Commons Sitting of 17 March 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —ARMY ESTIMATES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading— Easton Neston Mineral and Towcester, Roade, and Olney Junction Railway*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Employers' Liability [103]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (Bispham, & c.)* [104].
Considered as amended—District Auditors* [79].
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order (Blackwater, Essex)* [76], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—THE DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he is aware that it has been publicly reported in Dublin, and has been mentioned in the Town Council and in the local newspapers, that there are serious discrepancies in the accounts and considerable deficiencies in the moneys of the Port and Docks Board; and, whether he knows of any audit of the accounts of the Port and Docks Board, and, if of any, whether he will be prepared to recommend an inquiry into these alleged deficiencies, and as to the desirability of the appointment of a public auditor?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, I am aware that it has been mentioned in the Dublin Corporation, and reported in the newspapers, that there are discrepancies and deficiencies in the moneys of the Port and Docks Board; and I believe that the foundation for that statement is to be found in the printed Report, where it says—
  "In the course of the year the Board was called upon to pay £2,718 on account of grain delivered in error upon orders issued by the original owner, after he had transferred the grain to another merchant."
  With regard to audit, under Sections 238 and 239 of the present Act regulating the Board, the accounts of the Board must be annually printed, and a copy furnished to anyone who applies on payment of a reasonable sum; and the Board are also bound to appoint each year two auditors to examine and inspect their accounts. In a Bill now before Parliament there is a section providing for the election of auditors by the same persons who elect representatives of traders and manufacturers. I do not think it necessary that I should try to interfere in the matter.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS — INSTRUCTIONS TO BRITISH RESIDENTS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any truth in the statement made in "The Straits Times" on

    1025
    the 17th of January last, that some official correspondence had been laid before the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements, containing, amongst other documents, specific instructions to guide the British residents in the neighbouring Malay States in the performance of their duties; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of this House Copies of those Instructions and any further Papers of public interest relating to the affairs of those Malay States?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It is true that some official Correspondence was laid before the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements, containing a Circular from the Governor of the Straits Settlements to the Residents, calling their attention to the instructions issued for their guidance by the Earl of Carnarvon in 1876, and reminding them that they were advisers, and not rulers, in the States to which they were accredited. The Papers which were laid before the Council can, of course, be presented to Parliament; and I will confer with the Governor, who has just arrived home on leave, in order that as full information as possible on the subject shall be presented to the House.

  CYPRUS—ENFORCED LABOUR.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any proclamation has been issued in Cyprus requiring enforced labour?
    MR. BOURKE: An Ordinance, not a Proclamation, has been enacted by the Legislative Council in Cyprus, laying down the Regulations under which villages and districts may in future be required to furnish labour for making roads and other public works. This Ordinance modifies the law heretofore existing in Cyprus, under which villages and districts were required to furnish labour for roads and public works without remuneration. The Ordinance which has just been passed permits persons to provide substitutes, and also provides for the remuneration of labourers, as well as for the remuneration of those whose vehicles are used.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Ordinance is an Ordinance for enforced labour —whether it is for compulsory labour
    1026
    or not; and also whether the Government will lay the Ordinance on the Table of the House or not?
    MR. BOURKE: There will be no objection to make the Ordinance known, of course. If, however, this Ordinance is laid on the Table of the House, it will be right to lay on the Table all the other Ordinances; and if any hon. Member wishes to ask me that Question, I shall be very happy to answer it. I should think it will answer all useful purposes if the Ordinances are placed in the Library of the House. The course proposed has not been adopted with regard to the Ordinances of any other Possession which Her Majesty administers. The pre-existing law of Cyprus was that districts could be called upon to supply labour. The right hon. Gentleman may call that enforced labour if he pleases. I have no objection to the word. I dare say it is; but, whether forced labour or not, the present Ordinance which has just been passed enables the authorities in Cyprus to call upon districts and villages to supply labour and substitutes for public purposes—that, is for making roads and works of public utility. Substitutes may be given if persons do not choose to labour; and in all cases the labour is paid for. I may also mention that all vehicles and horses called for will also be paid for. The Ordinance is really a modification of the law which has existed for many years.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps I may be excused for saying that this is the first time within my recollection that we have had to ask Questions about enforced labour in any of our Colonies. Therefore, I will again ask the hon. Gentleman, Whether the Ordinance will be placed on the Table of the House, so that we may see the terms of it as soon as possible?
    MR. BOURKE: If there is any strong feeling on that part of the House, I have not the slightest objection to lay the Ordinance on the Table; but it would be inconvenient to lay one or two Ordinances on the Table and not to place all of them there.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: I beg to give Notice that in consequence of the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I shall move that the Ordinance be placed on the Table of the House.

  WEST INDIA ISLANDS—COOLIES IN GRENADA.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the recent Papers showing the ill-treatment of Indian Coolies in Grenada, Whether he proposes to take any measures more radical than the supercession of the recently appointed Protector of Emigrants, who, after some delay, brought these things to light; whether, especially, he intends to institute any independent inquiry into the state of things previously existing in the Colony, the treatment of the Coolies who arrived before the Hermione cargo, and the system under which such treatment as that of the Hermione Coolies became possible; whether the recent Papers have been communicated to the Government of India; and, whether he has supported the recommendation of the present administrator, that the importation of Coolies into Grenada should still be permitted?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I trust that it may be possible to prevent the recurrence of such abuses as have recently happened in Grenada by other changes in the system, as well as by the appointment of a new Protector of Immigrants; and on this question I may say that a new Immigration Bill, founded upon British Guiana legislation, has been prepared in the Colony, has been carefully revised in the Colonial Office, and has been returned to Grenada for enactment. I think there is scarcely ground for the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. On the 31st of December, 1877, there were only 397 Coolies in the Colony, none having been introduced between 1871 and 1878, in which latter year the Coolies were brought, whose treatment has been referred to. No complaint has been made in connection with Coolies introduced before 1878; and as to those then introduced, it is but fair to state that the season of 1878 was an exceptionally unhealthy one in the Island, and that many public officers were laid up at the time with fever, and some persons died, whose names have been much mentioned in connection with the matter. As the Papers on the subject were published, I did not think it necessary that they should be specially communicated to the Government of India. No application has been received
  1028
  by me for immigrants to Grenada for the season 1878–9, just expired, or for the season 1879–80. But before arriving at a decision which might be so injurious to the Island as a refusal to permit any further immigration there, I think it would be but fair to see whether the changes to which I have referred will not be sufficient to prevent the recurrence of any further abuses.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I will take the earliest possible opportunity of calling attention to the subject, and will move—
  "That the present system of exporting Natives of India under indenture to the Colonies should not be continued until the House is satisfied that radical changes have been made in the means afforded for their protection."

  IRELAND—IRISH BRANCH OF THE TREASURY.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session, to make arrangements for having an official representative of the Irish branch of the Treasury charged with the duty of explaining to the House the acts of the Treasury with regard to Ireland; if so, whether it is by Bill, on the Estimates, or by some other and what mode of procedure the proposal of these arrangements is to be made to the House?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I propose to answer the Question. It is at present certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government during the present Session, if possible, to make arrangements such as those suggested by the Question of the hon. and learned Member. For that alone neither a Bill nor an increase of the Estimates would be required. But, as we hope to be able to make alterations in the powers of the Board of Works with a view of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Committee, an amending Bill for that purpose may be necessary, and it might then be considered whether alterations in the constitution of the Board might not be embodied in it.

  NAVY CONTRACTS—THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL COMPANY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BAXTERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, notwithstanding the

    1029
    admitted obligation upon all heavily subsidised Steamship Companies to maintain a fleet of steamers, some of which, at least, can be always available as transports when required, and notwithstanding frequent public declarations on the part of the directors of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company that their vessels are "available to the Government at an hour's notice," it is true that of the great number of steamers employed in the transport of troops to and from England, Malta, and India in 1878, only one vessel belonged to that Company; that several others were tendered and rejected; and that of the fifteen transports obtained upon an emergency for South Africa that Company did not supply even one; and, if before the signature of the new contract for a subsidy of £370,000 per annum any negotiation or Correspondence took place between the Government and the Company regarding the inability of the latter to furnish transports?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has forwarded me the information necessary to enable me to answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. Only one of the ships of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was engaged at Bombay to bring up a part of the Indian contingent to Malta, and she was discharged as soon as possible in consequence of the high rate at which she had been chartered. Nothing is known at the Admiralty as to whether other ships of the same Company were tendered on that occasion. In the recent instance of sending troops to the Cape this Company, among others, was invited to tender, but did not do so. No negotiation or correspondence passed between the Post Office and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company before the signature of the new contract regarding the liability of the Company to furnish transports. The usual clause empowering the Admiralty to purchase or charter any vessels employed in the Mail Service will be found, in the new as well as in the old contract.

  ARMY—STAFF OFFICERS OF ABTILLEKY.—QUESTIONS.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Secretary of State for War,
  1030
  If it is true that this year the appointments of Brigade Major of Artillery proceeding to Africa, and last year of Cavalry Brigade Major in Ireland, were given to officers who had not passed through the Staff College, although it is laid down in the Queen's Regulations that
  "No officer will be appointed to the Staff as deputy assistant of the Adjutant and Quartermaster General's Department, or as Brigade Major, who shall not have passed the final examination of the Staff College,"
  except in the case of "officers of proved ability on the staff in the field," who may be so appointed; if it is considered that the officers to whom the above appointments were given were of such "proved ability on the staff in the field" as to give them a prior claim to all the officers of the Staff College available for the above appointments; and, if the Quartermaster General and his deputy on Lord Chelmsford's Staff at the time of the recent disaster at Isandula had qualified in the Staff College?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that at the time the appointment first referred to was made only five Artillery officers had passed the Staff College. Of these, two were in India, one was medically unfit, one was selected for other Staff employment, and one, he believed, was not considered suitable. Of the two who passed the College last December, one was abroad, and the other had embarked for the Cape for special service. As to the appointment of Cavalry Brigade Major in Ireland, the only Cavalry officer available at the time had previously hold a Staff appointment, which he had only recently resigned, and it was not, therefore, thought advisable to select him. With regard to the officers to whom the appointments were given, neither of them had, as the Question put, "shown proved ability on the Staff in the field;" but one had been, in 1873, on the Staff of the Inspecting General of Cavalry at Aldershot, and the other was selected as being particularly fit for the post, and had held in the Royal Artillery one or more Staff appointments, though possessing no positive field service. With regard to the last part of the Question of the noble Lord, it was not required by the Regulations that these officers should pass through the Staff College. The Deputy

  1031
  to the Quartermaster General had passed through the College; and the other officer was selected on the spot by Lord Chelmsford, who was authorized by the Regulations to make such appointments on the field.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If an officer of the Royal Engineers has been admitted to the Staff College in place of another officer of Engineers, who has been ordered to Natal?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that when vacancies occurred in the Staff College it was sometimes, but not always, the custom to fill them up. The Director General of Military Education said it was inconvenient to do so, because the officers so joining could not go through the full course; and, secondly, because the others might rejoin at any time before those who had taken their places had left, and thus supernumeraries were created in the College. An officer of the Royal Engineers had been admitted in the place of an officer ordered, not to Natal, but to India. This officer had twice passed third, and it was thought no harm would be done by letting him join.

