, and partly by having to meet the additional pay to which officers were entitled for active service under the

  1959
  Royal Warrant. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Meath, it was, of course, very useful to have the criticism of the Controller and Auditor General, which he (Colonel Stanley) had never at any time opposed; and he thought that his advice, as in most other cases, would probably be followed in the present instance. Indeed, his directions were cordially accepted wherever matters of principle were involved.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the present Vote was one to which no exception could reasonably be taken, as the Medical Departments both in the Army and Navy were known to do their work fairly well. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had found fault with the present Estimate because it appeared that more medicine was not given in the Army; but it appeared to him (Sir Andrew Lusk) that, perhaps, the less medicine given the better. The explanation of the Vote which had been given by the Secretary of State for War was, in his opinion, perfectly satisfactory.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the explanation given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with regard to the treatment of Zulu prisoners was imperfect. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had truly said that there was no official account of their having been attended to at all, which, although he had pointed out that some sick Zulus had been treated at Fort Tenedos, appeared very like a corroboration of the suspicion that all the Zulu wounded were killed in cold blood, by authority of the officers in command. Of course, he did not say that such was the ease; but it looked suspicious. He joined issue with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman upon the statement that British officers had never been charged with cruelty to their enemies. He thought it was not very long ago that it appeared in one of the morning papers—and he, of course, referred to the circumstance as being subject to correction by the soldiers and officers at the place whence this information came—that a number of Afghan prisoners had been shot in cold blood.
  THE CHAIRMANdrew the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to the fact that the Committee
  1960
  were now discussing the Vote with reference to the medical establishment of the Army.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was simply replying to the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, that no charge of cruelty had ever been made against British officers and soldiers. To that statement he (Mr. Biggar) answered by producing a case in point, where such a charge had been made, and up to the present time had never been contradicted. He was about to add that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should give the subject a little further consideration, and at once send out instructions to South Africa that the Zulu wounded should have as fair treatment as was customary amongst civilized nations in dealing with their enemies. Had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would do so, his promise would have been sufficient; but he had confined his observations to saying that there was no evidence that the Zulus had been otherwise treated. He (Mr. Biggar) thought that the evidence was strong that they had not been treated as prisoners of war; and unless some promise was given that instructions for their treatment in this respect should be sent out, it would go forth to the world that England was not dealing with the Zulus in a civilized manner.
  MR. MELDON, in rising to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, on account of the amount charged for the payment of Militia surgeons and allowances to civil medical practitioners, said, he should have been glad to make the sum a little more specific; but, unfortunately, the information necessary to enable him to do so had, for some reason or another, been withheld from the Estimates. He believed it would be found that £5,000 was the amount of the Vote taken for civil medical men employed in the Army Medical Department. For some years past most serious complaints had been made about the administration of the Army Medical Department; and the question raised was one which seriously affected the Medical Profession in Ireland, from which country a very much larger proportion of medical men entered the Service than from either England or Scotland. Unfortunately, owing to the very great maladministration of this Department, the Service had become exceedingly unpopular. The

  1961
  Motion upon this subject, of which he had given Notice early last Session, had been postponed on the understanding that a Committee was to be appointed to consider the best way of regulating the Army Medical Department; but since that time nothing substantial had been done, and no reform had taken place. The public wore informed that the Committee had reported, and that their Bo-port was about to be placed upon the Table of the House; but it was also understood that one of the Heads of the Department had chosen to sot himself against the recommendations of the Committee. Upon this point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would, perhaps, be able to state whether the fact was correctly stated. It was certainly the impression in Ireland that the necessary reforms had not taken place owing to the action of the Director General of the Army Medical Department, who appeared to be a stumbling-block in the way of improvement. There was the greatest anxiety in the Profession to enter the Service; but, owing to the way in which the Department was managed, it was, nevertheless, found necessary to employ large numbers of civilians to do the work which ought to be performed by Army medical officers. He had just been informed that no less a sum than £13,000 had been paid up to the present time for the services of medical men in the Colonies; and, considering how many men in the Medical Profession were ready and willing to enter the Service, such a state of things was most improper. Again, in the Irish garrison towns, there was a supply of civil medical men rendered necessary by the dearth of those employed in the Service. Such a state of things ought not to exist, for there was no lack of competent men ready to join the Service if only the Army Medical Department were properly administered. It was, as he had already pointed out, admitted last year that the Department required reform; but, notwithstanding that admission, they had, since that time, finished one war and were engaged in another, without anything having been done in this very important matter. Another question, which he believed had been advanced on Friday last, was as to the way in which Army medical men were treated who were forced to come home on account of ill-health. As he had already pointed
  1962
  out, a large number of civilian medical practitioners were being employed in Irish garrison towns; but while this system continued, there was also a large number of men invalided from foreign stations who were as perfectly competent to do the work in those places as any medical men who could be found. This question of the employment of medical officers invalided from foreign countries, who were still perfectly able to do their work, had been brought to his attention more than once. In the case of a medical officer invalided, he believed from Malta, it was intimated that he should continue his leave on half-pay, or withdraw from the Service. The officer in question, however, went before the Medical Board, and they reported that he was perfectly fit for any employment he could get at home, and that, when he got a little better, he could go abroad again; notwithstanding this, lie was refused employment. On public and private grounds, therefore, he put it to the Secretary of State for War that these large sums of money should not be paid to civilians, while there were plenty of men invalided from abroad, who were perfectly able to do the work required. The practice was to give six months' sick leave to medical men invalided on foreign stations, who, if the}-did not choose to get well in that time, were actually forced out of the Service. By this system a great injury was done to the Public Service as well as to individuals; and the amount by which he moved the reduction of the present Vote was incurred by the very matters to which he had alluded. He, therefore, moved the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, on the assumption that that sum represented the amount paid to civilian medical men; but if it were shown that he was in error, he should be willing to move its reduction by the amount actually paid.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £261,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Medical Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  MR. PARNELLagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) in thinking that medical officers of the Army had some reason to com-

  1963
  plain that their services were not availed of in places like the Colonies; and that, instead of this, large sums of money were voted for paying private medical practitioners in those places. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that two years ago this item stood at only £500; that it had since risen to £5,840 last year, and then sprung to £13,805 in the present Estimate. These were certainly very remarkable jumps and changes in an item which he thought was, to a great extent, objectionable, and of which the medical officers in the Army were entitled to complain. Again, there was an increase in the Medical Department for the pay to surgeons general, deputy surgeons general, surgeons major, apothecaries and other medical officers, the amount under this head standing in the present Estimates at £196,000, as compared with £187,000 in those of last year; and he thought it would have been very much better if it had been made clear how much of this extra pay would go to the six surgeons general, and how much would go to the surgeons major, as well as other medical officers, so that the Committee might have been able to guage the benefit likely to result to the working men of the Profession, and be certain that the amount was not spent in giving increases to men having already high salaries.
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been present at an earlier period of the Sitting, when he had stated that it was his intention to carry out, as far as possible, the recommendations of the Committee of Investigation, appointed by his Predecessor, which affected the pay and status of medical officers in the Army. He was now in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject, with a view to obtain his concurrence. He pointed out, with regard to the increase in the pay of civil surgeons, that the additional amount was due, in a great measure, to the number of those practitioners now employed at the Cape. He quite admitted that the Army Medical Department was not in a satisfactory condition; and, for that reason, he ventured to propose to the Committee and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should be dealt with
  1964
  under a Royal Warrant. It had also been decided that the six months' sick leave should, in the case of medical officers, be extended to 12 months. This, of course, would necessitate an increase in the number of officers to be employed in the Department; and as the average number of medical officers invalided was 37 during the year, the change practically meant an addition of 37 medical officers to the establishment. With regard to the military and civil clerks, it had been thought desirable to make a transfer of the charge for clerks and Army accountants, with the concurrence of the Controller and Auditor General. With regard to the increased salaries to particular officers, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would find, upon reference, that these were sot forth according to rank' in the Royal Warrant, and according to which all payments of this kind in the Army were made. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kildare, he hoped, in connection with the new Warrant in course of preparation, that advantage might be taken of the services of officers on half-pay resident in country towns, to whom employment would, in some cases, be open.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDhoped that the Secretary of State for War would consider whether the system in existence at Netley Hospital, which worked so well, and in accordance with which ladies superintended the care of the sick, might not be extended to other garrison hospitals.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, referring to a draft Report by a distinguished military officer to the War Office, with reference to the cadets at Woolwich, in which it was pointed out that a half-bottle of claret was in some cases allowed to the cadets at dinner-time, by order of the medical officers, said, that it was, in his opinion, a great mistake to encourage the use of stimulants by the young men at Woolwich. He had no wish to suggest that pressure should be brought to bear upon the medical men at Woolwich; but merely expressed a hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not lose sight of the suggestions of the responsible officer referred to. He desired to impress upon him the necessity of suggesting, as strongly as possible, to the medical men in charge of the cadets that the treat-

  1965
  ment prescribed for them should not include such effeminate luxuries as the gallant officer had complained of, and that it should conform, as much as possible, to the hard labour to be undergone by them hereafter. He thought it would be very prejudicial to the interests of the Academy at Woolwich that this subject should be allowed to pass unnoticed; and that, as far as practicable, the necessity for Spartan simplicity should be impressed upon the young men.
  MAJOR NOLANhad listened with much amusement to the remarks which had just been made with reference to the Royal Academy at Woolwich. The cadets at the present time were young men of 18 or 19 years of age; and there was, in his opinion, nothing in the fact of such young men drinking a pint of claret, for the young ladies in the convents at Paris were accustomed to drink wine both at breakfast and dinner. He could not help thinking that the gallant general referred to felt shocked at the progress made in the world during the last 20 years. It was a very different thing to drink a pint of claret at the present day to what it was 20 years ago, when the wine cost 10 s. or 12 s. a bottle. He did not think that anyone found fault with the qualities displayed by our cadets; and as long as they were physically fit for their duties, it appeared to him a matter of perfect indifference what they drank at their dinner. He could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had been taken in by the Report to which he had referred.
  MR. O'DONNELLrose for the purpose of protesting against the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that wine was the common beverage of young ladies in the convents of France. He happened to have some friends in convents in France and Belgium; and he might say that the general rule in those convents was that they were strictly prohibited from using wine of any kind. He did not wish it to go forth that wine was the common beverage of ladies in foreign convents.
  MR. BIGGARhad understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to state that certain alterations were under consideration, and were intended to be embodied in a Royal Warrant; but, so far as he
  1966
  knew, the nature of those alterations had not been stated, and he thought it would be much more satisfactory if they were explained to the Committee; if that were done, hon. Members would know what they were dividing upon. He believed that there was nothing more certain than that a man who had made a particular branch of the Profession his special study was far more thought of than an ordinary practitioner. The military authorities prepared a certain number of surgeons for the Medical Service of the Army; but, for some reason or other, they did not train a sufficient number of men for that purpose. The result was that the deficit had to be made up by the employment of irresponsible general practitioners, who had no special knowledge of the particular diseases which were likely to break out in the field, nor had had any experience of the treatment in military hospitals. In each year, recently, they had had an increased charge for the employment of these general practitioners, and a very large sum of money was paid that year by the country on account of them. He thought it would be of great use if the Committee were informed of the alterations which it was proposed to make.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that so far as the new Warrants were concerned, the Committee was in a complete state of uncertainty. At an early period of the Session they were told that a Committee had recommended certain alterations, and that a Warrant was about to be prepared; but up to the present time they had not been told what the Warrant was to consist of. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would only tell them that he withheld the information as a matter of discretion, in view of the Public Service, he (Mr. Meldon) should not think of pressing his present Motion. But no such allegation was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was another point to which no reply had been given; they had received no explanation why an extra amount of civilian medical men had been employed during the past year. The cost for those persons had increased from £500 in the year before last to no less a sum than £13,805 in the present year. It might be inferred that the present war in South Africa had some-

  1967
  thing to do with that; but these Estimates had been prepared, as they had I been told, before the war in South Africa broke out, and the increased amount could not be accounted for on that ground. The other question to which he should like to receive an answer was as to invalided medical men. Army surgeons were now invalided from foreign service and sent home; but they ought not to be taken out of the Service when they had recruited their health. At the present time, when a medical man was invalided and sent home he was not employed in this country when his health was restored; but a civilian was employed in his place. That was a double injury, for it deprived the officer in the Medical Service of half his pay, and it injured, the public in having to pay for the civilians, who were brought in unnecessarily. There was no reason why a medical man who had been invalided from abroad, and had recruited his health in this country, should not be capable of discharging his duties at home, even if he were not capable of again undertaking foreign service. Why should the country be put to the expense of employing civilian medical officers when the medical officers of the Army were perfectly able and willing to discharge the duties? As no explanation had been offered upon these two points, he should feel himself justified in dividing upon the Motion. He could see no justification for saddling the country with the double burden of paying the civilian medical officer as well as the half-pay Army surgeon.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYhoped that the hon. and learned Member for Kildare would not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon this Motion. The Committee had been occupied a considerable time in the discussion of the Vote, and ample explanations had been given concerning it. One point to which attention had been directed was the increase in the item for the employment of civilian medical officers. He thought that it would be seen that the increase was, in some respect, due to the fact that civilian medical men had been sent out to the Cape, and were receiving very large remuneration—a civilian at the Cape would expect to receive much more than an officer of the Medical Department of the Army, and the allowance to
  1968
  those gentlemen was sometimes at the rate of two guineas, and sometimes one guinea a-day. That, he thought, was a sufficient explanation of the increase in the Vote. He thought that as the matter had now been under discussion for a long time, it would be felt that every information that could be given had been afforded, and that the Vote should now be passed. If any further information were required, he should be happy to furnish it.
  MR. PARNELLremarked, that the explanations offered did not seem to touch the point. Attention had been drawn to the fact that from £500, two years ago, the charge for the employment of civilian medical officers had now risen to £13,805. That large sum was spent in obtaining medical practitioners to undertake the duties which the Medical Staff of the Army were not sufficiently numerous to perform. He did not see, however, why so many civilians should be sent out to the Cape, for it prevented the medical officers of the Army from going there. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had alleged that the need of extra medical assistance was caused by the outbreak of the war in Zululand. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in making that explanation, contradicted himself; for he told the House, on a previous occasion, that the Estimates wore prepared before the war at the Capo broke out, and, therefore, without taking into account what was required for that war. Therefore, this very large sum of £13,805 was not rendered necessary by the warlike operations now being conducted in South Africa. He could not understand what seemed to him to be a very great contradiction between those two statements of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He should like to know how the Secretary of State for War reconciled the two statements he had made?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that it was quite true that the Estimates were prepared before the war in South Africa broke out. But when the war took place, it was necessary, from time to time, that a number of surgeons should be sent out with the columns in the field. For that purpose civilians were employed, and their pay was at a higher rate than that of the officers of the regular establishment. It should be borne in mind, however, that the gentlemen so employed

  1969
  would only be entitled to be paid during the time they were actually engaged, and would receive no pension.
  MR. MELDONthought that he was entitled to some little explanation of the burden of his speech, which had been passed over without remark. He had stated, that if it was a matter of discretion with his right hon. and gallant Friend to conceal the contents of the Warrant which he proposed issuing, he would not press the matter; if, in the exercise of his discretion, he had told the Committee that he felt bound to withhold the information, then he (Mr. Meldon) should not feel himself compelled to go to a division upon the matter. In respect of medical officers invalided from foreign service, it was not for an increase of their leave that he applied—although he was bound to say that he was very grateful for the concession in that direction—but it was with respect to the employment of civilians in their place when they were competent for the duty. A civilian was employed to discharge the duties of an officer of the Medical Service and was paid in full, while the Army medical officer was kept on half-pay. He thought that the medical officer belonging to the Service should be employed in some Department so soon as he was certified to be fit for it. This point had not been noticed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he hoped they would have some explanation with regard to it.
  COLONEL STANLEYstated, that he had explained twice what was the intention of the Government. On the first occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present, and he thought the explanation was accepted as satisfactory by the Committee. He repeated the explanation when the hon. and learned Gentleman resumed his place, though not at great length, for there wore limits to the patience even of the Committee. With regard to the point that he had pressed upon him, he would repeat what he had previously said, that he was not aware of having received any communication from the hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to the matter; but, if he would allow him, he would refer to his correspondence and ascertain the fact. It was not correct to state, as the hon. and learned Member for Kildare did, that half-pay Officers were paid for doing nothing.
  1970
  They were paid to recover their health, and they were paid in order that they might recruit themselves for performing their duties to their country. It was not always found possible to employ a man at home directly he was invalided from India. They had, in the first instance, to look at the duties to be performed; and, in the second, to the persons to perform those duties.
  MR. MELDONremarked, that after what had taken place, he did not think it would be of any use troubling the Committee to divide, and he should, therefore, be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PARNELLconsidered the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the questions that had been put to him not at all satisfactory. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated, in reply to his question, that he was not able to say positively that the wounded Zulus had been treated in the military hospitals. He knew that this was an unpleasant subject, because it involved the suggestion that our troops in South Africa had not been carrying on the war in a civilized manner. But he thought it better to go into this matter then, in order to prevent any further mischief being done. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War take some notice of this matter as regarded the authorities in South Africa? Would he write out to the authorities there, telling them that attention had been directed to the apparent absence of any hospitality, or other form of humanity, towards the wounded Zulus, as was usual? Or, would he further say that it had been thought a remarkable fact that none of the enemy's wounded had been taken into our hospitals? The newspaper correspondents had not mentioned that any wounded had been taken into the military hospitals. If anything of that sort had happened, there was no doubt that the fact would have been mentioned—that wounded Zulus had been brought in and received hospital treatment. But there had been a significant absence of any tidings of that character; and, on the contrary, reports of another sort had

  1971
  been spread. That morning there was a letter published in one of the Dublin newspapers of a very remarkable character, which professed to come from an officer serving in South Africa. The letter was addressed to a medical student, by whom it was sent to the newspaper. After describing the action at Ginghilovo, and the defeat of the Zulus, the writer went on to say that when the Zulus were in retreat the Native Auxiliaries attacked them, and played the devil with them. All the wounded were assegaied by them, and after the battle no less than 487 dead Zulus were buried.
  THE CHAIRMANfelt himself bound to point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that the matter to which he was now alluding could not be said to have any reference to the point before the Committee. What the hon. Gentleman was alluding to could not reasonably be connected with what might be called attention to the prisoners falling into the hands of the British Forces. He must point out to the hon. Member that he was entirely departing from the subject of the Medical Service of the Army, and was dealing with the conduct of the British troops in the field with regard to the wounded of the enemy—a matter which had nothing to do with the Army Medical Service.
  MR. SULLIVANobserved that, of course, the Chairman's decision would be acquiesced in by his hon. Friends, although it seemed to him (Mr. Sullivan) that that decision might be contested. He believed, however, that it had never been, and never would be, questioned. He would wish to point out that they were then discussing the Vote for the Medical Service of the Army. If the Medical Service of the Army were not efficiently rendered, it was open to hon. Members to move to reduce the Vote. Those services were not efficiently rendered, if the medical officers in attendance upon the troops in South Africa did not care for the wounded Zulus who might fall into their hands. With all respect to those gentlemen he must say, that if they did not care for the wounded Zulus that fell into the hands of the British, they would not be doing their duty; and if the medical officers did not do their duty, it was open to the Committee to challenge the Vote.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONrose to Order. He ventured to think that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), in contesting the opinion of the Chair, was himself entirely out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it was open to any Member of the Committee to urge a point of Order. The hon. and learned Member did not seem to him to have intended to exceed his right in speaking to Order; but he had endeavoured, so far as he could, and to the best of his ability, to lay down what he believed to be the rule of the Committee upon the subject. He presumed that if the hon. and learned Member for Louth seriously wished to contest the ruling of the Chair, he would take the course which was open to him of making a Motion to report Progress, in order that the Committee might be fortified by the opinion of the House. He understood the hon. and learned Member to be addressing his observations to the Chair, in order to change the view which he had held it right to express upon the subject. Therefore, he did not think it incumbent upon him, so far, to stop him in the remarks he was making. If the hon. and learned Member seriously intended to dispute the ruling of the Chair, it was open to him to move to report Progress, in order that the matter might be brought before the House.
  MR. SULLIVANthanked the Chairman for his decision upon the point which was now raised. He did not understand him that he ruled his hon. Friend was out of Order. He believed he was correct in saying that he had not ruled that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was out of Order, but that he was going somewhat wide of the mark, which was a very different thing.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he had endeavoured to explain to the Committee his opinion that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was out of Order; he was still of that opinion.
  MR. PARNELLinquired whether the Chairman had ruled that he was out of Order in directing attention to the necessity of treating the wounded Zulus who might be taken in action in South Africa in the same way as their own soldiers were treated? As he understood the ruling, it was that he was out of Order in reading extracts from a letter which bore, in his opinion, not upon the question of the treatment of the wounded

  1973
  Zulus, but upon the conduct of the troops in slaughtering wounded Zulus whom they might find upon the field.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the rule he endeavoured to lay down was that so long as the hon. Member was discussing the medical treatment of the wounded, he was not exceeding the subject under discussion; but when he entered upon the subject of the conduct of the troops to the wounded in the field, he was out of Order.
  MR. SULLIVANasked, what single syllable had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) which exceeded the limits laid down by the Chairman? He did not think that his hon. Friend had uttered a single word, except with regard to the medical officers accompanying the troops, and their duties towards the prisoners who were taken. How, therefore, could his hon. Friend be out of Order in the observations he had made? He must complain of the attempt which had been made from the Treasury Bench to overawe the Chair, and to urge the Chairman further in Ids ruling than was fair, and further than he intended to go. He thought that the Committee was bound to resist any attempt on the part of the Treasury Bench to intimidate and mislead the Chair into unnecessarily ruling hon. Members on that side of the House out of Order.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONobserved, that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had entirely misunderstood his observations. He simply said that the hon. and learned Member was contesting the ruling of the Chair. As to intimidating or overawing the Chair, that was not his intention; his only object was to support the Chairman in his ruling.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the officers of our Army in the field had treated all the prisoners that fell into their hands as they ought to do. It was a most unfair thing to make charges against the medical officers of the Army of having acted inhumanly towards the enemy, when those gentlemen were not there to defend themselves. If hon. Members knew of any particular offences which had been committed, let them say it; but it was not right to slander a body of men by making sweeping accusations against them, as had been done.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that no imputation had been made upon the medi-
  1974
  cal officers of the Army, because they had never been afforded a chance of attending to the enemies wounded; and he was sure if they had been, they would have done their duty. He believed that they would treat a wounded Zulu in every way as if he were one of their own comrades.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the conduct of the British troops in the field had been impugned, and it was necessary to consider upon what evidence. So far as he could see, no evidence was adduced except that of some private letters. He was bound to point out that it was by no means certain that a wounded Zulu would be a proper inmate of our military hospitals; and there might be very grave reasons against admitting wounded Zulus to them. It was also worthy of remark that the Zulus, like all savage races, were, so far as they knew, in the habit of carrying off their wounded from the field, if they could possibly do so. Owing to that reason, he presumed it was that so few wounded Zulus had apparently been found. In no official Report had it been found necessary, owing to their small number, to take cognizance of the wounded Zulus found upon the field of battle. If the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) could produce to him any authenticated cases with, regard to the slaughter of, or inhumanity towards, wounded Zulus, he would inquire into it. But he thought it required an authenticated case, before any reliance could be placed upon the reports which had been spread in this matter.
  MR. PARNELLthought that the request which he had made was a very reasonable one, and he had hoped that it would have been responded to more fully than it had been. He asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to give notice of the fact, in some way or other, that attention had been directed in that House to no prisoners seeming to have been treated in or out of the hospitals in the field. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman directed attention to that matter, the authorities in South Africa, if they had not done it already, would then take proper care of the wounded. He did not wish to bring charges against officers of the Army Medical Service; on the contrary, he knew a great many Army medical officers, and believed them to be a very good set of men. At the same time, from accounts in news-

  1975
  papers, and from information which had come to his knowledge in other ways, an opinion had grown up that wounded Zulus had been inhumanly treated in this war. It was, however, impossible for hon. Members to get authenticated instances of any such cases. They could not, from the necessity of the case, obtain any precise information; but judging from the evidence in the newspapers, and from the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had admitted that the Zulus were objectionable prisoners of war and objectionable inmates of hospitals, they could only think that the ordinary customs of war had not been followed in their case. All they asked the right hon. and gallant Gentle-to do, under the circumstances of the case, was to mention the matter in his communications, so that no mistake might be made in the future.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought it very unfair to bring charges of improper treatment of the wounded against officers of the Medical Staff when none of them were present to defend themselves. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had stated that he heard this and be heard that about what went on in South Africa. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who was himself a lawyer, would know that if he came before a Court of Justice, and talked as he was talking there that night, no one would listen to him for one moment. The charges which he was bringing against the medical officers were mere hearsay, and based upon correspondence in newspapers and allegations that someone had told him; and he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would be listened to for one instant in a legal tribunal; and, if not, could he expect to be listened to any more in the Committee?
  Dr. LUSHwas very sorry that this question had arisen in connection with this particular Vote; for it seemed to him that the discussion had wandered very much away from the Medical Service of the Army. Allegations had been made that the officers in the Army Medical Service had been, personally, and in their individual capacity, guilty of cruelty. It seemed to him that these charges had been brought against those gentlemen simply for the purpose of bringing before the Committee the alleged conduct of the troops in South Africa. If that were so, it was a very ungenerous
  1976
  thing to a body of men who, so far as he knew, had always done their duty.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that there was one fact patent, and that one fact was that there was a concurrent testimony, be it right or be it wrong, appearing in a paper here and a paper there. It was said to be a letter from an officer, or from a soldier, or from other parties. They had no evidence that it was false, as they had no evidence that it was true, other than these repeated statements. Besides those printed and circulated, he was aware there were many—very many—others, he had seen not a few himself; but he did think there was a concurrent testimony cropping up all over the country; and, although he thought the statements might be false, or might be very reckless, yet, to satisfy the public mind, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War ought to give an assurance to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that there would be sent out instructions, of a character that could not be misunderstood, that if any wounded Zulus were spared, they should have the treatment that others had. The allegation was that they were not spared. To use the language of a letter he had seen—"They murder all they meet, wounded or not, so that they should never attend the war dance again." If that allegation was not correct, still the order would not be an improper one, and it would give the Commander-in-Chief, and all concerned, an opportunity of vindicating their character from aspersions that wore not true.
  COLONEL NORTHhoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not insult the Medical Officers by sending out any instructions of the sort. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) might believe the reports. He (Colonel North) believed that if the people throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland were to be polled, no one would be found to say that he believed a British soldier would act in such a way towards a wounded enemy.
  MR. MACDONALD: I believe it.
  MR. LOWTHIAN BELLsaid, that if there was any ground in the complaints respecting the treatment of Zulu prisoners, these should be inquired into at a proper time; but upon what earthly ground the existence of these reports had been set forth to interrupt the pro-