  ELECTION PETITIONS RETURN— IRISH CASES.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Why no Irish Election Petitions are given in the Return lately presented to the House, entitled "Return of Election Petitions tried within the United Kingdom, since the Dissolution of Parliament, which took place next after the passing of 'The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868;'"and, whether there is any objection to the Return being completed by the addition of the Election Petitions tried in that country?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I understand that it was through some inadvertence that the Return was not orginally presented in a complete form, and there will be no objection to its being now made complete.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR — NAVAL COALING DEPOTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, what coaling depôts are owned by Her Majesty's Government en route for the Cape of Good Hope, and the nature of the arrangements made for coaling the transports
  1032
  engaged for the conveyance of troops and stores intended to meet the emergency in Natal; and, if the commanders of the steam colliers chartered to carry coal for the use of the transports had instructions to call at St. Vincent, and if they were dispatched before or after the sailing of the troops?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Admiralty have no coaling depôts on the direct route for the Cape, as there is no English soil on that route; but we have coaling stations at Sierra Leone and Ascension, which are sufficient for the ordinary requirements of the Naval Service. Arrangements were made for the coaling of the transports at St. Vincent and the Cape, there being ample coal for the purpose at either place. At St. Vincent the quantity at Admiralty disposal was 7,500 tons; known to be in private hands, 11,000 tons; quantity shipped by transports at St. Vincent, 7,100 tons. At the Cape the quantity at Admiralty disposal was—Dockyard at Simon's Bay, 4,000 tons; bought at the Cape, 1,800 tons; total at Admiralty disposal, 5,800 tons. Quantity in eon-tractors' hands, 8,000 tons; quantity shipped for the Cape, 10,000 tons (2,000 tons optional to be sent to Delagoa Bay). At Delagoa Bay the quantity sent out for transports was 3,100 tons. The mail steamers Pretoria and Dublin Castle, which took out troops, coaled at Madeira. No difficulty whatever has occurred in coaling the ships in the order in which they arrived; but the delay arose partly inconsequence of the weather preventing the loading being carried on as expeditiously as possible and partly in consequence of the mail steamers and transports arriving simultaneously. A telegram received from the Consul at St. Vincent, dated the 14th of March, which also states that strong north-east winds were prevailing from the 2nd to the 14th of March, says—
  "Detention caused by accumulation of mails and transports, which necessitated their being coaled in turn. Had transports not arrived simultaneously they would have been more quickly despatched. Everything in contractors' power has been done to facilitate despatch. Labour and coal appliances not wanting. Spain and Egypt sail to-morrow."
  It is hoped that these difficulties will not occur at the Cape. Part of the transports will coal at our own stores alongside the dockyard at Simon's Bay,

  1033
  and the others will be coaled by contractors at Cape Town. It is to be observed that it is only eight days' steaming from the Cape to Natal and back. The information was given to the House as to the order in which the transports arrived at St. Vincent's. I am glad to say they have all been dispatched. The unfortunate delay which occurred was simply due to the fact that labour could not be found to coal them more rapidly under the circumstances in which they arrived.

  NAVY—H. M. S. "VANGUARD."

    QUESTION.
    MR. D. JENKINSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If any, and what, steps are about to be taken to remove the wreck of Her Majesty's ship "Vanguard?"
    MR. W. H. SMITH: It is intended to remove the masts of the Vanguard as soon as the weather is sufficiently fine to enable us to do so; but there is no intention at present to remove or destroy the wreck of the ship, being advised that the wreck will not be dangerous to the navigation.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1876— DRUMMER BOYS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SIMONDSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether Sergeants of Militia, enlisting and employing as drummer boys children above ten years of age and under thirteen, who have not obtained the necessary certificate of proficiency or of school attendance, are liable to the penalty of 40 s. as provided by "The Elementary Education Act, 1876," section 6?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I have conferred with the Vice President of the Council on the subject, and my noble Friend has advised me that sergeants of Militia, enlisting and employing as drummer boys children above 10 years of age and under 13 are not liable to the penalty, inasmuch as they are not in the position of employers and the boys not being in their service. If the parents of such children are, as they are in many cases, non-commissioned officers, they are bound to attend schools; and it is not the intention of the Government, even where that is not the case, that the spirit of the Elementary Education Act should be in any degree violated.

  POST OFFICE—THE PACIFIC MAIL CONTRACTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Postmaster General, Whether the mails to be conveyed to and from Peru, and ports on the South Pacific, under the proposed contract with the Royal Mail Company, will at times be detained as much as five and six days at the Isthmus of Panama, in consequence of the contract not providing for a close connection between the steamers sailing between Southampton and Colon, and those conveying the Mails on the Pacific Ocean; and, if he intends to make any arrangement to obviate this serious inconvenience?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Both under the contract now in force and under that recently concluded, mails for the Pacific, despatched fortnightly to the Isthmus of Panama by the West India mail packets, will be due at Colon on certain fixed days of each month. From Panama the mails for ports on the South Pacific are carried by a line of packets, which sail on fixed days of each week. Occasionally, therefore, the mails may be detained on the Isthmus, and to the extent of five or six days. No contract exists for the conveyance from Peru, or other States of the South Pacific, of mails for the United Kingdom. All such mails brought to Panama are despatched from Colon twice a month, on fixed days of the month, by the British (West India) mail packets; and when they arrive after the departure of a British packet, but in time to be forwarded by a French packet, or by a United States packet viâ. New York, they are so forwarded. An arrangement is now under consideration which, it is suggested, would obviate the possible inconvenience.

  NAVY—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ERRINGTON (for Mr. O'REILLY)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What steps have been taken to carry out the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to meeting the spiritual wants of Roman Catholic seamen, as stated by him on the 15th March 1878, when he said,
    "It will be the duty of the Admiralty to endeavour to make such provision, by attaching a Roman Catholic clergyman to a fleet of, say, five or six large ships operating at distance from its base or from any port; and, if there should be a hospital-ship, it will not be difficult to pro-

    1035
    vide for the accommodation of a chaplain in that ship?"
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean was directed by the Admiralty Letter of the 12th of June, 1878, to give effect to the Admiralty Minute (laid before Parliament). A telegram was received from Sir Geoffery Phipps Hornby, dated Ismid, 13th March, to the following effect:—
    "In reference to Roman Catholic chaplains, Board Minute of June 7, 1878, has been carried out. This Squadron not having been absent from a port where services of a Roman Catholic priest were available, except for the short time we were at Artaki, when we were in daily expectation of orders to return to Malta, Roman Catholic officers and men have attended Divine service here and at Prince's Island as usual."

  CRIMINAL LAW —CASE OF WILLIAM HABRON, CONVICTED OF MURDER.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What progress has been made in the investigation of the case of William Habron, a young Irishman, convicted in August 1876, of the murder of a policeman at Whalley Range, near Manchester, but now alleged to be innocent; whether he has read a letter which appeared on the subject in "The Times" on the 12th instant; and, whether pending the investigation the convict has been relieved from the severities of penal discipline?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: As the House will remember, I stated some time ago that when the man Habron was convicted, I came to the conclusion, which the learned Judge who tried the case agreed with, that the evidence tended to show that he was certainly not the person who fired the shot, and upon that ground the sentence was respited. The circumstantial evidence placed before the jury, and certain expressions used by the man himself, led them to the conclusion that he was implicated in the murder, and therefore he underwent sentence, under their verdict. When the confession was made by Peace, before his execution, I felt, of course, that it was quite necessary to consider very carefully the whole circumstances of the case again; and I stated to the House that, owing to that confession, it would receive the most anxious consideration of the Secretary of State as to how far the sentence should be allowed to stand.
    1036
    At the same time, I said that a confession so made was one which would undoubtedly require the most rigid scrutiny which could be applied to it. I, of course, have had every assistance from the learned Judge who tried the case; and I thought it only right to lay the whole matter before the Law Officers of the Crown in concert with one of the ablest Queen's Counsel at the Bar. The result to which I certainly myself have come is that the statement made by the man Peace has been so entirely corroborated in many important points, that I shall feel it my duty to recommend the Crown to grant a free pardon to William Habron. It will be satisfactory to the House to know—and it is a very great satisfaction to myself—that in that conclusion I have the entire concurrence of the learned Judge who tried the case, and of the Law Officers of the Crown. The House very well knows that if persons, however unfortunately, have been convicted, it has never been the practice in this country to make compensation to persons who have so suffered; but still I hope that I may be allowed to state that I think I see my way to making certain arrangements, by which care will be taken that the future of this most unfortunate and most unhappy man will be attended to.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Mr. Speaker, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that I shall, on Monday next, ask him publicly what compensation he will recommend the Government to make to this unhappy victim of the fallibility of the law.

  INDIA—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the reports in the newspapers about the finances of India are fairly accurate; and, whether he will arrange to keep the House of Commons informed from time to time, and promptly, as to the state of the revenue, expenditure, war charges, cash balances, debt, and remittances?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The reports in the newspapers, so far as we can judge from the figures we have as yet received, appear to be accurate. The Government will place the detailed figures

    1037
    before the House on as early a day as possible, and will endeavour to give early information of any important changes. As regards the Debt, I have already promised the hon. and gallant Member to obtain from India much more complete information than any that has yet been given.

  ARMY—OUT-PENSIONERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BARRANasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to a letter which appeared in the "Leeds Express" newspaper, on the 6th of March, complaining of the manner in which the out-pensioners of the Army, Navy, and Royal Marines are treated in that district, by being compelled to remain in the streets in the most inclement weather without shelter while waiting to receive their pensions; also complaining of the very inconvenient position of the station, it being situate quite on the outskirt of the town, and a great distance from the homes of the great majority of the men; and, whether lie will consider the desirability of providing accommodation under cover, and in a more central situation?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY,in reply, said, attention had been called to the letter, and the report of the officer in charge had been called for. The usual practice was that some public building should be given for the purpose of paying the pensioners. If there was no such building, some office was usually engaged. He did not know whether other accommodation could be provided, but the matter would be attended to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES—SHIPS BUILDING.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SAMUDAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, before the Navy Estimates are again taken, a Statement showing in detail the programme of the work in the dockyards and by contract, as promised last year, and the actual amount of work that has been performed on each ship?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The Return the hon. Gentleman alludes to shall be laid upon the Table of the House as soon after the end of the financial year as possible, and before further Votes are taken.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— SIR CHARLES W. DILKE'S MOTION.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes that the debate upon the Zulu War should be begun?
    THE CHANCELLOR Of The EXCHEQUER: I must point out to the House that, in consequence of the advanced state of the financial year, it is imperatively necessary for us to have the Supplementary Estimates passed in order to get the Ways and Means Bill through before the end of the financial year. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot fix an earlier day than Thursday week for the discussion of the hon. Gentleman's Notice.

  METROPOLIS—PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House when it is likely that the inquiry, which is now being carried on by a Royal Commission into the Parochial Charities of the City of London, will be completed?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have written to the Secretary of the Commission on the subject, but have not yet received an answer. I hoped to receive it in a day or two.

  TURKEY—PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the further Papers relating to Turkey, which were promised some time ago, will be laid upon the Table; and, whether those Papers will include the Reports relating to the insurrection in Macedonia, and the communications which have taken place with reference to Easter Roumelia?
  MR. BOURKE: A Blue Book of 300 pages was prepared and printed last week, and ought to have been presented then; but I am told there was some difficulty in regard to the binding. From information I have received, I believe that it will be in the hands of hon. Members this evening or to-morrow morning. It will contain Papers

  1039
  relating to the insurrection in Macedonia, and communications which have taken place with reference to Eastern Roumelia which the hon. and learned Gentleman requires; and, upon the whole, will bring down the history of events to the 10th of December.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. Hopwood,
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no option but to proceed with the Vote which provided for the expenses of carrying out these Acts; but the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject, and, without expressing any opinion, he might announce that the Government had come to the decision to appoint a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Acts.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES)—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONwished to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury, Whether, when the debate again came on, he intended to persevere with the Amendment which stood in his name?
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: Yes, Sir, it is my intention.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Then, Sir, I may as well perhaps now give Notice that if the debate comes on I shall give my support to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell).

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  [Progress.]
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Original Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,598,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped the Committee would not consider him un-
  1040
  reasonable, when he asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley) to postpone these Votes until hon. Members had had an ample opportunity of examining the Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Account of the money they voted for the Army two Sessions ago. This Account and Report of the Controller and Auditor General were only issued on Saturday last; therefore, it must be obvious to everybody that no sufficient time had elapsed since then and now to admit of the great majority of the Members of the Committee making themselves acquainted with the contents of that very valuable and necessary Report. He himself, although very much interested in the question, was enabled, by working most of Sunday, to make out a very cursory and slight examination of the many accounts contained in that Appropriation Record. He was sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself (Colonel Stanley) would admit that the short interval which had elapsed since Saturday morning and to-day was really not sufficient time to examine those publications, if there was any value whatever in the Appropriation Report, and if the Committee attached any importance whatever to the Report of the Controller and Auditor General in reference to the Appropriation Account. He was confident that it would be the opinion of everybody that no sufficient time had been given by the Army authorities for them to examine this Account. He might at this point remark that the Appropriation Account on the Civil Service Estimates, and, he presumed, the Report of the Controller and Auditor General upon that Account, was ordered by the House to be printed so long ago as the 14th of February. The Appropriation Account on the Navy Estimates, voted two Sessions ago, and the Report on that Account, was ordered by the House to be printed on the 26th of last February. The Appropriation Account on the Army Estimates, and the Report of the Controller and Auditor General upon that Account, was only ordered by the House to be printed on the 7th of the present month. Consequently, wherever the fault might lie, the Committee had had no real opportunity of making itself acquainted with the details of the Account, or with the very valuable Report of the