  1977
  gress of Business, he was at a loss to conceive. He hoped that hon. Members below the Gangway would cease their obstruction.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdid not believe the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had any intention to cast any aspersions upon the troops at the Capo. But with regard to the soldiers, was there anything very wonderful that in an Army which, unfortunately, had fallen into disorganization, which had suffered a stinging defeat, and which had been massacred by hundreds—was it anything so very improbable that the survivors of those men should have their passions stirred by seeing their comrades laid low, and that they should sometimes fall into acts of violence?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is again straying into the same error as that of which I have had to remind others. The Question before the Committee is the charge for the Army Medical Department, which has nothing to do with the combatant Forces.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdid not think there would be much necessity for dwelling upon that subject for the future. The troops in South Africa were about to be commanded by a competent man, and he thought the Army Medical Vote would be properly administered under his care; and he also believed that the Zulu prisoners under the care of an Irish General—Sir Garnet Wolseley, who had shown not merely his capacity, but his humanity and generosity, in dealing with savage races, whom he had subdued in other parts of the globe—would get under his command and government a humanity which they had not experienced under the present Commander.
  COLONEL STANLEYrose to Order. He was bound to say that he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would have learned sufficient from the Profession of which he was a member to impress upon him the necessity of speaking to the Question which was the subject-matter of debate, and of not venturing on assertions inferentially made, and which, at the proper time and place, he (Colonel Stanley) should have been perfectly willing to come down to the House and meet. He understood that they were at that moment discussing the question of the Army Medical Department. Part of that Department was
  1978
  engaged at the Cape. It was in charge of seven hospitals there, and into those hospitals certain Zulu prisoners were brought. That was the whole point by which that question could be connected with the Vote. Well, what was the state of things. Assertions were made, and the hon. Members who made them asked him, as Secretary of State, to write out to the Capo, casting imputations upon the whole of a Service which had nobly performed its duty. They asked him to accept statements upon which they were not prepared to produce evidence, and, upon such evidence as that, to east a slur upon the whole of the Medical Department. Now, he said before—and he did not want to be tempted beyond the proper course of debate by any means whatever—that he wished it to be understood, once for all, that unless, as in other matters, these reports were properly authenticated, he should take no notice of them. If cases were authenticated by hon. Members, and they would write to him on their own responsibility as Members of Parliament, he would forward such cases for inquiry and report. He had done so in other and similar matters, even though he believed there was no more truth in them than there was in the present instance. He did not for a moment dispute that hon. Members might be in the exercise of their discretion in believing those reports; but he did know that there was a great deal of loose lying, and that there were many cases which had been inquired into long before they met the eyes of hon. Members, and which had turned out to have nothing in them. If hon. Members, as Members of that House, would send him any statements which they fairly believed to be authentic, he would forward them for inquiry; but he would not be the means, directly or indirectly, once for all, of throwing broadcast upon a noble body of men what he would almost call the foul imputations that had been cast upon them by anonymous correspondents.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the device that had been adopted by hon. Members sitting on his side of the House, and also on the other, and which he regretted to see was imitated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, of imputing to them a wish to make any charge against

  1979
  the Army Medical Department, was by no means new. He had seen it before, when they had thought it necessary, in the exorcise of their duty, to make statements of a similar kind. Now, he would say that there was not one syllable of ground for the statement of the Secretary of State for War, that they were making any charge against the Army Medical Department. Not a single word that he had said, or that any other hon. Member had said, could be so construed, and he was surprised to see the Secretary of State for War take advantage of so stale and unworthy a device. Now, what was the position they had taken up there that night? They had not said that the Army Medical Department in South Africa had refused to treat Zulu prisoners when brought to the hospital. If they had said so, there would have been some ground for the taunts of hon. Members opposite. What they had said was, that the Zulu prisoners were not brought into those hospitals, and they simply asked that the military operations should be conducted in such a manner that the Zulu wounded should find their way into the hospitals; just as well as if they were English. There was no room for the statements that had been made. The Army Medical Department was a noble Service. It had been abused and ill-treated by the authorities. It was largely composed of Irishmen; and it would ill become him, or any other Irishman, to asperse a Department of that kind. He repeated, that not a single word that he had said could give the slightest shadow of ground for the unfounded statements made with regard to him that evening. He had asked the Secretary of State for War to give such directions as would prevent the fear that things were not going on in South Africa, with respect to that Service, as they ought. What did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell them? He said, let them bring cases to him, and he would inquire into them. Now, the Secretary of State for War must know that such a request was altogether illusory. He should never think of taking cases to the Secretary of State for War, unless he (Mr. Darnell) had had the opportunity of inquiring into them himself. Private Members could not send out a Commission to take evidence as to the treatment of wounded prisoners in
  1980
  South Africa. The idea was perfectly absurd and preposterous. They simply asked that the tenour of the instructions given in South Africa should be such as to prevent a repetition of what they feared was going on there, and he himself should take a division on that Tote, unless he got a satisfactory answer. ["Divide, divide!"] He should divide just when he pleased. They believed they knew what they wore about; though hon. Members above the Gangway presumed to dictate to them the way in which they should discharge their duties. They would show that they were not afraid of being in a small minority, and so he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out, that a Motion to reduce the Vote by £5,000 had already been withdrawn, and asked the hon. Member to name some other sum.
  MR. PARNELLaccordingly moved to reduce the Vote by £4,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £262,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Medical Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had repelled, with some little warmth, a feeling which he thought prevailed to some extent in the Committee—that in the observations which the hon. Member for Meath had made to them, some imputations had, inferentially, been cast upon the medical officers in South Africa. Well, let them admit it, and he would give the hon. Member credit for his assertion. But he (Mr. Norwood) felt that the Committee must distinctly be of opinion that if the hon. Member had not aspersed the Medical Department, he had most distinctly aspersed the character of the military officers. And what was the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy)? An aspersion, and a very gross aspersion, had distinctly been made, if not upon the Medical Department, at least upon the combatant Department, for he went out of his way to taunt Lord Chelmsford with cruelty and incapacity, to claim Sir Garnet Wolseley as an Irishman, and, on that ground, to

  1981
  hope for more humanity and justice to the Zulus. Now, he (Mr. Norwood) wished to say a word upon the proceeding's of that evening, as an independent Member of that House, and he must say that he thought they had reason to complain of the conduct of the Government. They did not show sufficient firmness in meeting the difficulties put in the way of the transaction of the Business of the House. He admired the temper and the gentlemanly forbearance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He (Mr. Norwood) had heard him on three occasions make almost similar replies upon the same point. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had made three speeches which were almost precisely similar. That very debate on the treatment of their Medical Officers had been started two hours previously. It had been discussed, the issue had then been abandoned, and now it was re-started. Now, what he (Mr. Norwood) ventured to tell right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, was, that they were not conducting Business in the way in which the Business of the country ought to be conducted, and which independent Members and the country had a right to expect. There was an absence of firmness and of determination, and of wan; of fulfilment of duty as a Governing Body in the way in which they went to work. Instead of humbly apologizing to hon. Gentlemen for tailing up the time of the House in the way they were, they should display more firmness and decision. Why was not a division taken a long time ago? The fact was simply this—The state into which the Business of the House had lately drifted was a disgrace to Parliament. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying so; and if some steps were not taken soon to enable them to perform their functions in a proper way, it would be impossible to transact any Business at all. How could the Government expect hon. Members to come down there night after night to attend to their duties simply for the purpose of finding hour after hour wasted? He cordially agreed with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), that the observations that had been made in regard to valuable public servants were most painful, uncalled for, and unjust.
  1982
  He protested strongly against them; and if the Government did not show more strength than they had shown of late, how the Business of the country was to be conducted he could not possibly conceive. They wore passing no Bills and getting through no Business, and the want of firmness and decision on the part of the Government was perfectly surprising. If they were not strong enough to manage the Business of the House of Commons, the sooner they changed sides with the Opposition the better.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTagreed with what had boon stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Norwood). Things had now come to a pretty pass. [Laughter.] He heard hon. Gentlemen laughing at that remark; but they would not laugh by-and-bye, because they would find the whole of the country against them. They came down there to do the Business of the country, and night after night they were prevented from proceeding by hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. He found no fault with hon. Members who got up to call attention to particular subjects; but nobody was going to tell him—because they were not a parcel of fools—that they were to waste four or five hours in discussing a single Vote in Supply. He ventured to say that the country had not realized the position in which they stood in this matter. They had sat there quietly and patiently, until they saw that nothing was to be gained by remaining patient any longer. He said to the Government that they had a right to be protected. They had no right to be called upon to come down to the House to be muzzled in the expression of their opinions as they were; because, if they got up to make any remarks, hon. Members opposite took every opportunity of turning those remarks to their own purpose, and that was, to obstruct the Business of the House.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had thought proper to bring a charge against hon. Members of that House by saying that they had a purpose of their own, which was to stop the Business of the House. Now, that was a very serious charge. They might be a very small number, and hon. Members might think to put them down, They

  1983
  could turn them out of the House for that matter. For his own part, he should go with pleasure.
  THE CHAIRMANstated, that the hon. Member for Meath was not at that moment speaking to the point of Order.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask whether the hon. and gallant Baronet was in Order in imputing to Members on that side of the House a deliberate purpose in stopping Business?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had spoken of hon. Members below the Gangway obstructing Business. He sat below the Gangway. He had never sat anywhere else, and he must protest against those remarks being made applicable to all hon. Members. He never came to the House, except to further the Business of the House; and the hon. and gallant Baronet ought not to have included all Members below the Gangway.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) has asked me whether the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) is in Order in imputing to him a deliberate purpose of stopping the Business of the House? It appears to me it was an opinion which it was quite open to the hon. and gallant Baronet to form, and an opinion which was not expressed in un-Parliamentary language.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was very sorry for the interruption of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), because the hon. and gallant Baronet knew that he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had not got up to impute to him that he impeded the Business of the House, unless it was necessary. His hon. and gallant Friend was a man of common sense, and knew that he was not referred to. [Mr. PARNELL: Because he is a Scotch Member.] Because he was a Scotch Member! Did the hon. Member for Meath think he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) picked out Irish Members? Why, he had the greatest respect for many Irish Members; but when he saw the Business of the House stopped in that way, he thought it was time that some hon. Member should stand up in his place and say that Business was being stopped, and would continue to be stopped, unless some means were found to shorten the discussion that was
  1984
  going on. A fair, business-like discussion no man objected to; but he did object to coming down night after night to see time wasted in fruitless talk. But, before he sat clown, he wished to give the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) an opportunity of retracting his statement. He was sure the hon. and learned Member would not have said willingly what he did not believe to be true; but he had imputed to Lord Chelmsford feelings, and ways of carrying on operations at the Cape, which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was quite certain, on cool reflection, he would be the first to withdraw. The hon. and learned Member said that an Irish General was now going out who would put everything straight; and he had deliberately stated that all these atrocities—in which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), however, did not believe—were committed with the connivance of the General Commanding-in-Chief. That was a statement which ought to be retracted, and he gave the hon. and learned Member the opportunity of doing so.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYthanked the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) for the appeal he had made to him. He did not think it necessary to reply to imputations which could not have applied to him, as he had never been among the Party of Obstruction. But he did think it necessary, and very necessary, out of respect for the General and other officers in South Africa, and also out of respect for the troops serving there, to explain what he had said. In the first place, he did not mean to impute any inhumanity to their medical officers in Africa. He knew that the Army Medical Staff in Africa and anywhere else were highly humane. With regard to their Army, he was betrayed by the warmth of the moment into language which, in cooler moments, he should not have used. What he had meant to convey was that probably the blood of the soldiers was up in consequence of seeing their brothers-in-arms slaughtered. He believed that there had been an excess of cruelty on their part, and that such things should be put an end to. The supposed isolated acts to which he had referred were, in his opinion, attributable to the imperfect organization existing in South Africa. But in using the words "in-

  1985
  capacity" and "inhumanity"—and here he particularly asked the indulgence of the Committee—he meant to convey that our troops were allowed to get into a state of passion, and that the dictates of humanity were consequently not observed by them. He admitted that he had spoken violently, and begged pardon of the Committee for having raised his voice to a point which, perhaps, was not conducive to a man's speaking rationally. He had not meant to impute inhumanity to Lord Chelmsford, or anything like inhumanity to our troops; but wished to point out that, like the troops of France, Germany, or any other country in the world, their blood being stirred up, they had perpetrated isolated acts of inhumanity, and were not unlikely to do so again.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think, after what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), we may fairly consider that this incident may be closed. He expressed his regret, in terms with which the House will sympathize, at having been betrayed into language which could not but cause pain, and which, at the same time, could not but call forth replies such as have been made. I am sure that, after what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the Committee will not desire to pursue the matter any further. I only rise for a moment to say a word in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), and from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). They have made remarks which I must frankly say I am not at all surprised to hear made by hon. Members in this House, considering the very great inconvenience which they have found for some time in the conduct of the Business of the House, and the very great delay which takes place in proceeding with that Business. I must frankly admit that, having sat for a good many years in this House, I have never known a time when so great a delay in the conduct of Business has taken place in the manner which we have recently seen. So far as it is in my power, and in that of my Colleagues, to prevent that delay, and to expedite Business, I can only assure hon. Gentlemen that we are most anxious to get the work properly forward, and
  1986
  to conduct the Business of the House in a creditable manner. But I must appeal to a sense of justice on the part of the House as to the position in which the Government are placed in matters of this kind. It is impossible for us to interfere with the ordinary conduct of Business, so long as it is conducted according to the Rules of Order, and I, for one, do not see how we are to interpose and protest more than we have occasionally done, and shall be prepared at any time to do, against the waste of time. But I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that when we have attempted to introduce or propose alterations or amendments in the Rides of the House which, as we thought, might have led to somewhat greater expedition in the conduct of Business, we did not find a great disposition to support or accept the proposals which were made, and we consequently found it very difficult to effect alterations in the Rules for the conduct of Business, even where alterations might have been made which, without interfering with the freedom of debate, would have materially conduced to the object which we had in view. I can now only express a hope that we may not by recriminations add to the loss of time which has already taken place, in endeavouring to fix the responsibility for such delay. I need not say that if the intention of the House is to support the Government, we will endeavour on all occasions to bring forward our measures in the way most convenient, and to prosecute our Business with as much despatch as possible. We are quite as anxious as are hon. Members in getting forward the Business of the House, and nobody can be more interested than the Government in doing so. I can assure the Committee that we are thankful to those who come forward, at a great sacrifice of time, to assist and support us, and I would now suggest that the best thing we can do is to come to a vote upon this Estimate.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was as anxious as any man that the Committee should, according to the phrase used by three hon. Members who had successively addressed it, "be allowed to transact its Business," the obstruction of which had been brought forward as a charge against hon. Gentlemen on his side of the Gangway. It appeared to him (Mr. O'Connor Power