  1041
  Controller and Auditor General. The Committee was aware that the Estimates were a series of proposals to vote certain sums of money for certain specific purposes; but they offered little detailed information by which any Member of the Committee could give an intelligent judgment upon the subjects with which they dealt. The customary Statement of the Secretary of State for War, when introducing the Estimates, dealt only with general principles, or treated such Votes as were specially referred to only in broad outline; so that the only means available to Members of the Committee by which they could thoroughly grasp the details of the Estimates were the Appropriation Account and the Report of the Controller and Auditor General upon that Account. Of course, they would have to wait some time for the Appropriation Account of the sums voted for the Army last Session; but there did not seem to be any sufficient reason why the Appropriation Account of the money which the Committee voted the Session before last should not be in the hands of Members before Saturday morning last. It was scarcely fair to the Committee to bring on these Estimates without the usual Statement or Report on the Appropriation Account being in the hands of Members for a reasonable time. To ask the Committee to vote money under these circumstances was asking them to vote money blindfold. In order to put himself in Order, he begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress; and he strongly appealed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, under the circumstances of the case, to show that he, at least, had some sense of the value of the Report of the Controller and Auditor General. He asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to allow the Votes to be postponed, at all events, until such a time as hon. Members had any opportunity of examining the Report to which he had referred.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Member to move that I do now report Progress?
  MR. PARNELL: In order to put myself in Order.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,although not wishing to support entirely the view of the hon. Member for Meath, was not surprised at the course which the hon. Gentleman had chosen to pursue. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that nearly a fortnight or three weeks ago he asked the Secretary of State for War if he would place on the Table of the House a Statement showing how the money of the Vote of Credit had been expended, as regarded warlike stores, medicines, and so forth? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman assured him that the Appropriation Account would be in the hands of Members in a few days, and it would contain the information which he (Sir Alexander Gordon) and other hon. Gentlemen sought. The Appropriation Account, however, was only placed in their hands on Saturday morning last, and it did not contain the detailed statement he and others wished to have. The Account was not made out in that clear way that the Naval Appropriation Account had been made out. The Naval Appropriation Account had in parallel columns the ordinary Estimates and the Vote of Credit, so that they could see in a glance what had been expended on stores and other things. As regarded the Army, matters were not so clearly stated—in fact, they were so mixed up that, although he had read the Appropriation Account very carefully, he was not in a position to analyze it satisfactorily. He would ask, therefore, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would postpone Votes 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12, which were Votes affecting the Stores and Manufacturing Departments, until hon. Members had time to see what materials they had for criticism. He suggested that they should take the Votes for the Forces, and Pay, and various Departments, but postpone the Votes having reference to Stores and Manufacturing Departments.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEremarked, that as the Appropriation Account was only furnished to hon. Members on Saturday, there had been no opportunity afforded to study it. He should, therefore, give his support to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in his Motion to report Progress.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that with all deference to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he could not see that it would be convenient at the pro-

  1043
  sent time to report Progress. He had no control—at least, he was not aware that he had any control—over the presentation of the Appropriation Account, further than in answering queries. The Appropriation Account was placed in his hands at no earlier date than it was in the hands of the hon. Member for Meath; but if the hon. Gentleman felt disposed to ask him any question on that Account, he should endeavour to answer him to the best of his power. He could not assent to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) to postpone the Estimates; because he did not think that would be at all for the convenience of the Committee, or for the convenience of hon. Members who had come down for the discussion of the Estimates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out that he (Colonel Stanley) had not given him the precise Statement he desired as to the Vote of Credit. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do him the honour to recollect that, by the direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom he addressed his Question about the distribution of the Vote of Credit, he (Colonel Stanley) pledged himself to explain to him why they could not render, in the form of the Vote as originally voted by the House, the precise amounts that had been distributed amongst the different Votes; but he asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he would be good enough to confer with him, and he would endeavour to give him the information he desired. He had not had the honour of a communication from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He had no doubt it was owing to the pressure of other business, or to the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had overlooked the matter. As far as he was concerned, he was agreeable to render what information he could; and he hoped, after what he had said, that it would not be thought necessary, at this early period of the evening, to report Progress.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen shire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had said; because, if he was not mistaken, before the Navy Estimates were discussed, a Statement was laid on the Table showing how the Vote of Credit and the Supplementary Estimates
  1044
  of the last year were spent; and it would be of very material assistance to the Committee to have a similar Statement as regarded the Army. If they took the Clothing and the Store Votes, they found that very large sums indeed had been expended out of the Vote of Credit, and also out of the Supplementary Estimates under these heads; and, with the exception of the very meagre information given in the Auditor General's Report, none whatever was afforded as to the manner in which the expenditure was made. He thought it was a matter upon which his hon. and gallant Friend had a right to complain; but he was not disposed to go so far as with him as to support the adjournment of the Votes upon that ground.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with the Motion, but thought he was quite justified in making it. He would remind the Committee that the Audit Act of 1866 required that the Appropriation Accounts of the Army and Navy should be presented to Parliament on the 31st of January in every year; whereas, during the last two or three years, these Accounts only reached Parliament in March. Seeing this delay he had been moving in the direction the hon. Member for Meath had now properly taken, with a view to securing, if possible, an early presentation of these Accounts. He was always very reluctant to press anything that might be considered harsh upon the Government; but, at the same time, he could not but say that in delaying these Accounts they were commiting a great illegality. He was well aware that the Secretary of State for War had not now the same control over the Appropriation Accounts as he had formerly, because that control had been unwisely taken from the War Office and solely placed in the Audit Office. It was the Audit Office, therefore, that was solely and entirely responsible now for delays. The remarkable thing was that at the time when the Secretary of State for War was responsible for the due completion of the Accounts, not a year passed without the Audit Office complaining of the delay of the Secretary of State in presenting the Appropriation Accounts for the final examination of the Audit Department; but now they had been given over to the Audit Office, they had this great danger—that

  1045
  with regard to the Controlling Departments, which ought to bring to light the shortcomings of other Departments, there was no person to bring to light its shortcomings. He said that was a great evil; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer was listening to him, and would attend to it. [A laugh.] He knew very well that hon. Gentlemen on the other side were very fond of laughing, and if millions of money were wrongly spent from the Accounts and Audit not being duly made, they still laughed; but he thought that the time might come when they would regret that they ever laughed at defective control over expenditure. The important point he wished to notice was this—which he had discovered in the short time he had been able to examine the Accounts—He found, on page 148, that on the 28th of November, 1878—that was, 10 months after the year had expired—the Secretary of State applied to the Treasury for permission to appropriate the savings on some Votes of the Army, amounting to the very large sum of £1,600,000 in meeting the large excesses of the proper expenditure on other Army Votes, and that the Treasury, another Controlling Department, without the slightest regard for the financial interests of the country, and without a careful scrutiny into the causes which had led to such excessive amounts on the respective Votes, at once assented to the transfer. Now, he said that was not right, and that any sum of money so allowed to be spent after the year expired should not be brought into that year, and to do so was contrary to practice, contrary to the regulations of the Treasury, and at variance with the Appropriation Act. But he could not take up a page of the Appropriation Accounts without finding a violation of the Act in every page. The only safe and right principle was to insist on all sums of each Vote, which were not needed for the service of that Vote, being returned to the Treasury, and all expenditure on any one Vote in excess of the sum granted by Parliament for that Vote, being separately estimated for, and specially granted by Parliament. If the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them an assurance that the Audit Office should be called upon to perform its duty, and to render Appropriation Accounts in the
  1046
  way that was desired by the Act of 1866, he would not support his hon. Friend the Member for Meath in the Motion which had been made. It was necessary not to delay the passing of the Votes. The Business of the country must be done, and funds provided for the Army charges; and therefore they must now overlook the past, in the hope that the future would give them more regularity and more exactness.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he should be very glad to repeat the explanation of the various items which was given on the Vote of Credit. He had the items at hand; but he did not think it was necessary to detain the Committee now, as on the progress of the Votes he would be enabled to give every explanation. As to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour), he need not go into that now, and would leave it for the Secretary of State to answer, in the hope that they might now be allowed to proceed to Business.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was very much disposed to support the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in the complaint that the Appropriation Accounts were delayed until the very last moment. If they were not presented until last Saturday, he thought his hon. Friend was fairly entitled to insist upon the delay of this Vote. They had had to go through the Accounts under great difficulties. He wished to point out to the Committee the difficulty in which they were placed in having to vote the Estimates without the opportunity of instituting a comparison with the previous year's Estimates. They were not able to judge of the amount of the actual expenditure of the different Departments this year. They had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there had been on the Army Estimates, during the expenditure of the present year, a saving something like £400,000, which was applied to the purposes of the South African War.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A saving on the Votes of 1877–8, not on this year.
  MR. RYLANDSreplied, that then it ought to be shown in this Appropriation, and it appeared to him that was hardly a sufficient explanation. According to the Statement they had had before them on the Appropriation Ac-

  1047
  count of 1877–8, there was an account of the Vote of Credit which was granted; and in addition to the Vote of Credit, there were certain savings from the different Departments, which went, no doubt, in favour of the purposes for which the Vote of Credit had been intended. On page 15 of the Appropriation Accounts, it would be seen that the aggregate amount of surplusage was £184,943; but there was no evidence of any such saving as £400,000 having been carried to the credit side for the purposes of the South African War. He believed he was correct in saying that the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really that the £400,000 had been included in the Expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1878; but certainly, in this Appropriation Account, there was no such surplus as £400,000 applied to the South African War. But he could tell the right hon. Gentleman where it was. In the year ending 1878, there was an Expenditure accounted for which was given in one of the tables at page 160—for the purposes of the Cape of Good Hope, £238,451. Then, there were further sums of £141,991, and £86,032. That made a total of between £400,000 and £500,000, towards which the savings, amounting to £185,000, were applied; and if the right hon. Gentleman wished him to understand that that was all the money which had to be provided for the South African War, he (Mr. Rylands) would remind him that that was paid before the 31st March, 1878.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in anticipating a discussion of the items of other Votes which were not before the Committee.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to be excused, if he had been out of Order. He had spoken of the items, because he wanted to show that they required more information upon the Estimates. He was afraid he had been technically out of Order, and he did not wish to raise an irregular discussion. He had shown that there had been considerable expenditure provided for in March, 1878, on account of the South African War; but inasmuch as the war continued some months longer, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that there was the further sum of £400,000 in addition, which would bring it up to the
  1048
  end of the present financial year. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] He would be very glad to find that he had misunderstood the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the other evening; but it did appear to him that when the House was asked to come to a consideration of the Army Estimates, it was most important that the Appropriation Accounts should be produced at an earlier period. He should be very glad to hear from the Government that influence would be brought to bear upon the Audit Department to secure that.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he quite agreed that they ought to have the Appropriation Accounts presented at an earlier period, if they could get them. But with reference to the particular point of which the hon. Member for Burnley was speaking, the hon. Member had misunderstood what he had said on former occasions. What he had continually stated was that in August last, at which time he had to make certain proposals with reference to the finance of the present year, he brought forward a Vote to cover the expenditure of the war for that current year; but he stated at the time that he expected that when the Accounts for the year 1878 were finally made up, it would appear there was an excess to be provided in respect of that year—1877–8. He told the House they must be provided to meet certain excesses, which might, perhaps, amount to something like £400,000. Well, when they came to find what the position of the Appropriation Account in March was, it appeared there was no such excess as £400,000 to be provided for, because the savings on other Votes had been enough to cover the excess on the expenditure in South Africa. It had no reference to the expenditure in this year, but to the excess in 1877–8.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought the Appropriation Accounts had, under the circumstances, been presented at the earliest possible moment. He thought anyone would agree in that opinion, when they remembered that the Auditor General only received the Accounts on the 31st December, and when they saw also the amount of work that had to be done, and the great difficulties under which it was performed. He referred to the examination of the items, and the want

  1049
  of suitable premises, and repeated his belief that no unreasonable delay had occurred.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought that greater facilities should be given by the War Office to the Auditor General. When the Committee were asked to discuss these items, with the Appropriation Accounts only in their hands last Saturday, they were asked to proceed on very imperfect information. No doubt, it would all turn out rightly in the end; but this financial irregularity should not occur in the future.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had pointed out that the Auditor General did not receive the Army Appropriation Accounts until December; and, therefore, the Secretary of State for War had to bear the blame of two months' delay, because by Act the Accounts should leave the War Office in October. If the War Office performed its duty in sending in the Accounts on the date required by the Act of Parliament, then the Audit Office could be held fully responsible for presenting them to Parliament on the 31st January, as the 1866 Audit Act enjoined. He hoped the Financial Secretary would take a note of it, and give the Committee an assurance on the point.
  MR. J. HOLMSwas of opinion that a valuable discussion had arisen out of the objection; but it should be remembered that the Auditor General had only lately taken office, and some allowance should be made on that account.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the suggestion he had made was precisely what the Committee did last year. On March 6 they voted £4,500,000; on June 14, £1,450,000 were voted; and then they voted nothing more until the 7th of August, when they voted £10,000,000 in one night. If, on the present occasion, the Government got £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, that would be enough to carry them on.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he really did not wish to do anything unreasonable; but when he had fully explained to the Committee his reasons for asking the Government to postpone the Vote, it would be seen that it was the Government, and not himself, that was acting unreasonably. What had this debate shown them? It had shown them that
  1050
  the majority of hon. Members had not had an opportunity of examining the Report of the Controller and Auditor General, which was only issued on Saturday last. That was very natural; but what was one of the consequences of that want of opportunity? Why, that hon. Members ran away with the idea that it was the Controller and Auditor General who was in fault for the late presentation of that Account. It was not the Controller and Auditor General who was in fault—it was the War Office. It had been shown that it was only within the last two years that the audit of the Accounts of the War Office had come within the province of the Audit Office. Previously, the War Office conducted it by a Departmental Audit; and it was only by a long fight, and a long insistance upon the part of the Audit Office, that those Accounts should come, like all other Public Accounts, under their examination and control, that the War Office yielded, and submitted its Accounts to that examination and control. But what had been the course which the War Office had since pursued? They had placed constant obstructions in the way of making a proper examination. They had refused to place proper premises at the disposal of the Controller and Auditor General, although they had promised that premises should be ready. In consequence, the Controller and Auditor General had been unable to make the test-audit which he held to be necessary. He would refer the Committee to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Controller and Auditor General's Report for 1876–7 on that subject, and to paragraph 2 of the Report just published. It now appeared that the Controller and Auditor General hoped shortly to be in possession of certain rooms in the War Office in Pall Mall, and to be in a position to apply the test-audit, partially to the Accounts of 1878–9, and fully to those of 1879–80. Up to the present time the War Office had refused the necessary material for a test-audit; and the Controller and Auditor General's request for a codified statement had been refused on one pretext or another by the War Office authorities, although there was every reason to believe that they had at their own disposal sufficient information to enable the Controller and Auditor General to make the test-examination which he considered to be necessary for

  1051
  the efficient carrying on of the Accounts. He would also refer the Committee to paragraph 9 of the Report for 1876–7, with reference to the want of a codified statement. He wished to ask one very important question. Had there not always been an audit of the Working Accounts in the War Office itself? If not, what course had been followed? If there had been this examination, and if the War Office authorities had a staff available to perform those duties, why should they not have furnished the Controller and Auditor General, in response to his repeated requests, with the information which he required? It was hardly necessary for him to ask whether the War Office had furnished the necessary assistance to the Controller and Auditor General, because, on the Report of that official, there was an overwhelming case against the War Office. Although it might be thought that he was taking up too much time in pressing these matters, yet he must ask, what no hon. Member on the Treasury Benches had done, that there might be an amendment in the future in the course which had been adopted by the War Office to the Controller and Auditor General. He would prove an overwhelming case against the War Office of neglect to reply to the reasonable requests and requirements of the Controller and Auditor General. He need scarcely remind the Committee that the Controller and Auditor General was the officer whom the House of Commons must look to for a check upon the Expenditure of the Government. He was the official appointed for the purpose of putting that check upon the Government, and the necessity of attention to his reasonable requests could not be too strongly enforced upon the War Office. But what could show a more utter disregard of his complaints than the 6th paragraph of his Report. He was reading from page 7 of his Report of last year—
  "In paragraphs 47 and 49 of my Report of last year, I called attention to the fact that no steps appeared to have been taken to carry out the requirements of the Regimental Debts Act of 1863, in which provision was made for the disposal of the unclaimed residues of soldiers' effects. As it seemed desirable that this matter should be kept in view, a letter was addressed to the Under Secretary of State for War on the 18th of December last, in which I requested to be informed of any steps that might have been taken to carry out the intentions of the Act. To this communication I have received no reply. Nor am I aware whether any inter-
  1052
  Departmental Committee has been appointed 'to consider in what mode effect should be given to Section 18 of the Regimental Debts Act of 1863, as noticed by the Public Accounts Committee in their Report of last Session.'"
  There were many such paragraphs in this Report. In some cases the Controller and Auditor General stated that he had received no reply to his letters addressed to the War Office; and it would be found, from many passages in the Report issued on Saturday, that the real reason why the Report was issued so late was that the Controller was waiting to the last moment for replies to his communications addressed to the War Office. It would be found, with regard to five several distinct cases, that it was only on the 28th of February that the War Office replied to his communications. It was abundantly evident that the Controller and Auditor General was obliged to keep back his Report to the last moment in order to give the War Office time to reply to his letter, which ought to have been answered months before. He said—
  "To this communication I have received no reply. Nor am I aware whether any inter-Departmental Committee has been appointed 'to consider in what mode Section 18 of Regimental Debts Act as noticed by the Public Accounts Committee in their Report of last Session.'"
  That was only one question upon which the War Office authorities appeared to have made no attempt to meet the representations of the Controller and Auditor General; for he found, on referring to paragraph 4 of the Report issued on Saturday last, that they had not done, in many cases, what the Controller and Auditor General requested. In some cases they had made a reply; but in others they had entirely neglected his representations. It was of great importance that the representations of the Controller and Auditor General, and the fact of no steps being taken in response to them by the War Office, should be properly considered by the House; and the point he wished to make was this—that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of considering the important question of the manner in which the money voted by Parliament in former Estimates, as shown by the Appropriation Accounts, had been expended. Further, upon the Report issued by him, it was clear that the War Office had en-

  1053
  deavoured to prevent investigation by the Controller and Auditor General. At the end of paragraph 10, on page 8 of his Report of 1877, he made the following observations:—
  "Considerable sums of money rightly belonging to the public are, as it appears to me, under the present mode of procedure, likely to escape my cognisance. I may mention two cases in point that have recently occurred. In the first, a regiment having been disbanded, a sum of about £200 has been ascertained to be due to the Exchequer. In the second, a sum of £6,856, issued and charged to the Vote, was found not to have been expended, and is now being refunded by the late commanding officer by half-yearly instalments of £500."
  As he bad previously said, in asking for facilities for examination of the Appropriation Accounts of two years ago, the Committee was now being asked to vote away money blindly, for they did not know the way in which the sums already granted had been spent. On paragraph 12 of the same Report, he read—
  "The sanction of the Lords of the Treasury was obtained for an annual expenditure not exceeding £4,000 on account of the Intelligence Department for certain services connected with the defence of the United Kingdom. In the year 1876–7 the payments made on account of this Service amounted to £4,520 17 s. 5d., and the War Office explain the excess by stating that a liability incurred in the previous year had come into course of payment in 1876–7. The amounts included in the annual Estimates are, however, intended to meet all charges which may come in course of payment during the year, and as I presumed that their Lordships had this principle in view when they limited the annual expenditure to £4,000, I called their attention to the subject by a letter dated 25th January last, in which I suggested that a separate sub-head should be opened for this Service. This course not being adopted, and the expenditure not being kept distinct in the books of the War Office, it is difficult to ascertain correctly the total payments on account of the Intelligence Department in any one year."
  Upon these extracts it was clear that the supposed check exercised by the Controller over the expenditure of the Government was illusory in the highest degree; and if no notice were taken of the past representations of the Controller, there could be no check on future expenditure. Money, to the extent of many thousands of pounds, was voted by the House and charged against the Army Estimates; but it was not expended at all. And year after year large sums remained unpaid, although no notice of the fact was given by the
  1054
  Minister asking for more money. The control over the expenditure, which the detailed statements of certain Votes appeared to show, was utterly irreconcilable with the ultimate cost of the works performed. This might appear to be a strong statement; but its truth was shown by the words of the Controller and Auditor General. In paragraph 13 of his Report for 1876–7, he said—
  "In the year 1871–2 an Estimate was taken for £200,000 for the defences of the new Dockyard at Malta, in respect of which the following sums have been voted and expended—namely:—

  Voted.

  Charged against Votes.

  Expended.

  Deposited with Colonial Treasurer.

  £

  £

  £

  1871–2

  40,000

  18,373

  8,000

  In hand

  3,300

  3,226

  —

  1872–3

  20,000

  18,087

  —

  1873–4

  20,000

  14,610

  —

  1874–5

  25,000

  20,417

  3,227

  1875–6

  25,000

  19,820

  5,060

  1876–7

  25,000

  34,598

  —

  In paragraph 14, Sir William Dunbar said—
  "It appears to have been the practice in some years to hand over to the Colonial Treasurer a portion of the sum unexpended, with the view of its being available for the purchase of land in connection with the work. The result of this practice has been that up to the year 1875–6 sums, amounting together to £16,287, have been charged to Army Votes as final payments, although the value of the land of which the purchase had been completed at that date amounted to £7,463 15 s. 11 d. only. A balance of £8,823 4s. 1d. was thus left to be accounted for on the 31st of March, 1876, which sum has been charged in the War Office Books against the Colonial Treasurer, and passed to the credit of 'Exchequer Extra Receipts' as a refund on account of sums improperly charged against Votes of prior years."
  That point was taken up again by the Controller and Auditor General on page 9 of the Report of 1876–7—
  "From Returns furnished by the collector of land revenue at Malta, it appears that the value of land purchased in the year 1876–7 was £2,714 10 s. This sum has been charged against Vote 13 in respect of this Service, and allowed to the Colonial Treasurer, although no proof has been produced of the actual payment of the purchase money to the vendors. The circumstances of the case were submitted to the Treasury by the War Office in a letter, dated the 29th of December last, and the sanction of their Lordships to charge the amount against Army grants was asked for; but I am not aware whether the same has been obtained,"

  1055
  He thought he had now shown how absolutely necessary it was for the Committee to pay some regard to the representations of Sir William Dunbar, before giving more money for the purposes of the War Office. It must have a most dispiriting effect on that gallant officer, if he found the House of Commons paying no regard to his representations. The consequence of the present system was that the War Office required more money, without showing how the sums previously voted had been spent. It appeared that £20,000 or £30,000 had been given away in the name of gratuities. As no money was available for that purpose, the course adopted had been to use the Militia money. Then, again, there were the soldiers' balances. For years and years there had been thousands of pounds from soldiers' remittances remaining unclaimed. In page 12 of the Controller and Auditor General's Report, he thus noticed the matter—
  "Observing that a balance of £8,247 8s. 2d. appears to be still standing to the credit of the 'Remittance" Account in respect of remittances made by soldiers and others prior to the 1st April, 1871, I have requested to be informed of the items of which such balance is composed, and also whether any stops are taken, from time to time, to discharge the liability of the War Office in respect to the various amounts unclaimed. To this application I have received no reply."
  He wished to ask whether it was right that public money should be distributed in this way, or that Public Accounts should be kept in this manner, notwithstanding the representations of the officer appointed for the purpose of auditing them? Unless the Government gave some reasonable reply to the effect that they would, in future, pay some attention to the Controller and Auditor General, and that they would afford him facilities, in the shape of taking a test audit, he must oppose the grant of further money. The War Office ought also to reply, in reasonable time, to the letters addressed by the Controller and Auditor General with regard to the various matters on which he required information to enable him to prepare his Appropriation Account in reasonable time. And without assurance from the Government that these matters would be attended to, he did not think that they should vote any further money.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the War Office had not the slightest wish to evade the check of the Auditor General. On the contrary, within the last three years the test-audit had been extended in a fuller form to that Department. With regard to the Appropriation Accounts, he was not able to follow the hon. Member into those of previous years, at all events, without Notice. He did not think it convenient that he should do so on that occasion; but he would remind the hon. Member that, so far from the representations of the Auditor General being passed over without notice, they came every year before the Committee of the House on Public Accounts; and, so far as his experience went, were fully and fairly considered by that Committee, It was his desire to afford the fullest opportunities to the Committee, and such recommendations as they had made had been acted upon. With regard to the delay in the issue of the Appropriation Accounts this year, he did not wish to throw any blame upon the Auditor General, for he knew well the arduous work which that gentleman and his staff had to go through. All he had said was that he had himself been subjected to as much inconvenience as other hon. Members, the Report having reached him at the same time as it reached the rest of the House. He was desirous that the Accounts should be presented to Parliament at as early a date as possible. He believed that in many respects last year was an exceptional one; and he was glad that the criticisms of the Auditor General should be extended to all the matters brought under his notice, as he deemed his observations to be a great advantage to the Department and to the Public Service. So far as the delay in the issue of the Auditor General's Reports was attributable to the War Office, he would point out that for many years past an audit of Accounts in the War Office by the Auditor General had been impossible, by reason of the want of accommodation. Owing to the changes which had taken place in the War Office, he believed that the Auditor General would now be able to have full facilities for making his investigations. He was not aware of any complaints having been made by the Auditor General as to suffering inconvenience; and he believed that the fullest facilities were given to him and his staff to