  1987
  that the discussion upon the general Business of the House, and upon the manner in which it was transacted by the Government, had as little to do with the subject before the Committee as the atrocities alleged to have been committed in the Zulu War. However, they had it upon the authority of the Chairman that those observations were in Order, and he therefore presumed that anyone would be equally in Order in resenting the imputations put forward. The Business before the Committee was the examination of the Estimates; and he would inform the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that he charged him with attempting by tall talk to intimidate hon. Members in the discharge of their duty; and, moreover, wished to remind him that on every preceding occasion, when any such attempt had been made, it had always ended in failure. Hon. Members were invited to come from Ireland and Scotland to discuss certain Estimates, and when they rose, in the discharge of their duties, to discuss them, it was said that the Business of the country was being stopped, and they were called upon to be silent. He maintained that if they had no right to criticize the Estimates according to their own discretion, they had no right to be in the House at all. When an Irish Member was sent to the House of Commons, he was not told by his constituents to shape his course according to the views of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was as free as the hon. and gallant Baronet, and refused to have any line of conduct chalked out for his observance. If the House had more work to do than it could perform, the only remedy was to divide the work, and allow each class of Representatives to do their share; but as Irish Members had been invited to sit in the House of Commons, it was not open to the House to complain of the consequence of its own act. Now, with reference to the matter which gave rise to these observations; the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had found that he was called upon, as a Member of the Committee, to consent to the very large Vote of £200,000 for the Army Medical Department, and he ventured to call attention to a branch of that Department which he
  1988
  conceived was in a position such as he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was bound to admit he had not succeeded in establishing. It turned out that the complaint should have been brought against the men who failed to bring the Zulu wounded into hospital. That was, so far, very well; but the hon. Member for Meath went further, and asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to send instructions to the South African contingent of the Army Medical Department in reference to the treatment of Zulu prisoners. He thought that if the hon. Member for Meath had not gone quite so far as that, and if he had simply called upon the Secretary of State for War to make inquiries, he would have been standing upon more solid ground, and that the Secretary of State for War could not have refused so just and reasonable a demand. At the same time, he quite agreed that it would be unreasonable, on the mere strength of newspaper reports, to write out special instructions reflecting upon the character of the Army Medical Department; but, on the other hand, he thought that the Secretary of State for War might have said—"These matters which have been brought forward by hon. Members have attracted so much attention, and are of sufficient public interest, that I will inquire into them, and if I find the facts to be as they are represented, I will endeavour to prevent them in future." But the Committee had received no such assurance from the Secretary of State for War, who had simply pooh-poohed the allegations, and the possibility of the acts to which they referred having been committed. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) had no objection whatever to a Division when the time arrived; but if hon. Members opposite insisted upon stating their view of the case, they must not complain that the other side should get a hearing. It had been said more than once that evening that no member of the Army Medical Department, and he believed an hon. and gallant Gentleman from behind the Treasury Bench had stated that no English regiment, would have been guilty of the cruelty complained of; but was it supposed that nothing was known of the progress of the English arms in India? He (Mr. O'Connor Power) maintained that there was no act of cruelty which had not been com-

  1989
  mitted by British soldiers and officers in building up the Indian Empire.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the discussion of this question had arisen from the allegation made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who was dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government, and put that forward as the ground on which he moved his Amendment. The discussion had, in consequence, turned rather on the conduct of the Government than on the Vote now before the Committee. He must point out that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), in reflecting upon the conduct of the Army, in different parts of the world, was clearly out of Order.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERwould regret to occupy the time of the Committee after it had been ruled that any particular line of argument was out of Order. He would not do that; but he might be allowed to say, in his own defence, that he had endeavoured to confine himself within the allegations made on this side of the House. He had said that the whole point of the discussion was that the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to certain alleged atrocities, in the conduct of the war in South Africa, in respect of the treatment of the wounded of the Zulu Army. Now, he asked the Secretary of State for War not to send out instructions in consequence of the reports referred to, for that would be asking him to do more than the circumstances of the case demanded; but, inasmuch as the character of the Army Medical Department was at stake, to give an assurance that inquiry should be made into the truth of the reports in question. If the hon. Member for Meath went to a Division, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) should probably vote with him, meaning thereby to express that these reports were worthy of inquiry, and not intending to convey that they were worthy of special instructions being sent out.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, no doubt, a great deal of warmth and misunderstanding had prevailed in the course of the discussion, nor could he complain of hon. Members resenting what they believed to be an imputation upon the humanity of the British soldier. He
  1990
  should reprehend in the strongest manner the slightest imputation upon the skill or humanity of the Medical Staff. As the most efficacious way of terminating this discussion, he appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Vote to pass.
  MR. BIGGARhad not understood that any imputation was cast upon the Medical Staff. The imputation was that the Commander in-Chief, who had the Medical Staff under his control, had mismanaged in the grossest manner the Forces of England at the Cape.
  MR. PARNELLhad no wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, especially as the discussion which had taken place would, in his opinion, have a beneficial effect. He felt that the question was an awkward and disagreeable one for the Committee to listen to. It was not until he was charged by several hon. Members with making imputations against the Army Medical Department that he became warm. Although he had not intended that the discussion should travel so far as it had done, he believed it would do great good. As regarded the conduct of affairs in South Africa, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had received a letter a day or two ago from one of our soldiers in Durban, who complained very much of the scarcity of medical luxuries in the hospitals. Such matters as milk, butter, &c, were spoken of as having to be paid for out of the pay of the soldiers. Having promised to bring the matter under the notice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he took that opportunity of doing so. He was sure that the want of the smallest possible comforts referred to was due to some mistake, and ventured to express a hope that if there had been any shortcomings in that respect they should be remedied.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £495,200, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances of a Force of Militia, not exceeding 132,526. including 30,000 Militia

  1991
  Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  COLONEL NAGHTENhoped that the Government would give some assurance that curtailing the training of the Militia was not to be carried further, nor to be adopted as a precedent. Everyone acquainted with that Force was aware that three weeks' training was very little, especially in the case of Artillery, to make any proficiency, in which branch four weeks was but a short time. With regard to the Vote for clothing in the Militia, he wished to know what had become of the head-dresses of the Militia, which, for some reason or other, had been taken away, the men now appearing in forage caps only? He saw no credit allowed for the old busbies, which, however, he supposed were not worth much; but why had they been taken away? Was it to give them to the Volunteers? It would appear that, in taking away the head-dress of the Militia, it was intended to reduce their appearance in the eyes of the other Forces, which was a very great mistake. He must say that the numbers of the men had this year been very much increased where the Militia had been properly treated and quartered in barracks. He trusted that the Committee about to be formed would give considerable attention to the subject of recruiting from the Militia. He could not help thinking that if the recruits of the Army had passed three or four years in the Militia, and had some of their time of service counted towards their pensions, a much finer class of men would come forward for the Regular Service. It was to be hoped that some old Militia colonels would be appointed to the Committee on Army re-organization, on which, he thought, all branches of the Service ought to be represented; and it would be a benefit to the Army at large if Militia colonels were allowed to send to the Regular Service a proportion of their unmarried men up to a certain standard in height and chest measurement.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERcalled the attention of the Committee to the very serious deficiency still existing in the numerical strength of the Militia, and could not allow this Vote to pass sub silenlio. The Committee would see, at page 5, that the Militia Establishment
  1992
  of all ranks stood at 137,556; whereas the number of those present at the training of 1878 was by the last Return only 86,458, leaving a deficiency of about 51,000 of all ranks. That number did not, however, express the real deficiency in fighting strength; since, besides Militia Reserve men, large deductions must be made, owing to the number who would be on the sick list from the youth of the men, whenever the Militia were called on for service in the field. There were also 14,189 privates absent without leave, from the last training. He would now call attention to the deficiencies existing in particular regiments, as shown by a Return which he held in his hand relating to the training of all Militia regiments in the United Kingdom during last year. In Lancashire, where he was sorry to inform his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War the state of matters was at its worst, there were five regiments returned as having an establishment of 6,000 men in rank and file. Of these, however, only 2,824 appeared at inspection. Two Devonshire regiments showed only 561 out of an establishment of 1,600 rank and file; an Aberdeen regiment—for he was sorry to say Scotland was no better than England in this respect—370 out of 800; the Cornwall Rangers, 331 out of 800; and the East Essex, 390 out of 800. It was, in short, the constant practice for not one-half the nominal numbers of a Militia regiment to appear on parade. The Volunteers were in a different position, for unless two-thirds of a regiment appeared the ordinary inspection could not take place. He was quite aware that the Establishment of the Militia was based on a war footing; but the deficiencies were so serious that he trusted his right hon. and gallant Friend would call upon Militia colonels to spare no exertion in filling up the attenuated ranks of their regiments. If the Militia was to continue to be the so-called Constitutional Force of the country, it was of the utmost importance that steps should be taken to make it numerically efficient. There was only one more point to which he wished to call attention. He rather doubted whether it was wise on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to reduce the training period of the Militia this year from 27 days to 20, in

  1993
  order to save some £40,000. At all events, he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not find it necessary to repeat the experiment. Allowing for the day of assembling, the day of dismissal, and three Sundays, it would be seen that the actual training period this year did not exceed 15 days, which was scarcely sufficient to make the regiments efficient.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that the Vote for the Militia was by far the most important the Committee had to consider, and with regard to it, he was sorry to say that the state of things was even more serious than his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Arthur Hayter) had represented. They were always told that the Militia was the backbone, the very soul and essence of our military system. Well, what was the state of this backbone? Why, it was invertebrate; and he would give figures to prove this—figures which he hoped would receive the attention of the country, for it was only with the help of public opinion that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be able to frame and carry out the necessary measures of improvement. The Militia Establishment was fixed at 136,000 men; but, at present, it only stood at 86,000, so that it was 50,000 short. Deducting from this 86,000 the Militia Reserve, which amounted to 30,000, there remained only a Force of 56,000 of all ranks. Deducting, again, the permanent Staff 4,000, the officers 2,100, and the noncommissioned officers 1,000, there remained only 47,238, which constituted the entire effective Militia Force of the country. His hon. and gallant Friend had shown the weakness of particular regiments. A more convincing proof of their shortcomings might be obtained in a different way. The total number of Militia regiments in England, Ireland, and Scotland, was 158. Now, dividing 47,238 by 158, they would find the result to be 298, which was, therefore, the average strength of our Militia regiments. But the evils of which he complained did not end there. The ages of the men were by no means satisfactory. He found that the "men" under 17 years of age numbered 1,970; and those between 17 and 19, 19,851. The number of those between 19 and 20 was not given, the next list including all between 19 and 25; but, no doubt, those between
  1994
  19 and 20 formed a very large proportion of the total number. Then, of those over 35 years of age there were 8,261. Altogether, therefore, out of a total nominal strength of 136,000 men of all ranks, there were at least 30,081 who, in Germany, would not be considered efficient for military service. Now, that was a ghastly state of things. If the Militia was the backbone of our military system, and he owned that it ought to be so, he could not understand how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could sit down for an hour and allow such a state of things to continue. Whatever he might do, it was to be hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not carry out the 104th paragraph of the Report of his own Committee of 1876, and reduce the Establishment of the Militia to 75,000 men, on the ground that it could not be kept higher. Such a proceeding would be worse than that of the man who, wishing to lengthen a blanket, cut a piece off one end and sewed it on to the other; for the proposal of this Committee was to lengthen the blanket by cutting a piece off it altogether. For the sake of the dignity and strength of this country, he implored the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to lose a moment in remedying the terrible shortcomings of our Militia system, as shown in the official Returns.
  COLONEL STANLEYconfessed that, at first sight, the figures of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) somewhat appalled him. On a closer examination, however, he found that the noble Lord was mistaken in some important particulars. In pointing out the discrepancy between the strength of the different regiments and the number of men who appeared at inspection, he made no allowance for the men who were at that time actually serving with the Colours. This circumstance accounted at once for 34,000 or 35,000 men. Then, again, the noble Lord in making his comparisons, included the permanent Staff on the one hand, and deducted it on the other, and asked the War Office to account for the difference. Another source of error was this—that the Returns of some regiments did not include recruits, who, in certain regiments, within his own knowledge, numbered 200 or 300. The dis-

  1995
  crepancies to which the noble Lord had called attention were, therefore, more apparent than real. At the same time, he (Colonel Stanley) was prepared to admit that the state of regiments in the neighbourhood of large towns was not altogether satisfactory. In London, Glasgow, and other great centres, there was a large floating population, and it was impossible to retain a hold upon the men under such circumstances as easily as it could be done in rural districts. The estimated strength of regiments would, he was afraid, always be more or less affected from this cause; but it was satisfactory to know that on an emergency there was very seldom any difficulty in getting men, and that whenever there was a scarcity of civil employment the ranks filled up. The noble Lord had somewhat mis-stated the effect of the paragraph of the Report of the Committee of 1876 to which he had referred. The recommendation had only reference to a technical distinction between the Militia proper and the Militia Reserve who, being liable to be withdrawn, did not form an integral portion of the Militia regiments. What was recommended was a change of form, rather than a change of substance. With regard to the head-dress of the Militia, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter), he believed the change to the forage cap had, on the whole, been recognized as advantageous to the Service, and satisfactory to the men themselves. The old shako was really very little worn, and a great deal of time was lost in fitting the men with it. Moreover, it was not so serviceable as the forage cap. With regard to the period of training, no one could regret more than himself the curtailment of it which it had been deemed advisable to make. But the necessity for reducing the Votes having arisen, the present year seemed to be unusually favourable for making an experiment of the kind; at all events, it seemed to be an occasion on which the period of training might be reduced without so much deteriment to the Service as might, under ordinary circumstances, be expected. No fewer than 25,000 of the men had had not one month's but four months' training with regiments of the Line, and there were also a large number of recruits who had also had the advantage, in most cases, of two or three months' training. The
  1996
  year, altogether, was an exceptional one, and the experiment was not likely to be repeated. He could assure hon. Members who had spoken that the state of the Militia was occupying very closely the attention of the Government. It was difficult to keep up some regiments to their strength amidst the fluctuations of the labour market and other disturbing influences; but instructions had been sent to the General Officers commanding districts to be most careful in selecting men. He hoped that this precaution would have a satisfactory result, and that much of the desertion which took place between the enrolment and the training of the men would be done away with.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK, while fully recognizing that the strength of the Militia was not what it ought to be, pointed out to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) that he had fallen into a singular misapprehension on the subject. The Re-turn, which professed to give the total number of men who were in training in 1878, stated that 15,000 were absent without leave and 14,000 absent with leave; but it appeared that the latter number included the Militia Reserve men who came out for mobilization. It was, in the highest degree, creditable to the Reserve men that so large a number of them should have responded to the call to mobilize last year. It had been anticipated that at least 15 per cent would be absent; but it turned out that the absentees scarcely amounted to 2½ per cent, although many of the men were obliged to leave their families in very necessitous circumstances. The training period for the Militia extended from February to September. Different regiments were called out at different times; and it happened that many of the men of the Militia Reserve, who had served with the Colours last year up to July 3, were absent from the Militia regiments which were trained in July, August, and September. Thus, a considerable portion of the discrepancy which the noble Lord had pointed out was satisfactorily accounted for. Notwithstanding the tendency which had been shown to depreciate the Militia, and the unfavourable criticisms which had been passed upon them, even by Volunteer officers, he (Sir Henry Havelock) felt bound to say that they really formed