  1057
  inquire fully into all matters brought under their examination. He did not think it necessary for him to go in detail into the matters to which the hon. Member had alluded, because all these things had come before the Committee of Public Accounts.
  MR. BIGGARobserved, that one of the complaints made by Sir William Dunbar, referred to in the 3rd paragraph of his Report, was as to the necessity of a codified statement being prepared by the authorities. He also said that he had not the Regulations for the Army allowances. Although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might not be himself to blame for the matters of which the Auditor General complained, yet he was bound to see that the requirements of the Auditor General were complied with, and that he was enabled to make a correct Report. It seemed to him that the War Office threw all possible obstacles in the way of the Auditor General. That was clear from what the Auditor said about the negligence of the War Office officials in furnishing him with the materials he required. In paragraph 6, sub-section 1, of the Report, the Auditor General complained of the action of the War Office with regard to Ceylon; and with regard to Honduras, a similar complaint was made. The expenditure in these cases ought to have appeared in an earlier Appropriation Account, and that complaint was repeated year after year by the Auditor General, and received no sort of attention from the War Office; and, more than that, he might say that, so far as he was able to form an opinion, they intentionally disregarded his requirements. All the contribution which the Cape and Natal made to the cost of our Army was £14,000, which was £10,000 from the Cape, and £4,000 from Natal. That represented an allowance of 3s. per day for the officers, and nothing for the soldiers. That was all the contribution these Colonies made, instead of paying £70 for each Artilleryman and £40 for each Infantryman, as the others did. All this formed a strong argument why time should be given them for looking into these matters, and comparing the Estimates with those of past years, in order to see how the different sums were expended. He had not had time to do more than look over the Auditor General's Report, and had not been able to
  1058
  examine the correspondence; but already he saw that there were some things in it which seemed to require clearing up. For instance, in the allowances to the Foot Guards, the War Office had given not a specific sum, but a sum to each regiment, with the result that the Coldstream, Fusilier, and Grenadier Guards got £600 more than they were entitled to. In that case, at any rate, he thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would admit that the War Office had set the wishes of the Auditor General at nought. Again, Militia officers drew lodging money while they were under canvas, for which they were also paid, so that they thus drew a double allowance, which seemed to him thoroughly irregular. Again, in regard to the railway at Woolwich, some £5,000 of the cost of that was charged to the cost of the Russo-Turkish War. That seemed to him very queer sort of book-keeping. The Auditor General went on to say—
  "It is difficult to see why one portion of this Service is treated as ordinary Army expenditure and the remainder as being incidental to the War in Europe. The correspondence between the Treasury and the War Office on the subject will be found in the correspondence appended to explanatory paper, No. 5, page 138."
  He might remark that there were constant complaints in the correspondence that the Auditor General wrote letters to the War Office and received no reply. If the Auditor General was responsible for the good government of his Office, his complaints ought to be replied to, and in a few days, not left for months unanswered, as was sometimes the case here. There were also the cases of the pay of a surgeon at Chelsea Hospital, and the gratuities for long service, which required explanation. A still more important part of the Report was that headed "Extension of Test Examination to Manufacturing and Store Accounts of the Army." It was a very important part of the document, and he would like to have read it in full, for the reason that the Auditor General was anxious that an examination should be made, not only of the quantity of the stores bought, but of the quantity of the stores issued. The War Office seemed to think it was sufficient to keep a check upon the quantity of goods brought into store, without any reference to what were sent out. If he were keeping a large stock account, he

  1059
  certainly should keep an account of the goods sent out, as well as of the goods brought in, and so the Auditor General contended. The War Office, however, in the most persistent way, had thrown obstacles in the way of a settlement of the question. The Minute was given at page 17, and it showed that the War Office and the Treasury were trying to throw all the obstacles in the way of the Auditor General that they could. The Auditor General had written twice to ascertain their views, and had got no reply; and, therefore, he thought it would be well to postpone this whole matter, in order to give an opportunity of comparing the Accounts. He had no doubt, it they were able to make a careful comparison of these Votes, they would find that large sums had been asked for on particular Votes which, if spent at all, should be spent on other Votes. He, therefore, pressed for an adjournment, in order that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself might have an opportunity of explaining these matters.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had excused himself from following the Report of 1876–7, on the ground that it was a very old Report, and he expressed his wonder that they did not go back to 1870. Now, it was a remarkable fact that the other night the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted them to go on with this Vote—the Report of 1876–7, which he now described an an old Report, being at that time the very latest Report they had to inform them with regard to the expenditure of these large sums of money. The fact would show that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not very candid in the excuse which he made, the real fact of the case being that he could not contradict the statements he (Mr. Parnell) had made. The statements to which he referred in the Report of 1876–7 were the statements of the Controller General, and to this day they had not been attended to; and he submitted that the Government ought to pay some attention to the suggestions of its officers. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts said that if there was anything wrong, that Committee would have attended to it. But it was a reference to the Report of that Com-
  1060
  mittee that first showed him (Mr. Parnell) the necessity of calling the attention of the House of Commons to this matter. In their Report they said that the Treasury, by their Minute of the 20th of March, 1876, required a test examination to be made. That was three years ago; but to this day the War Office had not furnished the Auditor General with the materials for that test audit. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had a great desire to pay attention to any recommendations he received; and he could not do that better than by not requiring these Votes year after year, when the Report of the Auditor General was kept back to the very last moment. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would show his sense of the practical necessity of attending to this matter, by requiring that this Report should not be kept back till the very last moment, and by endeavouring to bring it on as early as possible, then he would withdraw his Motion. But unless he had some such assurance, he must press the Motion to a division.
  MR. BIGGAR,in reply to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the Committee of Public Accounts examined the Report of the Accountant General carefully, and were satisfied with the Report of the Auditor General, said he would just show their sentiments by reading one or two words from their Report of last year. That for this year had not yet been issued. In section 23 they called attention to the importance of consolidating the various Royal Warrants regulating the pay and allowances. Again, in Clause 27, they pointed out that no vouchers had been produced for £270 charged against Vote 13, and that charge had not been allowed. Then, again, the Committee reported twice that sums had been spent in ways not authorized by Parliament; and these were charges not brought by him, but by the Select Committee. Therefore, he thought it would be far better to adjourn this Vote for a few days, in order that they might have a better audit of the Accounts.
  MR. RYLANDShoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division. The hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, made out a very strong case, showing that it was certainly very important that the Appropriation Accounts should be presented at an earlier date; and he had

  1061
  also put forward very strong reasons for getting earlier attention paid to the requirements of the audit. But both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for War were equally anxious that the audit of the Accounts should be presented at an earlier date; and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to divide.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very unwilling to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, especially as the smallness of the numbers, who would vote with him would diminish the strength of the case he had made out—a case which must command the attention of the War Office before this time next year. He would, therefore, ask permission to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MAJOR NOLANcalled attention to the question of musters in the Army. No doubt they were still useful for horses; but he did not think they were of any use for the men, and he had never found anyone who thought they were. If all men were mustered, the old system might still be of value; but 85 per cent of them never came up at all. At present one-thirtieth of the men's time was spent in mustering, and they could not waste their time without wasting also the time of the country. This system was merely a survival from the bye-gone past, and he believed might be done away with now without the least detriment to anybody.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERcalled attention to the inequality which existed in the rates of pay of the various commissioned ranks of the Army, arising from the circumstance that there had been no revision of such rates since the abolition of purchase. By way of illustration of the inequalities to which he referred, he would first call the attention of the Committee to the differences existing between the rates of pay of the officers in the Household Cavalry and those of corresponding ranks in the Cavalry of the Line. A lieutenant-colonel in the former received £532 5s. 10 d. per annum, or at the rate of £1 9s. 2d. per day; while a lieutenant-colonel in the latter received £419 15 s. per annum, or £1 3s. per day. And from those figures it would be seen that a lieutenant-colonel
  1062
  in the Cavalry of the Line received £113 annually less than his brother officer in the Household Cavalry. And similarly throughout the other ranks, for it would be seen that a major in the Household Cavalry received £1 4s. bd. a-day, or £445 per annum, and a major in the Cavalry of the Line 19 s. 3d. a-day, or £351 per annum. So that the latter officers received £94 a-year more than the former. The pay of the remaining ranks was as follows:—

  Household Cavalry.

  Cavalry of the Line.

  Captains

  15/1.

  14/7.

  Lieutenants

  10/4.

  9/-

  2nd Lieutenants

  8/-

  8/-

  Adjutants

  13/-

  11/6.

  From this, it would be seen that there existed a very marked inequality, and particularly in the pay of the adjutants, which told very much against the officers of the Cavalry of the Line. Turning to the Foot Guards and the Infantry of the Line, it would be found that there were corresponding differences between the pay in the various ranks of officers, which were as follows:—

  Household Brigades.

  Per day.

  Per annum.

  Majors

  23/-

  £419.

  Captains

  15/6.

  £282.

  Lieutenant-Colonels

  26/9.

  Lieutenants

  7/4.

  Second Lieutenants

  5/6.

  Infantry of the Line.

  Per day.

  Per annum.

  Majors

  16/-

  £310.

  Captains

  11/7.

  £211.

  Lieutenant-Colonels

  17/-

  Lieutenants

  6/6.

  Second Lieutenants

  5/3.

  Looking, therefore, at the aggregate expenditure of a battalion of Foot Guards, and the aggregate expenditure of a battalion of the Line, it would be seen that in the former case it amounted to £26,000, and in the latter—taking the greatest strength of the battalion at 800 men—to £20,983. Thus a battalion of Foot Guards cost annually £5,000 more than a battalion of the Line. He now wished to draw attention to the striking anomalies which appeared to exist in the pay of the Artillery and Engineers as compared with the other branches of the Service. It would be remembered that the preparation for the Scientific corps was, in point of time, just double that for the Line, many of the officers of which entered

  1063
  through the Militia, receiving their commissions after passing at Sandhurst; and, further, that in the case of the Scientific corps, a very severe competitive examination in the higher branches of education had to be passed, and that, again, was followed by another severe examination at Woolwich. There appeared to be a slight advantage in favour of the Ordnance officer, in point of the age at which young men were allowed to enter at Woolwich, as compared with Sandhurst; but, notwithstanding that difference of one year, it must be borne in mind that, as a rule, the men who went to Woolwich were older than their comrades of the Line. Although the pay of the second lieutenants was nearly the same in all three branches, yet when they came to the higher ranks it would be seen that the pay of a captain in the Engineers was 11 s. a-day, as compared with that of a captain in the Foot Guards, who received 15 s. 6d. a-day. It was argued that the promotion in the Guards was slower than in the Engineers and Artillery; but he found, on reference to the latest Army List, which he held in his hand, that such was not the fact. On the contrary, the senior lieutenants in the Guards, now waiting for promotion to the rank of captain, had all joined since 1868; whereas the senior lieutenants of the Royal Artillery waiting for the same step of promotion dated from 1867. They were, therefore, very considerably worse off in point of promotion. Again, there was an important comparison to make between the pay of the lieutenant-colonels, who received in the Field Artillery and Engineers 18 s. 9d. and 18 s. a-day respectively; while officers of the same rank in the Foot Guards received 23 s. a-day, or an excess of 5s. a-day over their comrades in the Scientific corps. These were all points that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War ought to regard with considerable attention, with a view to their rectification; because he (Sir Arthur Hayter) found that a proper revision had taken place in the pay of the noncommissioned ranks. Under the new scale, it appeared that the sergeants of the two Scientific corps received 2s. 11 d. a-day; whereas the sergeants in the Foot Guards and the Line received 2s. 3d. and 2s. 1d. per day respectively. And, again, with the corporals. These re-
  1064
  ceived 2s. a-day, as compared with 1s. 9d. a-day paid to the corporals in the Foot Guards. The non-commissioned officers of the Scientific corps also received, in addition to those advantages, a very considerable sum as working pay, irrespective of their ordinary daily pay. He would not say that any feeling of dissatisfaction existed amongst the officers of the Artillery and Engineers; but he trusted that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to institute an examination into the questions raised by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot), that it would come within the scope of the Commission to take into consideration the revision of the rates of pay to commissioned officers in the different branches of the Service, among which so many anomalies existed.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERtook the opportunity of referring to a Question put by him upon a former occasion to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and which received an affirmative reply—

  "Whether it is the case that a regiment on foreign service is kept below its regulated establishment of subalterns, if the regiment with which it is linked has supernumeraries of that rank, in consequence of its establishment being reduced?"
  It was the case that the establishment of subalterns of a regiment on foreign service stood at 18, while a regiment on home service had only 14. Supposing that a regiment were ordered to Malta, it became at once entitled to four additional subalterns; but if it happened to be linked to a regiment about to return, say from the East Indies, it would be kept below its establishment of subalterns until the regiment to which it was linked had got rid of all its supernumerary subalterns. This caused great discontent, by the loss of mess and band subscriptions, and by increasing the duties of the officers of the regiment and preventing a due proportion of them obtaining leave of absence. He knew of a regiment abroad which for more than a year had four subalterns below its proper establishment. Either the officers of linked regiments were interchangeable or they were not; if they were interchangeable, the supernumerary subalterns of the regiment returning home should be given to the regiment on foreign service; if they were not interchangeable, the vacancies in the regi-

  1065
  ment on foreign service should be at once filled up.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the Committee would be astonished to find in the Estimates a charge of no less than £20,000 on account of the Island of Cyprus. Of this sum only £2,000 was specifically stated in the body of the Vote for military works; whereas all the other items were only to be seen in the appendixes in the smallest type, which calculated to prevent these charges from being seen. If it were true that they were bound to give any money on account of that Island, it ought to have been taken upon a direct Vote. It should have been done by the responsible Government coming frankly before the House and saying we require £60,000, or otherwise, for the expenses of Cyprus. This sum was mentioned because, in addition to the £20,000 in the Military Estimates, no one could conceive that, under the head of Civil Charges, in a total of £35,000, there would be included the sum of £26,000 on account of a military corps, to be specially raised for service in that Island, leaving £9,000 for telegraphic and postal communication. Such an act was most unconstitutional; and it was a cruel and unjust thing for the Government to come forward and levy from the impoverished poor people of this country so large a sum, and constitutionally wrong to include a charge for such a body of men under the head of Civil Charges. Let the body be called pioneers, or anything else, it was a military establishment; and to treat them as a non-military body was most injudicious; for in the case of mutiny, which might break out at any moment, the men could not be punished. To allow these officers and men to act as a military body, without being subject to military law, was so unconstitutional a thing, that he believed many hon. Members on the opposite Benches would be roused against the wrong which had been done. He could never have anticipated that so constitutional a Minister as the Chancellor of the Exchequer should allow charges for military services on account of the Island of Cyprus to be included under the head of Civil Charges, without a distinct understanding with the Representatives of the people of the country. As the act of a great Constitutional Party it was perfectly inconceivable; and when he
  1066
  found the Government falling into greater irregularities of the kind than had ever been committed by those who occupied the Opposition Benches, he grieved to think that the great Constitutional traditions of the Conservatives were being set at naught. There was also a grave question as to the cost of the occupation of this Island to the heavily taxed people of this country. The direct charges in the Civil and Military Estimates amounted to about £54,000; but there was the cost of the Infantry battalion, of Engineers, and Artillery, where pay and allowances must be as much more, so that they were yearly adding to their outlay fully £120,000 with barracks. He now wished to call attention to the number of officers maintained at the present time for our Army; and, in doing so, desired it to be understood that he was not one of those who thought that they should be satisfied with an insufficient number of officers for each military body; for, in his opinion, whatever might be the organization of the Army, proper provision ought to be made for making up the officers, so as to cover those that might be lost to the Army by death and otherwise. But a great abuse was springing up in the over-officering of the Army; and the Committee would probably be surprised to learn that they had now for the Infantry of the Line 1,000 officers more than they possessed in 1855, when Lord Hardinge considered the Army to be thoroughly well officered, and when they had as many privates in the Infantry as at the present time. Another great abuse was annually extending, because changes had been allowed to take place in the Army-regulations of an important character, without their having properly considered the consequences that would follow from them. It was a well-known fact that a Warrant might be issued having one meaning in the eyes of those who framed it, and another quite different as understood by persons affected thereby. Out of this kind of mismanagement had arisen the practice of adding to the already over-officered Army seconded or supernumerary officers to replace those withdrawn from their regiments for Staff duties. At first the numbers supernumerary were few. In 1875 and 1876 they had the modest number of 16 supernumerary captains and subalterns

  1067
  of Infantry; but they had gone on increasing the number year by year, and made additions to those corps of Cavalry Guards and Infantry which, of all others, were well officered. In that way, they had added to the Cavalry of the Line in this year's Estimates as many as one major and eight captains; and to the Foot Guards, five captains and two subalterns, in all seven supernumerary officers to the Guards; the supernumerary officers of the Infantry of the Line being 72 in number; and the total number of supernumerary colonels, lieutenant-colonels, majors, captains, and subalterns now stood at 178, as compared with the 16 which they had 24 years ago. He had no hesitation in saying that the number of captains of their Line Infantry approached very nearly to that of the German Army, with its enormous and over-done military establishment of 400,000 privates. Year by year the Secretary of State for War came down to the House asking for more money. The Commander-in-Chief also asked for more money, and promised certain beneficial results from the outlay; but he never once thought how he could organize the Infantry arm, so as to do away with the great expenditure for unnecessarily officering the Army, to which he had referred. He (Sir George Balfour) complained publicly of the Military Authorities, inasmuch as they had not aided the Secretary of State in carrying out those great improvements which the abolition of purchase was intended to effect. And when he looked at our wonderful Establishment of wretched Infantry organization, he felt bound to complain that, when a time of necessity arrived, as recently, they had the discreditable scene of men drafted from one battalion to another, as was recently the case when it was required to send reinforcements abroad. Instead of being able to send 20 or 30 battalions out of the country at 24 hours' notice, they had men transferred from at least nine different battalions to complete only a few for Service. He thought such a necessity was disgraceful to their military system, and it had occasioned a slur on the English Army which it ought not to bear. It was solely due to the defective and costly system of organization. He hoped the discussion in the House that evening would tend to
  1068
  strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State for War, so as to enable him to make the changes necessary to make the Army more effective for taking field than it was at present.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that in every Liberal speech, and at every Liberal caucus, they were represented as living under the despotism of one man who defied Constitutional liberty, and it had been repeated so often that he had come almost to believe it; but he was relieved from his apprehensions by hearing the belief which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) expressed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last man in the world to assent to anything unconstitutional.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the Conservatives were called the Constitutional Party; but their practices belied their name.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a man who could not assent to any unconstitutional act, it might be assumed that he had not done so up to this time. And the hon. and gallant Gentleman had further told them that it was on his own side of the House that unconstitutional practices prevailed. Being a soldier, the hon. and gallant Gentleman doubtless remembered and appreciated the unconstitutional conduct of his own Party in reference to the Army Purchase Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was not for him to take up the gauntlet thrown by the noble Lord by his reference to that celebrated proceeding in connection with the abolition of purchase which had stood the noble Lord and his Party in good stead ever since. Neither the noble Lord nor the present Prime Minister challenged the conduct of the late Government on that occasion, however; and he presumed that if the use of the Prerogative had been a very gross stretch of power, such a high Constitutional authority as the noble Lord or the Prime Minister would not have passed the opportunity of pointing out the fact. They did not do so, however; because, when they looked into the matter, they found there was no case for them; but, nevertheless, the use of the Prerogative on that occasion had stood the noble Lord and the Party opposite in good stead ever since; and as they found it so useful a weapon

  1069
  he would be sorry to grudge them I the use of it. The principal reason for his rising was not to answer the noble Lord, but to ask a question with reference to the Forces in Zululand. He thought the Vote for instruction in Army signalling was included in this Estimate; and he thought it would be satisfactory to know whether there was any corps, or any officers and men, specially instructed in Army signalling with the Forces in Zululand; and, if so, whether they were supplied with the heliograph, an instrument by which the flashing signal was communicated? They had read in the papers that it had proved most satisfactory in Afghanistan. He, therefore, asked if there had been any special provision for Zululand of men accustomed to use these instruments? There had been a great deal of money spent in forming signalling classes, and he trusted that they had been utilized.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER,referring to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour), said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was in error, and he was not aware of any increase of officers in the Guards since 1854. In that year 12 companies—namely, four to each of the three regiments—were added, with a proper proportion of officers.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, what he complained of was that though, at the present time, there was the same number of men as in the past, there were more officers—that they were overdone with officers—in fact, that the seven battalions of Guards on the war with Russia breaking out were increased to 70 companies from 58, and now, in the present Estimates, there were seven supernumerary officers added.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEcomplained of the Vote of £3,600, allowances to commanding officers of brigade depots. He remarked that battalion officers only got 2s. a-day; and he could not understand for what reason brigade officers were paid 5s. a-day. The number of men was only 120, and it rarely exceeded 70 to 80. It was only the other day he heard of a brigade officer inspecting nine men and nine officers on parade. He was sure there were half too many officers in these brigade depots, and that they not only did no good, but were actually doing harm to their regiments. They had absolutely nothing to
  1070
  do; and he therefore thought some way of how they should be employed might be devised.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member propose to reduce the Vote?
  MAJOR O'BELRNE: Yes, by the amount set down as payable to officers of brigade depôts.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he should like to know what became of the horses purchased with the £124,000 out of the Vote of Credit of last year? That would cover about 3,000 horses, in addition to replacing the ordinary supply; but if they turned to page 13 of the Estimates, they would find there was not a single addition to the number of permanent horses. He wanted to know what became of those horses? They certainly did not go out to Turkey. Again, he found there was a large increase in the General Staff. Last year it was 78, this year it was 237, and yet there was no explanation of the change.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would endeavour to answer the questions seriatim. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had asked a question about the system of musters. There was no doubt that system belonged to an earlier stage altogether; and he had asked his hon. Friend the Accountant General to see whether quite sufficient security was not given, by checking the Forces' pay-list, to guard against any possible irregularity which the system of musters was intended to guard. Of course, it was a different question at the time when all the men's pay was made over to the colonel; but now, when that system had disappeared, and every man was paid under a complicated and, he trusted, an efficient system, the necessity of musters was not so imperative; and he hoped that before long he should be able to pay attention to that matter. With regard to the question of inequality of pay amongst officers, that was a difficult one at all times; and he must frankly say that he was not in a position to reduce the pay of the officers in the Army. Of course, if they were starting for the first time, they might have very good reason for placing the question of pay on a system of equality. But under special circumstances, in cases where the pay had been built up for particular reasons, he did not think that constituted an abuse, or demanded

  1071
  the immediate attention of Parliament, With regard to the inequality of the pay of the Household Troops with that of the Line, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Arthur Hayter) must bear in mind that an officer in the Guards was placed in a very different position in London to the Line officer. The officer in the Guards; was not supposed to hold the most economical of positions; and, except when on actual duty, he was not provided with quarters in any way. If they were to I strike the balance between the officer of the Guards and the officer of the Line, putting the latter in the same position as the former, he thought the balance would be by no means in favour of the Guards, and he should advise that no further movements were made in that direction. With regard to an equal number of officers to each regiment, he believed his noble Friend near him (Lord Eustace Cecil) had given a correct reply. In reply to the next question, he might say that the Warrant of 1873 made every officer who entered the Army after that date liable to be transferred, with or without his own consent, to the linked battalion. But it was not held to have a retrospective effect, as it was felt to be a hardship to officers long-in the Service that they should be so transferred. They would rather not go by the strict letter of the law in a Service like theirs, scattered over the face of the earth; but they wished to proceed with a certain regard to the welfare of the Service generally, and with an endeavour not to throw undue hardship upon particular officers. For instance, it would be obviously hard, in the case of supernumeraries of the corresponding battalion, where officers were short in the front battalion, to send out those officers to India, perhaps knowing that almost directly those officers would be called to the home battalion. At the same time, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) was perfectly correct in saying that those officers were available under certain circumstances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) asked why certain military charges incurred in respect of Cyprus were not found in one place, instead of in several? No doubt, that was so. They were like all other military charges, except in this respect.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: It is a pity the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should waste time in re-
  1072
  plying to objections which were never made.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had understood the hon. and gallant Member to object to the items being distributed, and he would explain. The fact of the matter was this. At the present moment, the proportion of foreigners in Cyprus was limited; and, being foreigners, they could not be enlisted in greater porportion than somewhere about 2 per cent per company, or 2 per cent of the total number of men. These troops, if they might be called so, were intended to be employed as engineers and pioneers; and though they were so far disciplined, and placed under military control as to render them available for heavy duty in the plains, they would not come properly under the head of police; and, therefore, they were put in what appeared to be their proper position in the place of pioneers. Inasmuch as they were not enlisted under the Mutiny Act, they could not form any portion of that particular Vote by Parliament; and he held that it would have been as improper to have included them in the Estimates, as it would be to include any other corps of police which might be raised in any other part of Her Majesty's Possessions. This Force was intended to be utilized, quite as much for constructing roads, bridges, and other public works, as for military purposes. The hon. and gallant General referred also to the number of officers who were supernumerary; and the Warrant to which he referred was that, no doubt, which followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Promotion and Retirement, to the effect that officers of the Staff should be borne as supernumeraries. For his part, he had always understood that in allowing officers employed on the Staff to go back to their regiments they were following an excellent example sot them by the best foreign Armies. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on the subject of signalling, he could not say off-hand that a distinct body of officers and men had gone out; but every corps had now a certain number of officers and men proficient in signalling, and he was almost certain that in every corps which had gone out to Zululand there were a large number of officers and men who had been trained in signalling. As to the instrument