  1997
  the backbone of the military system in this country, and he trusted that no effort would be spared by the military authorities to increase their efficiency. The mobilization of last year showed most unquestionably that the Militia Reserve was a Force which could be relied upon to a greater extent than had previously been supposed. As regarded the Army Reserve, the anticipations indulged in were never likely to be realized; it was not probable that in 1883 or 1884 we should have more than 42,000 or 43,000 in the Army Reserve at most. There was thus all the more reason for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to adopt every means in his power to increase the Militia Reserve. The men of that Reserve did not cost more than 30 s. each a-year; and they formed, as he had pointed out so long ago as 1876, the most efficient and substantial Reserve we possessed. It was very satisfactory, also, to find that their recent association with the men of the Line, so far from deteriorating their spirit, had improved it. He observed that in one regiment, which had turned out 1,000 strong, there were no fewer than 500 men who had served as Militia Reserve in the Regular troops. He would, therefore, venture to press upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the great importance of increasing the Militia Reserve. If the Militia Reserve had been increased in 1876, they would have had 10,000 more trained men ready to take their places in the ranks in 1878, and the cost of the increase would have been little more than £25 to £30 per man. He would again ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to depreciate the value of the Militia Reserve, but to endeavour to increase it; for, in his opinion, it was the most efficient, the most substantial, and the most economical Reserve they had. He trusted to hear, before very long, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken a stop in the direction of increasing it.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that there was nothing whatever, either on page 35, or on page 5 of the Estimates, to show that the statements he had made, and to which exception had been taken, were wrong. On page 5, he found that the Militia—including permanent Staff and Militia Reserve—out of an Establishment of 137,556 men, had 86,458 men
  1998
  present at training in 1878. Therefore, if to the 86,458 men present at training they added the Militia Reserve, who were apparently included in the cost, the observation he had made was perfectly correct. But he was willing to accept the contradiction which had been made by his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley). The fact was, that he had been quoting from one Parliamentary Paper, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to another. With the deduction, which must be made, of 30,000 boys and old men, he did not think that the Militia could be considered in a proper state, having an average strength per regiment of something like 300 men. His right hon. and gallant Friend, as Chairman of the Committee upon this subject, stated that he differed in opinion from the officers commanding the regiments of Militia; and he ventured to suggest that, in time of peace, it was not necessary to keep the Militia up to so full an Establishment as at present. To that opinion, he (Lord Elcho) could not assent, for he thought that the Militia ought to be kept up to its full Establishment in time of peace, if it were to be made useful in time of war. The Report went on to say that in time of emergency and danger the Militia could be increased, but that the Establishment in time of peace should be reduced. According to his right hon. and gallant Friend's Report, therefore, he was content to keep the Militia at a low state in time of peace, and to fill up the ranks in time of war. But was that a course which would make the Militia available in time of emergency? It was necessary above all things that the Militia should be well-trained, and able at once on an emergency to take its place in the defences of the country. He ventured to think that his remarks upon this point were not inconsistent with what he had previously said, and what appeared in that Report. He would most respectfully urge upon his right hon. and gallant Friend to take this matter into his very serious consideration.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that last year he moved an Amendment to reduce this Vote by the sum of £25,000, and he was very glad to see that the Government had that year adopted his suggestion. The Amendment he moved last year was to reduce the item on account of regi-

  1999
  mental pay and allowances for the Militia by £25,000; and he hoped that the Government would now consent to a further reduction of £25,000 from the Vote. He thought he should be able to show the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the further reduction which he proposed was not only expedient, but necessary. He might say that he had listened very carefully to the discussion which had taken place on the Vote, and he considered that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) was quite right in the criticisms he had made. In 1877, about 30 per cent of the men were absent from the training; and in 1878, about 40 per cent were absent. The sum asked for last year was £534,000 on account of this Vote, although only £483,000 was spent. Thus, about £50,000 more was taken on account of the Vote than was actually required. In the present Estimates a reduction had been made of £25,000, as he had already mentioned; but the Appropriation Account of the Controller and Auditor General last year stated that it was precisely on this item that excessive demands were made. During the years 1876–7, 1877–8, more than £50,000 was asked for by the Government than was actually required. Now that the training of the Militia was to be shortened by seven days in the present year, another good reason for the reduction appeared. The Amendment which he should move was that the regimental pay and allowances for the Militia be reduced by £25,000, in addition to the reduction of £25,000 made by the Government. The Vote was asked for on account of a much larger number of men than would actually come in to be trained. As nearly £50,000 in a year, for the last three or four years, had been asked for on account of this Vote in excess of what was actually required, he thought there was good reason for the reduction. What was the effect of Parliament voting away all this money? The money was really given to the War Office to do what it liked with. No doubt, the surplus was returned to the Exchequer; but the money was in the hands of the War Office to do what it pleased with. He thought they had arrived at a time when the Votes in the Army Estimates should be submitted to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. If that were
  2000
  done, he should be able to show that in almost every Vote a larger sum of money was demanded by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War than he was able to spend, so that he had at all times in his possession a large amount of money not required. That was not the way in which public accounts should be kept; and, unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could adjust the Estimates to the Expenditure, the Committee should not be asked to grant sums of money so much in excess of what was spent. During the present year there could be no doubt that at least £30,000 more was asked for than would be spent. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £25,000 under subhead A.
  Amendment proposed,
  "That Sub-head A of £275,000, in respect of Regimental Pay of Militia, be reduced by £25,000."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the said Item be so reduced."
  COLONEL STANLEYstated that the Estimate submitted was for the amount required for the Service of the year. So far as he was aware, there was no reason which would justify him in consenting to the reduction proposed. Therefore, he hoped that the Committee would grant the Vote.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 190: Majority 182.—(Div. List, No. 120.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £47,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he had a great objection to the manner in which Cavalry officers had been appointed to adjutancies in the Yeomanry for some years past. Since the present system had come into operation, no doubt, great advantage had been experienced by regiments of Yeomanry in obtaining officers from the Regular Cavalry for adjutants. But he must refer to the very objectionable manner in which

  2001
  those appointments were made. In the first place, an officer under 12 years' service could not be appointed an adjutant of Yeomanry; but, within his knowledge, that rule had been disregarded in the case of particular persons. Every officer who was appointed to the Yeomanry received the usual pay and allowances of an adjutant, and was placed in an exceptionally good position, without being under the necessity of being a single day on foreign service. That gave adjutants of Yeomanry an exceptional advantage over the other officers in the regiments from which they were taken, the latter having to go on foreign service. He thought that no officer should be appointed to an adjutancy of Yeomanry unless he had been on foreign service. Another objection was that no officer who had risen from the ranks was ever appointed an adjutant of Yeomanry. It was a grievance on the part of officers who had risen from the ranks that only half their service was allowed to count towards their pensions, and thus they had to serve 30 years, instead of 20. The Royal Warrant made this distinction between officers who had risen from the ranks and other officers. By Clause 115 of the Royal Warrant, an officer who had risen from the ranks, in case of any permanent disability or incapacity from wounds, or other causes, could not retire on full pay unless he had served 15 years out of 25. He considered that those officers were treated very unjustly; and it was also right that some of those appointments to the Yeomanry should be reserved for officers who had risen from the ranks. The fact was, that there was a great deal of patronage connected with these appointments to adjutancies of Yeomanry; a great deal of county influence was requisite to obtain them. An officer who had risen from the ranks would necessarily not have county influence, and, therefore, he was under a disadvantage in respect to the appointments. He only knew of one officer who had risen from the ranks being made an adjutant of Yeomanry; he was a gentleman from the 7th Dragoon Guards. He found one officer in the Dragoons of only eight years' service; in the Life Guards, two—one of 11, and the other of only 10 years' service. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £42,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Major O'Beirne.)
  COLONEL STANLEYdid not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had based his objection to the Vote upon sufficient grounds; and, therefore, the Committee could not be asked to consent to the proposed reduction. By the present system, the Yeomanry obtained a class of men with new ideas, active and able to discharge their duties. Considering that the system worked well, he felt it his duty to oppose the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. WHITWELLwas sorry that any proposal had been made to reduce the Vote, especially on the grounds put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Yeomanry adjutants would this year certainly have to do more work than in any previous year. He did not think the Vote should be reduced in any form whatever.
  GENERAL SHUTEagreed with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that, under the present system, the adjutants appointed to the Yeomanry were a class of men well up in all the latest changes and improvements in drill, inasmuch as they were fresh from the Cavalry. There could be no doubt that, in consequence of these appointments, the Yeomanry Cavalry had vastly improved.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. PARNELLwished to point out, before the Main Question was put, that although the pay of the men had been reduced by one-sixth because they were to be called out for a short time, the deductions from the pay of absentees were not reduced in like proportion. This was, of course, due to an oversight on the part of those who had charge of the matter; but it was very absurd that such mistakes should occur. The same thing occurred with regard to other items. The command pay was reduced, and they had the items of servants' allowances, £400; troop allowances, £200; and so forth. Why should not these be reduced in the same proportion as other items? Of course, it showed

  2003
  that the Estimates were not drawn up as they ought to be.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the deductions referred to by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had not been dealt with, because the members of the corps were not under the control of the War Office.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £512,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March 1880."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, anyone who looked into this question, which concerned the body of Volunteers now reaching nearly 200,000 in number, of whom about 195,000 were efficients, would deem it necessary, with respect to its usefulness to the country, that the Committee should consider whether any amelioration of the conditions of service of these men could be practically effected. He wished to make one or two observations on the recommendations of Viscount Bury's Commission; and, in the first place, wished to call the attention of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War to the position of administrative battalions. Now, anyone who was acquainted with the formation of administrative battalions would know how necessary it was, when they were brought into camp, that they should be absolutely under the command of one man, who should have power to punish in the same manner as an officer commanding in his own immediate locality. But at present, in camp, a commanding officer could only admonish and reprimand or place a man in the guard-tent, without being able to dismiss him from his corps. That, certainly, ought to be amended; and, therefore, he wished to ask whether it was the intention that all administrative battalions should be consolidated, and, if not, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to give greater powers to commanding officers when the whole battalion was assembled in camp or elsewhere? With regard to the allowances in camp, he could not help thinking that a larger sum should be granted to a body of men like the Volunteers, who went out almost entirely at their own expense. He believed it
  2004
  was recommended that 2s. a-day should be given to every man in camp for four clear days. But that was hardly sufficient. In his opinion, if Is were granted with the extra 2s. 6d., it would be a fair allowance for going into camp. He also wished to be informed what was the intention of the Government with regard to the clothing of the Volunteers. Were they to wear the same colour as was worn by the regiments of the sub-district to which they were attached? That was a question he should like answered, as he was quite sure the Volunteers would conform to the wishes of the Government if expressed. Lastly, as to the vexed question of the adjutants. His right hon. and gallant Friend had just said that it was of the utmost importance that the adjutants should be taken from the Cavalry of the Line for the Yeomanry, and that it was far better that men who had grown rusty in that Service should be relieved by younger and more efficient men. If that was good for the Yeomanry it was also good for the Volunteers; and, if so, the old adjutants ought to be placed in the same position as the adjutants of Militia were placed—namely, a certain retiring allowance if they retired by a certain day. As the matter now stood, on the recommendation of Lord Bury's Committee, Volunteer adjutants could not receive the pay and allowances unless they were incapacitated or had served 15 years. He trusted this would be the last time that these complaints were heard. Without pressing the point further, he expressed his opinion that the same allowances ought to have been made to the adjutants of Volunteers as to the adjutants of Militia. He hoped his right hon. and gallant Friend would state what were his intentions with respect to this matter.
  MR. A. H. BROWNhoped the case of the Volunteer adjutants would be fully and fairly considered. Without knowing what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Report of Viscount Bury's Committee, there were many things contained therein to which he objected. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had drawn attention to the case of administrative battalions, and had asked whether they were to be further consolidated. There was one recommendation of the