  1073
  mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, they had received a request that a certain number might be sent out; and he was happy to say that they had already anticipated that requisition. In addition to that, and with a view to meeting the requirements of the Cape in respect of signalling, he had caused a telegram to be sent asking whether it would be practicable to use a balloon for military purposes? They had not yet received a reply, and should not send out the balloon unless it would be of practical use. A question had been asked him with regard to the depot allowance for colonels; and the hon. and gallant Member who propounded it (Major O'Beirne) said that the allowance was excessive, and such as the duties of the colonel of a depot hardly justified. He must remind the hon. Member that the colonel of a depot held a position differing in many respects from that of officers commanding regiments. He occupied a quasi-Staff position, and the allowance had to be made to meet the expenses incurred by his travelling about, and otherwise being put to expenses for which command allowance was generally given. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) asked him what had been done with the horses for which so large a sum was voted last year? When they found that they were not likely to be required they made inquiries, in order to ascertain whether it would be best to keep or to sell them; and they came to the conclusion that they would sell the greater number. That was done; but, at the same time, they took care, in some cases, to increase the stock of horses in regiments, keeping some of the best, and only throwing on the general market such horses as were of inferior quality. In their disposition of the horses, they had in view the process of replenishing the Army with the best class of horses. He believed that no exception was made in the case of the money received for the sale of those horses: but that it would be carried in ordinary course into the Exchequer Receipts. With regard to the question that had been asked about the increase in the extra pay of the Guards—a question, he believed, which was asked by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell)—
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his question was not connected with that subject.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was mistaken in supposing that the hon. Mem-
  1074
  ber asked that. His question was with regard to the General Staff. He (Colonel Stanley) might say that the item to which the hon. Member referred had arisen from the transfers that had been made, owing to the Royal Warrant, in; relation to seconding. He (Colonel Stanley) thought that was the only explanation that he could give. With regard to the extra pay of the officers of the Foot Guards, he thought he had not rightly apprehended the question put by the hon. Member for Meath.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, there were two questions; and perhaps he might state to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the question of the allowance to officers in the Foot Guards was referred to in the last Report of the Controller and Auditor General. It had been raised by another hon. Member; but lie (Mr. Parnell) proposed to raise the question later on.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought it would be very convenient to the Committee that they should take the question of the Stock Purse now. He was hardly aware of the actual circumstances under which the difference had arisen. In the year 1855, when the question of the Stock Purse was last dealt with, it was found insufficient to enable the regiments to be recruited up to their full establishment; and it was settled that the officers should receive a commutive allowance, in lieu of the previous allowance from the Stock Purse. It was calculated on the average of three successive years, and the amount was fixed at about £80 a-year. As stated in the Auditor General's Report, in practice it amounted to a little less in the Scots Guards, and to a little more in the Coldstream Guards.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Meath wish to move an Amendment?
  MR. PARNELLwished to know whether the balances of deserters' accounts, amounting to £1,506, to be found on page 109 of the Estimates, under the head of "Exchequer Receipts," included any amount from the effects of deserters from the Guards; and, if so, how much? It appeared to him that the balances of deserters' accounts were, still open. He wished to point out, with regard to the matter, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman last Session, in answer to the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore), said that the provisions

  1075
  in the Regimental Debts Act and the Royal Warrants applied to the Army generally; but that some reservations appeared to have been made on the point by the legal authorities. He, therefore, wished to press his question as to whether the £1,506 included any amount from deserters from the brigade of the Guards; and, if so, how much? If it did not, what, then, became of the effects of deserters from the Guards? If the reservations had reference to the Guards, who were the legal authorities that authorized the exemption of the Guards from the Act of Parliament governing the matter? What were the grounds for it? The reservation ought also to be brought under the notice of the House; and he would point out to the Committee that every captain of the Foot Guards received an allowance of £20 7s. 6d., to cover the possible loss which might accrue to him from death or illness, fie was desirous also of pointing out generally that the Estimates, as presented, appeared to show a decrease of £343,976. But, in reality, such a reduction had not taken place. The original Estimates for 1878–9 did not include all the money voted, for there was a Supplementary Estimate of £370,000. If this Estimate were compared with the original Estimate, it would be found that there had been an increase in the present year. They had no assurance that the House might not be asked to pass another Supplementary Estimate of a far greater amount during the present year. Putting the Supplementary Estimate aside, and comparing the original Estimates, it would be found that the increase in the Vote amounted to £32,000. That increase had arisen in spite of the fact that the expenses of discharged soldiers, which last year had amounted to £8,000, did not appear in the present Estimates.
  LORD ELCHOwished to ask, with regard to these scientific instruments with a long name, whether they were in the possession of the troops by the 22nd of January, or whether they had been sent out since that date?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONobserved, that when officers were taken off regimental establishments and added to the General Staff their pay ought to be deducted from, the regimental establishment. The Estimates showed that there was a total of 200 more officers than last
  1076
  year; but it appeared to him that those officers had been counted twice over.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the explanation he had previously given was the accurate one. There was a certain increase in the charge which had arisen from the transfer of some officers employed in the Intelligence Department.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that according to the statement on page 6, those officers were borne twice, both as Regimental and Staff officers.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked, that there was always great difficulty in finding out what these increases meant. No one who had paid attention to the numbers inserted in the table at page 6 of the Army Estimates, as the established strength of the Army and Staff, could have failed to see that it was, in the main, thoroughly unreliable. From the confused manner in which the Estimates were prepared, it was almost impossible for Members to find out what they really meant, although one Secretary of State after another had promised amendment. He should be happy to second any Motion which should have for its object the putting pressure upon the War Office to state these numbers in a proper form. A matter of some importance arose in connection with Cyprus. What reason was there why coloured regiments should not be raised in that Island? What had become of the West Indian regiments? There must be some strange and unexplained cause for raising a military regiment of nearly 1,200 men for service in Cyprus, and charging the cost in the Civil Estimates. He objected also to the manner in which the Secretary of State for War had alluded to his observations, and had put words into his mouth which he had never uttered, about the charges in the Army Estimates of about £20,000 for military establishments for Cyprus. A distinct Vote for £2,000 was granted on account of Cyprus in only Vote 13 of the Estimates; whereas the balance of £18,000 was spread amongst many of the appendices in a way to render their detection difficult. He repeated, that the charges with regard to Cyprus should not be muddled in the manner in which they were found in the present Estimates. It was also a great pity, in spite of the recommendations of the Commission, that the organization of the Army should be so defective as

  1077
  to require that so many should be made supernumerary to replace officers taken away from their regiments upon other duty. This never ought to be done to such an extent as to leave a battalion or company without its proper compliment of officers—a matter which frequently occurred at the present time— because the battalions and companies were far too many for the number of privates in the Army.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that when he last had an opportunity of addressing the House on a subject connected with the Army he found that, outside the House, but little of what he had said was reported, and he supposed that any observations he might make that evening would be as totally ignored by the Press as on former occasions. Therefore, anything he might say would be only for the ears of the few hon. Gentlemen then present in the House. Still, as long as he remained a Member of that House, he should consider it his duty to lay before it such arguments as he thought it necessary to raise. Referring to the question of the Horse Guards management, and the statement he made on Friday night with a view of remedying the evils that now existed, he would venture again to put forward views of a similar character. On more than one occasion he had, in various ways, brought before the House the question of the establishment of a regiment of Irish Guards. When he asked a Question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who held the position of War Minister, with regard to it, he was treated like a child. The reply made to him was in this form—" What a gallant people you are. You have ever distinguished yourselves as British soldiers. We all admire your 88th Connaught Rangers." The Secretary of State for War had informed him of the existence of that regiment, as if he had never heard of it before. But if hon. Gentlemen had studied the question, and considered the part that Irish soldiers had played in history—and that night was no inappropriate time to remember it—they would not have spoken of them in that way. He should test the question that night, in his small way, by taking objection to certain items in the Vote, for that was the only way in which Irish views on this subject could be made apparent. Laymen in that House might not be conversant with
  1078
  military technicality; but that did not prevent their possessing a knowledge of military history; and as regarded the prolonged contest in the beginning of the century in the Peninsular, he fearlessly asserted that the large proportion of the Infantry of the Line engaged in that contest were Irishmen. The other day he had moved for a Return of the different nationalities of the men composing the British Army. If he had had the honour of a seat in that House 35 years ago, and had moved for such a Return, it would have been refused him on political grounds. And why? Because it would not have suited the Government of the day to have acknowledged officially that two-thirds of the British Line then, as they had been in the time, 1808–1812, were Irish. He would wish to point out that it was not only military men who were acquainted with the history of the British Army. It was not only the few soldiers who occupied seats in that House who were acquainted with military history, for the subject was distinct from the calling of a soldier; and not only soldiers, but civilians, were aware of that history. In 1808 and 1812 there were records of very glorious deeds; and he might instance that Napier, in chronicling the conduct of the 92nd Gordon Highlanders as having performed deeds at the Maya that would have graced Thermopylæ, stated it was entirely composed of Irishmen. He would say that two-thirds of the Line of the British Army was, in those times, composed of Irishmen, for then no Roman Catholic was admitted into the Artillery. When he moved, some five years ago, for a Return of the nationalities in the Army, there were found to be some 44,000 Irishmen and 15,000 Scotchmen. He would call the attention of the House to the fact that the two nationalities were represented in a very different manner upon the Army List. He had not brought the document; but he could say, from memory, that there were 17 Scotch regiments and six Irish bearing a national designation. If a man had fought at Minden in the old days, his nationality was ascribed to Scotland. To show how strong the feeling was even at the present day he would say he had lately seen, in The Illustrated London News, the Scotch trews depicted as worn by a regiment in an engagement in which no regiment

  1079
  wearing trews was engaged. It was picturesque, and, as the journal was made to sell, no doubt the public liked it. The fact that, for the last 80 or 96 years, Irishmen had formed the principal element in the British Army, was totally disregarded. Why were these distinctions drawn between the nations? For his part, he should not object if national regimental distinctions were universally removed; and in that respect he was an Imperialist. There was no reason why old jealousies should be kept up by the retention of these names. But, so long as the names were retained, the fact that a considerable proportion of the Army was composed of Irishmen should be recognized by their territorial distinctions. He would be asked why did he not bring the question before the House formally? He was not what was called an Obstructionist in the House; but he rather wished to sweep away and level down, as far as possible, the difficulties which existed between the two nations, and what he did was what he believed it was his duty to do. He had done something, at various times, to induce his countrymen to enlist; but he certainly should not continue his efforts, if he was to be answered in the way he had been. They had at present three regiments of Guards —the Grenadiers, the Coldstreams, and the Fusiliers. The Coldstreams were not Scotch, although they took their names from a river over the Border; but there could be no doubt about the Fusiliers being a Scotch regiment. The name Grenadier Guards at once suggested the "British Grenadier"—an air which he believed was the quick-step of that regiment. He might be told all this was mere sentiment. Well, suppose it was? How many people were ruled by mere sentiment? He knew what was wanted. The Government wanted them to make a fuss, to come down and make a row on the Army Estimates, and then they would have a regiment of Irish Guards next Session. He was one of those who thought that business should not be conducted in that way, and who did not wish to interfere with the ordinary procedure of the House. He did not mean to impute to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) fault in the remarks he was making; but for the last eight years he had endeavoured to bring forward that question, but had always
  1080
  been met with a sneer, and the question had been treated in a slighting manner. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would get up and tell him that, despite the Horse Guards—that despite the wrong which existed in that particular locality—that there was to be a new military system of administration—that they were no longer to know regiments as English, Irish, or Scotch regiments—that they were to make numerical arrangements, and to call them the first, second, third, or fourth—then, cadit quœstio. He had nothing to say. But so long as particular nations were allowed to have specific regiments, so long should he object to the present arrangement. The Scotchmen only gave the Army 15,000 men, and yet had 17 regiments in the Army List with a Scottish designation; while Ireland, which gave the Army 44,000 men, had but six regiments with specifically Irish names. He had been told to put down a Motion; but what support would he get? It would be regarded, he was sorry to say, in the way in which too many Irish questions were regarded. Therefore, he thought he was entitled to bring this subject forward in the way he had done that night. Did the Horse Guards imagine that the Irish people were an amusing and playful people, who could be humbugged in this fashion? He thought the best way he could bring the question to an issue would be to move that the Vote before the Committee be reduced by £10,000, which he ventured to do.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,588,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he should like to make some inquiries which came under the Vote for levy money and recruiting parties. They were at present in a rather critical state with regard to the brigade depots and the linked battalions now serving abroad. He should also like to know what steps were being taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to fulfil the promise he had given, and which had been, to some extent, departed from—that the first 18 regiments