  2005
  Committee which, at first sight, would strike anybody as a very good one; but which he believed could be shown to be impracticable. It was that battalions should be amalgamated. For instance, it would be found that the finances of the battalions were in the hands of the lieutenant-colonel, and it would be impossible to amalgamate battalions one with another when you threw upon the lieutenant-colonels commanding the battalion a responsibility in regard to the finances which would be very heavy. Again, it could be shown that the finances of some corps were not in a satisfactory state. To join these corps to others who were financially sound would be thrown upon the lieutenant-colonels of the amalgamated corps, which he thought they would decline. The Committee, in examining the financial state of the Force, had proceeded to divide their expenses under the heads of "necessary" and "unnecessary." But he thought that hon. Members would agree with him that many expenses had been placed erroneously under the latter head. For instance, he found that the charge for stationery, printing, and carriage of parcels were placed as one of the unnecessary expenses. Again, they had put down as "unnecessary" the expenses of Artillery Corps in connection with gun-practice, such as horse-hire and railway fares, which were necessarily incurred when the men had to go many miles to practice. Therefore, to the financial part of the proposals which had been put forward in the scheme of Viscount Bury he felt bound to demur; while he regarded the other proposals as being very good, and as being well worthy of consideration. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be able to inform him which portion of the recommendations contained in the scheme it was intended to carry into effect.
  MR. MARK STEWARTexpressed a wish to hear from the Secretary of State for War the reasons why Artillery Volunteers had not received at the hands of the Government more attention than had hitherto been paid to that branch of the Volunteer Service? It was, in the opinion of many persons, extremely important that more pains should be taken to secure the efficiency of the Artillery. As the Committee
  2006
  was aware, very adequate provision was made at Shoeburyness for the instruction of those Volunteers who were able to go there; but it was impossible that men could come from Scotland, or the Northern parts of England, to receive instruction there in any considerable numbers, when the distance to be travelled and the expense were taken into account. He might mention that within the last two years a camp had been established at Irvine, one of the most accessible towns in the West of Scotland. It was open for four days, and 200 men attended it, not only from Scotland, but from the North of England. The question, however, was how that camp could be maintained; and what was required was that some fund should be provided for the purpose, for while the expenditure of the camp last year amounted to £307, the income was only £203. Its promoters were, therefore, over £100 out of pocket; and it would not, he thought, be wise to allow so useful an institution to collapse for want of the means to carry it on. The sum charged for each man attending the camp for four days was 15 s.; travelling expenses, 5s.; total, £1. For an officer, £3 2s.; camp, 10 s.; total £3 12 s.; while at Shoeburyness, for attending the camp for six days, per man, was 14 s. 6d.; travelling expenses, £1 15 s.; total £2 9s. 6d. For an officer, £3 10 s.; for travelling, £2 10 s.; total, £6. What he would ask the Government, under the circumstances, to do was to give a grant of 10 s. a-head towards the camp, or even 5s. in addition to Lord Bury's recommendation of 6s. per man to the corps which he belonged towards paying the expenses. In that way the camp might be maintained, and the efficiency of the Volunteers greatly promoted throughout not only Scotland, but the Northern parts of England. It must be recollected how admirably suited Irvine was both for practice and instruction in drill of every description, while at Mary hill a sufficient staff of instructors was always at hand. He wished, also, to point out the necessity which existed for increasing the grant with the view of enabling commanding officers to meet the expenses, which had to be borne for the purposes of drill; for it was impossible that many of them could meet those expenses, unless the funds at their disposal were supplemented by

  2007
  a Government allowance on a larger scale. Again, the Artillery Volunteers were frequently exposed to very severe weather; they had to go through their exercise on the shores of the sea, and they ought, he thought, to be supplied with great coats, under a penalty that if they were not found in a certain condition at the end of a given time, the Volunteers themselves should be liable to make good the deficiency. He could not help adding that Volunteer adjutants seemed to him to be placed in a very disadvantageous position as compared with adjutants in the Militia or the Yeomanry. The Volunteer adjutant, for instance, had no such accommodation as regarded rooms when in barracks as the Militia adjutant; and, instead, only an allowance of 2s. 3d. per day, or 15 s. 9d. per week; he had no soldier servant, but an allowance of 1s. per day, or 7s. a-week; and instead of having an allowance of forage for keep of a horse at contract scale, only 1s. 10 d. was allowed per day, or 12 s. l0 d. per week, notwithstanding that he had much more work to do than when employed with his own regiment. The ordinary Volunteer adjutant in an Artillery battalion had to work eight months out of the 12; and he trusted the Government would be able to give the Committee some assurance that their position and that of other adjutants, as, for example, Yeomanry adjutants, who, he was told, lost, by their appointment, £220 a-year, would be looked into, and that their retiring allowance would be placed on a more liberal platform, especially those adjutants who had been a long time in the Service, and that they would be more liberally treated in future.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he thought a very strong case had been made out on behalf of the Volunteer adjutants for the consideration of the Government, and expressed a hope that the right hon. arid gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would see the expediency of increasing their retiring allowances.
  LORD ELCHOwished, as allusion had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to the consolidation of administrative battalions, to point out to the authorities at the War Office the necessity of being very careful in dealing with that question. They
  2008
  might proceed in the direction of consolidation until they had succeeded in getting rid of a good deal of the Force. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the clothing of the Volunteers, and had asked whether it was the intention of the Government that it should be altered? Now, he could tell the Committee, of his own knowledge, that there was a strong feeling on the part of many Volunteers that it was desirable the gray uniform should be retained, because they believed it to be more serviceable, and better suited to the Force than a red uniform, which a shower of rain might spoil. Besides, as many hon. Members were aware, gray was the colour which was used in India for service, and which had been chosen by Sir Garnet Wolseley for his troops during the Ashantee War as being the most serviceable. There could be no doubt that, for service in the field, gray was a better colour than red. Probably, a good way of compromising the matter would be that both the Army, Militia, and the Volunteers should have a gray undress and a red full-dress uniform. And when a compulsory change to red was defended on the ground of the enemy otherwise being able to distinguish the Volunteers from the Regular troops, it was manifest that this argument fell to the ground unless the similarity in dress and equipments was complete in all respects. But there was, as he had said, the strongest possible feeling in favour of retaining the gray uniform. It had been suggested that the main difficulty of supplying Volunteers with a uniform of that colour in time of war would be an administrative one; but considering the difficulty which was experienced by Volunteers in times of peace in procuring clothing of any description from the Government Stores, it would be better, in his opinion, that they should rely altogether on private contractors. So great had he found the difficulty to be in his own regiment, that he was obliged to give up resorting to the Army Stores; and he hoped the Government would not press the matter, unless they meant to make the uniformity in clothing complete as between all branches of the Services, and to extend it to such articles as buttons, belts, and lace; it would be useless, he thought, to enforce it merely with regard to the colour of cloth

  2009
  worn. But there was another matter which, in his opinion, was much more important than the question of the colour of the uniform of the Volunteers, although it had not been touched upon in the course of the present discussion—he alluded to the question of drill. As things at present stood, a certain number of drills were required to be gone through by the Volunteer recruits. A Volunteer in the first year of his service was required to do 30 drills, the number being only nine for the subsequent years. It had, however, been recommended by Viscount Bury's Committee that 30 drills should be required in the second year also—that was to say, that there should be 60 drills during the first two years. Now, he would venture to remark that there was such a thing as riding a willing horse too hard. The Volunteer Force, in point of numbers and efficiency, was, at the present moment, in a state which no one believed it would arrive at when the Volunteer movement was first started. It was, in fact, the only decently sound portion of our military system. A good deal had been heard about the Militia; and when the Vote for the Reserves came on, the Committee would be able to understand how we stood with regard to a Reserve Force. He would strongly recommend the Government, therefore, to be careful how they assented to any proposal which would have the effect of impairing the efficiency of the Volunteer Force. He deprecated what he would call trop de zele in dealing with it. The only thing which the Volunteers had got out of the Committee to which he had referred was the proposal that 30 compulsory drills should be required in the second year; and he was afraid that if that proposal were acted upon the result would be that the numbers of the Force would be diminished, while its efficiency would not be increased. He hoped, therefore, the Government would see the expediency of not pressing that proposal further. But there was another matter which was dealt with in the Report of the Committee, and that was the question of numbers. They wanted to limit the number of Volunteers; but it would not, in his opinion, be advisable to act on that recommendation. When the Militia was in a sound condition, and the Reserve what
  2010
  it ought to be, then the question of limiting the number of Volunteers might very fairly be taken into consideration. But, in the present state of those Services, it would, he could not help thinking, be bad policy to put any limit on the number of our Volunteer Force. Those were the main points on which he deemed it necessary to touch on the present occasion. There was another point, however, on which he desired to make one or two observations. The case of the adjutants had been referred to; and he, for one, was prepared heartily to endorse all that had been said as to the merits of those officers, to whom the Volunteers owed so much. He was bound to say that, under the new system, the Volunteers had been very fortunate, generally speaking, in the adjutants whose services they had secured. As to sergeants, he could only say that it had been found impossible to get good men to fill that position without spending more than the Government allowance, so that it was not fair to describe the expenditure on that score as unnecessary. But there was another point to which he wished particularly to refer before he sat down; it related to sergeant-majors. The question had been raised, whether sergeant-majors were entitled to a pension; and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, in replying to that question, had stated that there was no such rank as that of sergeant-major in the Volunteer Force. Power, he said, was given to Volunteer officers to appoint men to perform the duties of sergeant-major; but there was no such title in connection with the Force known to the authorities at the War Office. His right hon. and gallant Friend was, however, mistaken in that respect; for, in accordance with the Warrant of 1863, Article 204, it was laid down that a commanding officer of Volunteers might appoint a sergeant-major; and, again, in the Warrant of 1877, it was set forth that sergeant-majors were to receive the same pension as sergeants. It was clear, therefore, that by Royal Warrant commanding officers were empowered to make such appointments, and that the men so appointed were entitled to pensions. The answer which had been given by his right hon. and gallant Friend was, therefore, not consistent with the facts of the

  2011
  case. Speaking from his own experience as a Volunteer officer, he was glad to be able to bear out the statement that as the services of the adjutants had been found most valuable, so, also, had those of the sergeants and the sergeant-majors; and he fully believed that, under the Warrants to which he referred, there were bonâ fide sergeant-majors, and that they were entitled to a pension as such.
  MR. J. BROWNwished to make a few remarks with respect to the retiring allowances of Volunteer adjutants, who were, in his opinion, a very ill-treated body of men, seeing that, although they had very important and arduous duties to perform, they would hardly receive sufficient in the shape of pension to keep body and soul together. Speaking as an outsider, not belonging to the Volunteer Force, he might say that he had always experienced at the hands of those officers the greatest courtesy and kindness; and he was, therefore, glad to be able to speak a word in their behalf. He had moved for a Return, which he hoped would throw some light on the subject; but it had not, he regretted to say, as yet been laid upon the Table, owing, it was but fair to add, not to any fault of the War Office authorities, but rather to the delay in filling it up on the part of the adjutants themselves, who, perhaps, did not thoroughly understand the matter. The Return would show what was the length of service of these officers; what amount of money they received, in the shape of pension and retiring allowance, from the sale of their commissions, or in any other way under the retirement scheme. But as he was unable to refer for information on those points to the Return, he might be allowed to mention one or two cases with the particulars of which he was acquainted, and which appeared to him to involve considerable hardship. There was one instance in which an officer had served 25 years in the Royal Artillery, and subsequently for 18 years as adjutant of a Volunteer regiment; but after a total service of 43 years, all that he would receive as a retiring allowance would be something like £130 a-year. Those gentlemen had done their duty thoroughly well, and in the most satisfactory manner; but they were placed in a worse position than a captain of the Army with less service. By the Army retirement scheme, a captain
  2012
  retired after 20 years on about £200 a-year. A number of Volunteer adjutants had sold their commissions before becoming adjutants. The amount realized from the sale of their commissions ought not to be taken into account in considering their retiring allowance. It was made out by Mr. Knox before the Volunteer Committee that some of them would receive 13 s. a-day retiring allowance, of which 7s. a-day arose from the sale of their commissions, and 6s. a-day only from the proper retiring allowance according to the scale offered. On looking over the Return, he found that 24 Volunteer adjutants had realized nothing by the sale of their commissions; 11 of them had realized £250; 15 had sold out for not more than £450; 29 had obtained sums between £450 and £1,000; but only 16 had realized upwards of £1,000; two had lost £1,000 each. Allowing that they realized this last-mentioned sum of money, it was only sufficient to give them something like 4s. a-day in addition to the retiring allowance proposed. Even adding this to the proposed retiring allowance it would not be sufficient to keep these gentlemen alive; but he did not think that the sums realized by the sale of their commissions should be taken into account, for it was their own money which they only received back. It was very unfair to take into consideration the sum which they realized by the sale of their commissions previously to becoming adjutants. Therefore, the only allowance which was offered on retirement was about 6s. a-day, or £110 per annum, after 30 years' service. They were told that 8s. a-day might be given; but he trusted that the Government would grant them the same retiring allowance as was given to Militia adjutants. That was the least that could be done to a body of men who had proved themselves so valuable, and had done so much for the country and for the Volunteer Force.
  SIR HENRY WILMOTwished to state that for a number of years he had held command of a very strong regiment. The uniform was scarlet, and, for eight days, he had taken the regiment into camp in the worst possible weather. They had received no aid from the Regular Forces, but were encamped alone for eight days, performing all military duties, notwithstanding the soaking rain. At the end of the period

  2013
  they were inspected by the late Lieutenant General Lindsay. Before the General left the parade ground he rode up to him, and stated that he could not leave the camp without saying that the men would be a credit to any Service in the world, from their efficiency and for the clean way in which they turned out after the bad weather they had gone through. After that experience of scarlet uniforms, he thought they were under no disadvantage, compared to other colours. He began life as a red soldier; and his experience was that if men knew how to clean their red coats they could keep them in just as good condition as the green or gray uniform. He was sure that if the scarlet uniform of his regiment was changed to gray clothing, they would have the men who had been accustomed to it leave in a short time. He thought that scarlet was the national and proper colour for the uniform.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, that in the borough which he had the honour to represent (Hastings) the Artillery Volunteers had no objection to the recommendation of Viscount Bury's Committee, that every recruit ill his second year should do 30 drills. On the other hand, they said that one week at Shoeburyness encamped was more important to them than a whole year's drilling. He would urge upon the Government to give greater encouragement to the Artillery Volunteers to go to Shoeburyness. They ought to be taken to and from the camp, and the cost of their living ought to be allowed them free of charge. These, he considered, were reasonable requests, and showed a very great desire on the part of the Artillery Volunteers to make themselves efficient. Volunteers were quite ready to do the increased number of drills which was required of them; but they were anxious to go into camp and submit to real discipline.
  MR. STACPOOLEthought that the Volunteers ought to be clad in scarlet uniforms, like the Line and Militia. It was absurd to say that a red coat soon began to look shabby; he knew the contrary, as he was in a Militia regiment in 1855. He still had his old red coat, which was now as good as when he first had it, and it certainly went through some very wet weather at the Curragh, and other places. He hoped that the House would pass a Resolution
  2014
  that all the Volunteers should be clad in scarlet; for he thought that it would be very much better for all branches of the Service to be dressed in the same manner. A red coat was darker at night than any other colour; he had often been in a scarlet coat at night, and he was sure that it looked very much darker than any other colour would do. He also hoped that the Government would take into serious consideration the position of the adjutants, and would place them in the same situation as the Militia adjutants.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERdid not think there was any proposition in the Report of the Committee which was so much disliked by commanding officers of Volunteer regiments in London as the proposed amalgamation of corps. In the first place, the Volunteer regiments in London were, as a rule, much too large for amalgamation; and, in the second place, they wore separated from each other by a wide demarcation of classes. It would be quite impossible, for instance, to amalgamate an East End with a West End corps, nor would the lawyers, the Civil Service, and the artists amalgamate with working men's corps. He was certain that if this plan were adopted it would be destructive, in many cases, to entire regiments. The Committee stated, in its Report, that the first saving which would be made would be with regard to drill halls and rifle ranges. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War must know that, so far as rifle ranges were concerned, a number of large corps now used the same rifle range. Hardly any London regiment had the sole use of a rifle range. With regard to drill halls, they would be very glad to share one, for their regiment had none, and he knew of no London regiment possessing one. The only saving that would be made by amalgamation would be in the cost of head-quarters; but it would be very much better that this expense should be borne by the separate corps, than to effect it at the cost both of the comfort and numbers of the regiments united. With regard to the Volunteer camp allowance, he trusted that his right hon. and gallant Friend would recommend an increased allowance to those Volunteers which had already gone into camp this year. At Whitsuntide nearly 300 of his corps went into camp.

  2015
  They were now to have 10 s. 6d. travelling expenses per man as a maximum, and 2s. a-day for the six days spent in camp. He did not agree with what had been said as to a limitation of the numbers of the Volunteers; indeed, it seemed to him somewhat invidious to refuse to accept additional Volunteers in the present state of the Force. Within the last 15 years the Volunteers had increased by 80,000 men; and, according to that ratio, the maximum would not be reached for seven years to come. He thought it would be better to postpone fixing the limit until the proposed number was much more nearly reached. The question of dress had been a great deal discussed, and he did not wish to go into the point; because he presumed that a rifle regiment like the one which he had the honour to command would be allowed to remain in the same uniform as the Rifle Brigade, to which it was attached. One proposal had been made which seemed to him to be a very good one, and that was, that water bottles and great coats, to the extent of one water bottle and great coat to one-fourth of the number of the Volunteers, might be kept in store, and issued to the Volunteers when they went into camp. Of course, if they gave Volunteers great coats there was no security that they would not use them for other than military purposes. Lastly, as to the old adjutants, it was surely unfair that there should be any discrepancy between the adjutants of Militia and Volunteers, and that the former should receive a pension of 10 s. a-day, while a Volunteer adjutant should only be able to earn 8s. a-day. If a man was to retire upon 8s. a-day he would have £140 as a maximum; and could they expect a man in receipt of £240 and other allowances to retire and accept a pension of £140 a-year? If the Government would grant Volunteer adjutants the same retiring allowance as was made to adjutants of Militia—namely, 10 s. a-day, it would, according to the evidence offered, give full satisfaction to all. There was one point to which he hoped his right hon. and gallant Friend would turn his attention—namely, as to whether some badge or medal for long service could not be given to Volunteers, now that the Force had reached its 20th year of service? At present, an old Volunteer had nothing to distinguish him from a
  2016
  raw recruit; and it was hard that he should not receive some badge, such as was given in the Regular Army to men of long service and good conduct. He thought that some honorary rank should also be given to retired lieutenant colonels and majors. It would cost nothing to the country, and would be very acceptable to the Volunteer Service, which was growing and increasing both in numbers and efficiency every year.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYwould reply to the remarks which had been made by hon. Members upon this subject. Questions had been touched upon which were before the Committee appointed, as hon. Gentlemen knew, by his right hon. and gallant Friend's Predecessor, to inquire into the requirements and wants of the Volunteer Force, and to say whether it was necessary to do anything, either by increasing the capitation allowance to the Volunteer Force, or by other means, to increase its efficiency and contentment. The Committee went into that inquiry with every desire to do ample justice to the Volunteer Force, and if they saw their way fairly and honestly to recommend an increase of the allowance in order that the Force, to whoso patriotism and utility everyone so readily acquiesced in bearing testimony, might be maintained in its present state of efficiency. In the course of their inquiry the Committee sent out certain questions, which were answered throughout the whole of the Force. They asked, amongst other things, upon what most of the Volunteers expected their capitation grant? Very soon the Committee were able to divide the classes of expenditure under different heads; they classed certain expenses necessary, and certain other items they put amongst unnecessary expenses. His noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and one or two other hon. Members, laid some blame on that mode of classification, alleging that the Committee had put down some matters as unnecessary which were, in reality, necessary. Amongst those things was mentioned the extra pay given to Staff sergeants. It did seem wrong, at first sight, that the Volunteers should give extra pay to their Staff sergeants; no one objected to their doing so; but he did not think they should do it out of the capitation grant. The Regulations laid down that a certain sum should be

  2017
  paid to Staff sergeants. That amount was calculated at the War Office on the same scale as the Militia pay for Staff sergeants, and it ought to be sufficient. If they gave Staff sergeants more than the Regulation allowance, they would be making better terms for themselves at the expense of the rest of the Service. They might do that out of their own pockets; but they were not entitled to come to Government and say—" Give us more capitation grant, in order that we may be able to give better terms to Volunteer sergeants than are given to Militia sergeants." If the matter were looked at in that light, it would be seen that it was not a case which required an increased grant. With respect to the extra stationery allowance, if anything further was necessary, it fell under the head of "unnecessary expenses," as a sufficient amount was now allowed. With, regard to clothing, he was glad to see that some hon. Members who had addressed the Committee during the latter part of the discussion were more in favour of a scarlet uniform than those who spoke first. He would say at once that the Government was in favour of clothing the Volunteers in scarlet. The view which they took of this question was this—a similarity of dress was most desirable throughout the Force; at present, as was well known, a great variety of dress and costumes was worn in the Volunteer Force. If the Volunteers were called out, one of the very first things which would have to be done would be to put an end to the great variety of costumes, and to consider what would be the best clothing for the Volunteers. That was one way of looking at the matter; and, at the present time, when they had no great emergency, they ought to decide what was the best uniform for the Volunteers. If it were left until an emergency was upon them, there would be great difficulty in the matter. It was essential that they should determine upon a good and useful dress for the Volunteer Force; and, having determined upon it, they should do their best reasonably—he did not say forcibly—to induce the Volunteers to adopt it. The matter had been carefully considered and discussed at the War Office by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War and those who advised him; and what seemed to them the best proposal was to
  2018
  say that a scarlet uniform should be the dress for Volunteers, and that the facings should be similar to the facings of the county regiment or district to which the Volunteers were attached. The Metropolitan Volunteers would be attached for drill and exercise to battalions of the Guards. They did not wish to carry their theory to such an extent as to dishearten old-established regiments, who were now dressed in gray or green; and, therefore, they did not wish to say to them—"You shall absolutely conform to the red uniform;" but they would say—"We strongly recommend it." They would say to them—"That is the dress which we think you should adopt; but if you wish to continue your old uniform, there is no objection to your retaining it." They also proposed that the Volunteers who chose to conform to what the Government said was the Regulation dress, should have certain advantages by being able to draw their clothing from the Government Depôt, and by paying for it by deductions from the capitation grant. That would be a great saving to the Volunteers, for they had to pay their tailors large sums of money to obtain long credit. The Government would give to those regiments conforming to the Regulation dress the advantage of being able to draw their clothing from the Government Stores. He could not agree with the strictures which had been passed with regard to red uniforms, for he thought they were a most useful dress; if a man knew how to use it, he could keep his red coat quite as clean as any other coat. He thought his noble Friend was most ungrateful, when he said—"We have asked you for bread, and you have given us a stone." If his noble Friend would look at and road the recommendations of the Committee with regard to camps, he thought he would see that a very distinct advantage had been granted to the Volunteers, and that it was one which would be of great value to them. Of course, some Volunteers did not want to go into camp; and if they did not go into camp they must not want an additional grant. The proposal which was made was most handsome and substantial; it was to give 2s. per head per day to the Volunteers going into camp, on the condition that they spent not less than three days in camp. Thus, every man who spent six days in camp would earn 12 s.

  2019
  —an enormous sum—and he was almost afraid they could not afford it. If large numbers of Volunteers went into camp it would amount to a very large sum, and he thought that it would be well not to allow more than a certain number of men to go into camp. At all events, this was a most substantial advantage; and it had this in its favour—that it was paying money to the Volunteers who would make themselves more efficient than heretofore. That was the principle upon which they went to pay for efficiency—a little more efficiency and a little more pay. With regard to adjutants, nobody could wish better to those very deserving officers, the adjutants of Volunteers, than he did. They had performed a very heavy and a very arduous task, and had done it extremely well, and were fully deserving of all the consideration which could be shown to them. With that view, the War Office proposed, with the sanction of the Treasury, to apply to them an increased retiring allowance—a substantial increase in the allowance from what they formerly had. He must make this remark—that he did not consider that these adjutants of Volunteers should be placed in a better position than officers retiring from the Army. If exceptional advantages were given to them there would be dissatisfaction, for all officers would wish to retire on the same scale. It had been suggested that the same retiring allowance should be given to them as was now given to adjutants of Militia. He did not think that all the conditions that accompanied that allowance had been mentioned to the Committee. The terms upon which adjutants of Militia retired were—that within three months they must make up their minds whether or not they would take it; if they did not make up their minds within that time they had to fall back upon a less liberal allowance. It was proposed to give Volunteer adjutants an allowance which they could take up at their leisure. A man who had served 15 years might wish to serve for longer, and retire upon a more liberal scale. If these recommendations were adopted, he thought that Volunteer adjutants would be thoroughly satisfied with the scale of allowance offered them. Some remarks had been made with regard to the additional drills which the Committee had recommended for Volunteers. He did not know that
  2020
  these drills would be imposed as a matter of regulation; and it was for that House to consider how many drills a Volunteer ought to perform. Many Volunteers in the country did a great many more drills than they were bound to do. It was by no means a high amount of drills which was now required from the Volunteers, and they should squeeze them to the utmost they could. It was most distinctly his opinion that it was necessary to make Volunteers as efficient as possible. When they came to ask for more money they should be made to do increased work. It was quite right that the country should make the best bargain with them possible. There were many Volunteers who were not what they ought to be in the matter of efficiency, and it was quite right to impose some more drills upon them. He held that it was quite a reasonable demand, when they were going to spend £25,000 or £50,000 a-year more upon the Volunteer Force, that they should say—"We require more efficiency." As the Volunteers were willing to work the demand was only reasonable. Volunteers, like other people, were all the better for a little coercion. In past years, whenever they had put heavier and more stringent terms upon the Volunteers, to their credit be it said, they had in every case risen up to them. Judging by that, they ought to presume the same in the future. He did not say that anything should be done to check the Force; he should be very sorry to do anything to check the Volunteer Force. The more exercise and the more drills that were imposed upon them the better it would be for them. With regard to consolidation, that seemed to him to be one of the most important questions with regard to the Force. There was a certain number of battalions which had to maintain rifle ranges, and drill sheds, and headquarters, and various things of that sort; and it was quite obvious that while the burden was borne by a small number of men it came much heavier than if it were borne by a large number. In Edinburgh there was a Volunteer corps well known to his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), which spent no more money than it obtained from Government. Being a strong regiment, it was able to keep within the capitation grant. If they cut these small regiments up, and made them into a

  2021
  strong regiment, they also would be able to keep within the capitation grant. In that way both efficiency and economy would be promoted. That was the direction in which they ought to go. He did not want to violently drive the corps into a condition from which they would not stir; for it should be remembered that a Volunteer could leave the Force at 14 days' notice. With regard to amalgamation, he thought that ought to be insisted upon. There were some regiments in a peculiar condition of command which did not give them the complete position of regiments. Corps were part of what were called administrative battalions; and he thought that these ought to be distinctly consolidated into regiments. That was quite a different thing from joining two distinct corps together. Administrative battalions, if consolidated, would make one complete regiment; and hon. Members would see that great advantages would accrue from that taking place. In some cases, these administrative battalions were composed of six or seven companies, and each of those different companies was an independent command, and that could not be right. Each of these companies, being an independent command, had a separate commanding officer, who was in the same position as a commanding officer of a regiment to those under his command. He believed that there were about 130 battalions in this state; and he thought they ought not to be allowed to continue in that condition. Those administrative battalions ought to be consolidated, and great advantage would be experienced by the change. If hon. Members would look into the matter, he was sure that they would find that many advantages would be gained by this plan. It was the desire of the Government to do this in the interests of the Volunteer Force; and he hoped that all who took an interest in the Force would rather favour these reforms than set their minds against them. As regarded Artillery Volunteers, he might state that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War had caused inquires to be made to ascertain whether suitable sites could not be found for a School of Instruction for them. When that had been done, Artillery Volunteers from the North of England would be enabled to go into camp without having to go down to the South for their instruction.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas sure that the Committee must have heard with very great interest the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend. He wished to know, however, whether the views which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put forward were only the proposals of the Committee, or whether they expressed the decision of the Government? In his observations, he passed from speaking in one capacity into another. The House, and the country, and the Volunteers wished to know what parts of the Report of the Committee the Government was going to adopt, and what action they were going to take upon it? He would take the matters in their order. And, first, with regard to the organization of the Volunteers. Were the Government going to consolidate administrative battalions? He agreed in thinking that that was a thing which ought to be done gently and carefully. It was a common thing to say that the whole of our Army was a delicate machine; but no part of it was so delicate as the Volunteer Force. If any attempt was made to force the Volunteers they would melt under their hands. He agreed that in many cases consolidated battalions would be an advantage; but to enforce consolidation would be in some cases fatal. Although administrative battalions had many disadvantages, yet, in many parts of the country, if they put an end to the organization of the administrative battalions, the whole regiment would melt away. With respect to the question of adjutants, he was not a very strong advocate of their claims, though he thought that it might be advisable in the public interest that they should have an increased retiring allowance. He should like to know whether he rightly understood that the War Office had determined to give this increased allowance, and that the Treasury had assented and agreed to its being done? That was a matter of importance, which ought to be cleared up by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The same thing might be said with regard to the allowance for going into camp—he listened very carefully, and he did not understand whether an additional allowance for going into camp had actually been decided upon and approved by the Treasury. For his own part, he entirely approved of an

  2023
  increased allowance being given. The Volunteers had done so well that they ought not to grudge them any money which they might require for any useful purpose. Then he came to the much disputed question of the colour of the clothing. Had the Government determined upon the course which his hon. and gallant Friend had stated—that scarlet, as the national colour, should be the recognized colour of the uniform for all Volunteers in all cases, except where the Regular regiment belonging to the district was otherwise clothed; and that all corps which preferred other colours were to be put at a disadvantage in having to pay for their own clothing, instead of getting it at a cheaper rate from the Government? He was not going to express a strong opinion in favour of one colour or another. He thought both ought to be allowed to continue, and that individual localities should suit their own tastes in the matter. He must, however, demur to one expression of an hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to scarlet. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that scarlet was the national colour. As he understood it, that was a popular delusion; the original national colour of the English Army was a drabbish grey. A buff grey was the colour in which Marlborough's victories were won—scarlet was only the livery of the House of Hanover, which was adopted when that House came to the Throne. Still, undoubtedly, scarlet had been consecrated by subsequent victories. He thought, therefore, that there was no reason to call one colour more national than the other. There were advantages on the side of gray which scarlet did not possess; but scarlet, on the other hand, had its advantages. The matter was, however, of a very delicate nature, for it was very dangerous to try to force any corps into a particular colour of uniform. He would like to hear from his right hon. and gallant Friend what decision the Government had really come to with regard to the whole question, and how far they might accept the statement which they had listened to with so much interest from the hon. and gallant Member for Berks as the decision of the Government upon the points in question.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDstated that he had served for 40 years in the Volunteer Force, and for 20 years had been
  2024
  colonel of an administrative battalion. He was not prepared to say that there was any distinct advantage from consolidating administrative battalions into a regiment. On the other hand, he thought there was considerable advantage in the present system, by its taking off the shoulders of the commanding officer of the administrative battalion much of the unpopularity which would attach to a command. No doubt, to a certain extent, there was something to be said for a consolidated system; but with a very large experience of the kind of corps in question, he had no hesitation in warning the Government to be very careful before interfering with them. He had paid very great attention to this matter, and he had worked up the regulations upon the subject with very great care. And he had considerable practical experience as to the mode in which the present system worked. Under the present system, the commanders of the different corps forming an administrative battalion in agricultural districts might be bank managers, or country gentlemen, or other persons of reputation in the district in which their corps was situated, and it was essential that their authority should be maintained in the districts in which they resided. He thought that the position of a colonel of an administrative battalion was far stronger under the present system than it would be if such a corps was consolidated into a regiment. If anything went wrong at the present time, the commandant of one of the corps forming the battalion reported the matter to the colonel in command of the battalion; and if it were of sufficient importance, the colonel reported it to the Under Secretary of State; and his authority by that system was far stronger than it would be if he had the details of discipline before him in the case of every individual corps. That was the result of his experience; and he thought that the position of the colonels of administrative battalions was better at the present time than it would be if a change were made in the direction of consolidation. With regard to the subject of clothing, he did not wish to enter into it. But he would urge upon the Government to remember one thing, and that was, that as soon as a man was off parade he ought to have nothing to do but to brush his clothes and to put them

  2025
  away; if a man. had to clean up his uniform with pipeclay, and take a great deal of time in so doing, it would be very unfair to busy men who had but a short time to give to their military duties. He believed that the Government would act wisely, if they made administrative battalions a little better off in the matter of clothing. At the present time, the captains commanding small corps were very much pressed by the claims of tradesmen; and if the colonel of a battalion had a little more authority in keeping the clothing in good order, very good service to the Force would be done.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that after the very clear explanation which his hon. and gallant Friend had been good enough to make, it was hardly necessary for him to enter into the matter at any length. He had been asked questions, however, upon one or two points which he should like to reply to. He had been asked whether his hon. and gallant Friend had simply expressed his own opinion as a Member of the Committee, or whether what he said was the opinion of the Government? In many instances, there might be a great identity between his hon. and gallant Friend's replies in the two capacities. But, on some points, he spoke with some reserve. Notwithstanding that, he felt strongly for the necessity for an increased allowance in respect of camps. Although the War Office was strongly in favour of giving an increased allowance, the matter had not yet finally received the decision of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he hoped, however, that the matter would be received by him in the same conciliatory spirit in which other proposals laid before him were received. With regard to consolidation, that was a matter in which they had proceeded tentatively and carefully. They did not doubt that consolidation of small corps would be an advantage; but, on the other hand, the experience of his hon. and gallant Friend had induced him to pause in consideration of the practical difficulties which attended consolidation. It was far from their wish, where difficulties were in the way which could not be easily overcome, to press consolidation to the point of endangering the existence of corps. In the same way, as regarded clothing, their course was clear. Scarlet had been accepted for some time past as the na-
  2026
  tional dress of the Service, taking the Service generally; and they agreed with the opinion of Sir Garnet Wolseley, when Instructor General of the Artillery Forces, that red was the most desirable colour to be adopted by the Service, as a whole. To say that there was no feeling against the adoption of that colour, he would point out that in the Report of a Volunteer Committee it was stated that already 91 regiments had adopted scarlet, against 66 regiments in green and 67 in gray. Thus, scarlet appeared to be the dress which was most in favour with the Volunteer branch of the Service. Many persons conversant with these matters stated that many corps were merely held back from adopting scarlet with a view to see what would be done before they made the change; but that they had had it in contemplation to adopt scarlet. The only rule they intended to lay down was that where a corps intended to change its dress, then the change should be to red. But where a case occurred in which a corps was unwilling to change its uniform to scarlet, then they were willing to receive the expression of their wishes, and to deal with the matter in a spirit of consideration. At the same time, he wished it to be clearly understood, as regarded the matter of scarlet uniform, that it was desirable to adopt this rule, that in the case of red clothing only should facilities from the Clothing Department be given. It was impossible to put the Clothing Department of the Army in a position to supply any description of clothing which the Volunteers might choose to adopt. As respected the camp allowance, their intention was to apply to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for permission to include in the Estimates a larger camp allowance than was now given. He was afraid that it would be impossible to make that increased allowance retrospective, as was proposed. It would be impossible to say that they should make a Warrant of this description retrospective. He thought that those who came under the Warrant must be content to accept the benefit given by it as they found it; and he did not think that they could expect to have it ante-dated. He hoped he had made it clear that it was desired to give the increased allowance in respect of camps; and he had every hope that

  2027
  that desire would be carried into effect. Under these circumstances, he trusted that after the discussion which had taken place the Committee would pass the Vote, and that then they should report Progress.
  MR. WHITWELLinquired whether any resolution had been come to with regard to limiting the numbers of the Volunteers?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that, as regarded the increase of numbers, they did not at present intend to exceed the number which the Committee put as the maximum. If the Force continued to increase in the same ratio as it had done for the last five years, it would increase yearly, at a cost to the country at something like the expense of a battalion of Infantry. Whereas, in 1873–4, the Force cost £414,000, the expenditure on account of it now amounted to £512,000. He did not object to the increased expenditure; but, at the same time, he could not help saying that there was a point at which an expenditure of this kind ought to be very carefully considered. There was another point which he ought to mention. At the present time, an establishment of Volunteer corps contained a number of supernumeraries. It was a custom that where a certain number of these had been got together an application should be made for forming them into an extra company or battery. It was proposed in the future to deal with applications of that kind at a certain period of the year; in that way it was proposed to grant the applications in respect of the better corps, and to refuse them in the case of less good corps.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 150.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. RYLANDSinquired when it was intended to take the third reading of the
  2028
  Bill? He had a Motion with regard to the Military Expenditure in South Africa, which he intended to bring on in connection with this Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if it was intended, on the third reading of this Bill, to raise a question on the Expenditure in South Africa, the third reading must be fixed at some future day; but when he could not at that moment say.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

INDIAN MARINE BILL.— [BILL 182.]
(Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. John G. Talbot.)
INDIAN MARINE BILL.— [BILL 182.]

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. ONSLOWobjected to the Bill being read a second time, inasmuch as he had asked the Under Secretary of State for India whether a Committee could not be appointed to consider the expenditure upon the Indian Marine? The Marine expenditure was increasing very much in India, and money was not only spent upon it, but also upon the Royal Navy. He thought that the expenditure upon the Indian Marine and upon the Royal Navy performing duty in Indian waters should be considered before this Bill was passed. If his hon. Friend could give an assurance that there was not to be a double expenditure in respect to the Navy in India, and that an Indian Marine was required to do the same duties that the Royal Navy was now paid for performing, he should have no objection to the Bill passing. But, as the matter at present stood, this Bill seriously affected the finances of India.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that this Bill raised no question of finance at all. The Bill was only for the purpose of enabling discipline to be enforced upon such part of the Indian Marine as it was found necessary to employ in addition to the Royal Navy. He would propose an Amendment to strike some words from the Preamble of the Bill, which he

  2029
  thought would meet the objections which I his hon. Friend had made. He should be very glad for inquiry to be made into this matter; and he thought it might be shown that not a single farthing of expense in India was incurred by this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MALTBY LANDS) BILL.— [Bill 31.]
(Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MALTBY LANDS) BILL.— [Bill 31.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked his hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consent to the discharge of this Order. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed that if the matter were not passed before that time he would discharge the Order in respect of it; and he now trusted the right hon. Gentleman would do so. They I had now arrived at a point at which the Bill should be left to the Standing Orders. A Select Committee had made a special Report with respect to this Bill, which made it impossible for it to pass that Session; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would now consent to allow the Order for the second reading to be discharged.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSregretted extremely that, owing to a Notice being placed on the Paper, the Bill was then prevented from being proceeded with by reason of the operation of the 12 o'clock Rule. The parties in the matter had gone to a great deal of expense, and yet had not had an opportunity of bringing their views before the House. If the Amendment had not been put upon the Paper they would have been enabled to state their case; and he had no doubt that a decision would have been come to, either for or against their view. This was the last day, apparently, on which the Bill could be taken, so as to comply with the Standing Orders of the other House; but he knew of one case where a Bill not so far advanced was taken. In the absence of his Colleague, he did not think that he could permit the Order in this matter to be discharged.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

SALMON FISHERY LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 188.]
(Colonel Kingscote, Sir Joseph Bailey, Mr. Stafford Howard.)
SALMON FISHERY LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 188.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Kingscote.)
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, that this was a very simple Bill, and was founded upon the Report of the Government Inspectors, made in 1877. It embodied the views of those officials in respect of doing away with a close time weekly, and extending it to an equivalent period in May and December. It only related to tidal waters—in fact, was local—fisheries in the Severn being only affected. He might state that most of the proprietors of the upper waters were in favour of it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

MOTION.
  CONVICT "THEODORIDI."

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN moved,
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Memorial presented by or on behalf of the Convict 'Theodoridi:'
    "Of any Correspondence with respect to 'Theodoridi,' or Memorandum of any representations made on behalf of the Convict:
    "And, of usual form, printed or lithographed, sent to the Judge who tried any convict on whose behalf any memorial may have been presented or representation made for his opinion."
    In making the Motion, he might say that it was as much for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as for his own that he moved for these Returns.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Memorial presented by or on behalf of the Convict 'Theodoridi:'
    "Of any Correspondence with respect to 'Theodoridi,' or Memorandum of any representations made on behalf of the Convict:
    "And, of usual form, printed or lithographed, sent to the Judge who tried any convict on whoso behalf any memorial may have been presented or representation made for his opinion."—(Mr. Callan.)
    MR. ISAACobjected to the proposal.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that he could see no objection to the information for which he had asked being furnished; as it was necessary for the House to know the facts of the matter fully before it could come to any decision on the subject. It was his intention to bring the subject before the House at no very distant date.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he had already stated to the hon. Member privately, as he would now state to the House, that he had practically no Memorials or Papers which he could lay before the House. There had been no Papers or Memorials of any sort or kind which were suitable for laying before the House. He had already stated all the circumstances in connection with this case. As he had said, there was a difference between the case of Theodoridi and of the man who was convicted with him; and the difference was this—that in the case of Theodoridi the prosecutrix recommended him to mercy. In releasing this man, he did it only on condition that he should leave the country for good; and on condition that if the annoyance of which he had been guilty was repeated, he should again be brought before the Court—it was solely upon condition of his leaving the country and ceasing the annoyance, that Theodoridi was released at the request of the Turkish Ambassador. He thought that there had been some misapprehension with regard to this case, and that some of the lady's friends had thought that the fact of Theodoridi's being released had something to do with her. So far as the lady was concerned, however, there ought not to be the slighest idea entertained that the release of the convict had anything to do with her. From some letters having been mentioned in an earlier part of the case, he had some idea that they had better be given up, or they might be produced at some future time. But on his demanding them, as a condition of Theodoridi's release, he was assured that there were no such letters in existence. He had thought it right to ask the Treasury Solicitor whether there wore any letters in the custody of Theodoridi which it might be desirable to get. The Treasury Solicitor said he did not think that Theodoridi had any letters; and unless he had had that assurance he should
    2032
    never have assented to his release. He wished to make it clear to the lady's friends, however, that he did not attach any importance to those letters; but only desired that anything in the custody of the convict might be given up, in order to prevent any annoyance at a future period. Nothing was further from his intention than to give any pain to the lady or her friends, or to convey the slighest imputation upon her.
    MR. MONKasked, whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to state that he had no Papers which he could lay upon the Table of the House? There was a strong feeling out-of-doors, originating with the Press, against this man Theodoridi being released, while his companion in crime, who was, perhaps, less guilty than he was, had been retained in prison. If the Turkish Ambassador probably not only called upon the right hon. Gentleman, but had communications with him, he thought that they should be laid upon the Table of the House; for, although Theodoridi was a stranger to this country, and of a different religion to the English people, that was not sufficient reason for his release. He should like to have some further information upon this matter—more particularly as to his right hon. Friend's reason for refusing to place upon the Table of the House such Papers as he had received upon the matter.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he had now stated to the House nothing but what he had said on previous occasions when questions were put to him with regard to this matter. There were no documents in relation to this convict which he should be justified in laying before the House. The only Papers relating to it were some letters which were private. The distinction between the case of Theodoridi and his fellow-convict was, that the lady who prosecuted in his case recommended him to mercy. The condition of his release was, as he had stated, that he should leave the country and never come back again, and should cease any annoyance; whereas no such assurance had been given by the other man.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.