  1081
  should be kept up to a strength of 820? He understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he was taking steps to carry out that promise from one or two different sources; but, on looking at the latest monthly Return presented to the House by the Army Quartermaster General, he was at a loss to reconcile the facts with that answer. For he found no regiments whatever on that increased strength, or anywhere near it. When this system of linked battalions was first formed there were 141 battalions, of which 70 were to serve abroad, and 71 at home. That arrangement had, however, now been considerably departed from. There were now in India five extra battalions—55 battalions instead of 50; 28 at the Colonies, including the Cape, instead of 21; leaving only 58, instead of 71, at home ready to be drawn upon for all the exigencies of the Service. In another and still more important respect the arrangement of which he spoke had been departed from. For there were 10 regiments which were in the abnormal position of having both battalions abroad, instead of having one abroad and one at home. Five of them had one battalion in India and one in some other Colony; while the other five were actually in the condition that one of the battalions was in India, where, if not actually in the field, it might be called upon at any moment, and the other was in the field at the Cape. This was not only a departure from the state of things originally intended, but it presented also a crisis which, in his opinion, ought to be met by some exceptional means. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had given the House to understand that he had under contemplation some mode of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1876 over which he presided, and of which Sir Garnet Wolseley was one member, and he (Sir Henry Havelock) another. That Committee recommended that when both battalions were serving abroad some provision for the emergency should be made by expanding the depot. He should also like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was making any provision against the recurrence of the contingency which happened in the 91st regiment? There the rule was followed of sending out no men who were
  1082
  over 19 years' service, and none who had not one year of service. The result was that the battalions were reduced to 400, and had to be filled up by a depletion of other regiments. When the supply of recruits was exceptionally large—the Army was 3,000 over the Establishment at the present moment-—care should be taken not to enlist very young men, so that when named for service it should not be necessary to take off 300 or 400 men, but the battalion should embark almost as it stood.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, while he fully recognized the excellence of the intentions and the soundness of the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), still, under the circumstances in which the British nation and the Irish nation were placed, he should feel it his duty to oppose the suggestion. No doubt, as an Irish gentleman, proud of the great part which Irish valour played in the support and the extension of the British Empire, he felt a natural wish that Irish valour should be as openly recognized as it was generally utilized. Though, perhaps, Irishmen did not any longer constitute the majority of the British Line, they certainly constituted a very considerable part of it, and he did not wonder that the hon. Baronet desired some open recognition of it. In support of his contention, however, he quoted some facts which rather militated against his view of the case than supported it. He wished for national regiments, and yet he amused the Committee by reminding them that a great many so-called Scotch national regiments were by no means Scotch in their composition. He would point out to the hon. Baronet that, even if the Government conferred upon Ireland the distinction of having a body of Royal Irish Guards, it would be a poor satisfaction to him to know—as, in all probability, he did know—that the so-called Royal Irish Guards should be more properly styled Royal "Hirish" Guards, from the predominant accent of the recruits. He could not, moreover, too clearly remember that, under the present system of Government, it was not recognised as safe to encourage a national spirit in the Army. Other Governments, and other Empires, unlike the English, could build up their Armies upon national feeling. The German

  1083
  Army had many corps, each of which was grounded in the whole strength and spirit of its contiguous district; but that was contrary to the whole spirit in which the British Army was organized and established. The hon. Baronet might, by simply glancing at the Army List, satisfy himself upon that point, and see how utterly hostile to the spirit of British administration was the recognition of any such national sentiment. He found, under the various Army corps in Ireland, the Edinboro' Militia, Royal Lanark Militia; and among the divisions of troops forming part of the same Army corps the West York Militia; and that Cork was the head-quarters of the West Somerset Militia, Limerick of another, and so on. Those centres were largely filled up by troops hailing from the greatest possible distances from the Irish localities named. Nor was the system confined to England alone, for they found the same sort of thing in the Indian Army, where two companies of one nationality served beside two companies of another. The whole organization of the British Army at home' and abroad rested upon the balance of possible conflict which might take place between different races which would be prevented making any use of their national sentiments. They were very distant from the time when the British Government would be able to rest upon national feeling; and, until that was attained, the Army could not be founded upon national feeling. The British Government had to bear in mind that it had to cope with discontent in every portion of its Dominions; and where it governed, it had to direct the ignorance of one portion of its subjects against the ignorance of the other portion. It was not a National Government, but an Imperialism of the worst kind; and its Military Forces were arranged upon the old Roman principle of "Divide and govern." He had stated that he entirely sympathized with the motives of the hon. Baronet, and only wished there was any near approach to the era which he contemplated; but as things were, and were likely to remain under this distinctly anti-national Government, there was not the slightest probability that it would arrive for many years to come. And he further considered that, under present circumstances, the Irish nation would be jus-
  1084
  tified in rejecting, with utter disdain, any such puny and paltry recognition of Irish nationality as the granting of a regiment of Guards to a people from whom the English Government had stolen its Legislature. There would be no need for Irish Guards until they were required to escort the Sovereign to the opening of a restored Parliament. Then, indeed, they would be welcome; but the introduction of Irish Guards for the purpose of performing some imaginary part was, at the present day, an anachronism; while his opposition to their establishment was strengthened by the knowledge that, under the present system, their first duty would be the coercion of the Irish people.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that he could understand the position assumed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). It appeared to him the hon. Member was too much given to adopting the "Poluphloisbo" style of oratory. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had been asked to sit there that evening for the purpose of criticizing the Army Estimates, and not for the purpose of talking about the Greeks and Romans, the glory of Empires, and the other grand subjects upon which the hon. Member delighted to speak. Bulwer Lytton once said—
  "Those politicians are common enough now. Propose to march to the Milennium, and they are your men; ask them to march a quarter of a mile, and they fall to feeling their pockets, and trembling for fear of foot-pads."
  Such was the manner in which the hon. Member treated the small but practical suggestions which he had ventured to make. If a man simply confined himself to practical matters, little would be known of him; but if he talked about what nobody understood, and in grandiloquent language, people would say—"Who is this? It is some new, gorgeous light that has come upon us." And he was afraid that was the kind of light which the hon. Member for Dungarvan wanted to shed upon the House. He was not there to talk that kind of bastard Nationalism, nor to endeavour to make a reputation by sacrificing even a small interest of his country. He repeated, they were there to criticize the Estimates, and not to talk about what was occurring in Zululand, in Afghanistan, or the French Parliament. At the same time, he denied the right of the hon. Member to lecture Irish Gentlemen, who ex-

  1085
  pressed their opinions as to what was proper to be done, and who came there with an honest intention of doing what they conceived right. He might be wrong in saying that an Irish Guard ought to be raised. Probably he was, and he was open to rebuke; but no one had a right to tell him, when he came forward and made the proposal in a humble manner, and as a Member of the House, that he was ruining the country, simply because he was not bringing them back to the Firbolgs, with whom the hon. Gentleman said he was connected long before the Milesians arrived ill Ireland. He would not permit the hon. Gentleman to lecture him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of Order. The Question before the Committee is the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that in order to refer to the reduction, it was necessary for him to call attention to the circumstances under which he proposed it. He was told to criticize the Estimates, as there were many things that required to be criticized; and he knew there were hon. Gentlemen there well able to enter into details; but the moment he, who for 15 years had been criticizing this particular Vote, begged, in a humble manner, to offer his criticisms, he was told that he was out of Order. But if they were to maintain an Imperial Army, Parliament ought to recognize the three Nationalities that constituted the Empire. If they were not to recognize them as separate Nationalities, then make them one, without regard to national emblems or designations; but so long as the separate Nationalities continued, he thought is was due to the sentiment of those three nations that they should be recognized. His Motion was made in that direction. Perhaps he spoke too warmly. If so, he begged pardon; but the unfair attack which had been made upon him—
  MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order. The Committee was aware that, so far from his having made any attack upon the hon. Baronet, his references to him were conveyed in terms of strict Parliamentary courtesy. He said he sympathized with the intentions of the hon. Baronet; but advanced reasons why, in his opinion, the suggestions of the hon. Baronet should not be received. While he admitted that the hon. Baronet was entitled
  1086
  to carry his criticism, in reply, to a considerable extent, he did not think he was right in saying that any attack had been made upon him.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENaccepted the explanation, and would say that he had made statements reflecting upon his conduct instead. In order to raise the question to which he had referred, he would move the reduction of the item for regimental pay by the sum of £10,000. If, however, it would be more convenient to the Secretary of State for War to discuss it upon any of the smaller items, he would defer his Motion to another stage of the Vote. He requested leave to withdraw his first Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Baronet, that he had already proposed to move the reduction of the entire Vote by the sum of £10,000.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENbegged leave to move the reduction of the item for regimental pay by the sum of £ 10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item Sub-head C, for Regimental Pay, of £4,390,000, be reduced by £10,000."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. O'DONNELLdesired further information respecting the Stock Purse Fund. Prom the explanation which had been given, it appeared the deserters' balances in the Guards went to the Stock Purse Fund, which was taken possession of by the officers of the Guards, so it practically amounted to this—that the officers had an interest in desertion.
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that it would be better to postpone the reduction just moved to a later period of the evening, when the Secretary of State for War would have an opportunity of replying to various questions of technical detail which had been raised on the Vote. If the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment and move it later on, he (Mr. Parnell) would like to say a few words upon the subject.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it was immaterial whether he answered the hon. Baronet then, or later in the evening. He was not aware that he had omitted to reply to any questions. [Mr. PARNELL: The deserters' balances in the Guards.]

  1087
  He was not able to say whether the deserters' balances in the Guards were included in the Treasury Receipts or not; but he apprehended that they would be taken in aid of the Vote in the same manner as heretofore. However, a Motion would soon be made by the hon. Member for Meath on that very question of the Stock Purse Fund, and he thought it would then be more convenient to discuss the matter as a whole, instead of by fragments. He was aware that the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had, on many previous occasions, raised the question of Irish Guards; and, with regard to the subject in question, he thought he must remind him that the history of our Army was not entirely a new one. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would, he believed, corroborate him when he said that there would be a considerable amount of inconvenience and difficulty in proposing to suppress any of the Scotch regiments with the view of converting them into Irish ones. That, however, was a question of nationality into which, even on a day like that, he did not wish to enter. But the organization of the Army as it now existed was traceable to the way in which particular regiments had been raised, some of them having been associated with particular localities, and some with particular names, from the time when they were first formed. Apart, therefore, from any other consideration, there would, as he had said, be considerable difficulty in entertaining so large a question as that now raised by the hon. Baronet, who did not now command for his Motion the support of those who, upon other occasions, had acted with him. He trusted that it would not be supposed that he had any wish to blink the subject, or put it on one side; but, at the same time, he was not in a position to agree to the Amendment; and if the hon. Member challenged a vote on the sum required for regimental pay, he would be obliged to oppose its reduction.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, before going into the question, he wished to remark that the Secretary of State for War appeared to be under a misapprehension in supposing that the deserters' balances had anything to do with the question of the Stock Purse Fund. The question
  1088
  he had asked was, Whether the sum of £1,506 13 s. 2d. included any amount from the effects of deserters from the Guards; and, if so, how much? The Stock Purse Fund had no reference whatever to the amount accruing from the effects of deserters. In the Returns which he held in his hand, no mention was made of any sum of money voted for the Stock Purse Fund or deserters' balances. Of course, he would be perfectly satisfied to bring on the latter question when he brought on the question of the Stock Purse Fund; otherwise, it would be inconvenient to introduce a matter which was entirely irrelevant. With regard to the allowances for the officers of the Guards, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be again under the misapprehension that it also had something to do with the Stock Purse Fund. The two subjects, however, were perfectly distinct; and he referred the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to page 9 of the Appropriation Account for the year 1877–8, where the Controller and Auditor General said—
  "I now proceed to notice the questions which have arisen on this years' account. Allowances to regiments of Foot Guards. Certain charges included in the pay lists of the several regiments of Foot Guards appear to call for some remark. The Royal Warrant of 1846, regulating the pay and allowances of these regiments, authorizes as follows: —To captains of companies, collectively, an allowance in lieu of the pay of non-effective men formerly home upon the Establishment—namely, to the Grenadier regiment, per annum, £3,393 15 s. 2d.; to the Coldstream and Fusilier regiments each, £2,088 9s. 4d. per annum. The amounts at present drawn by the regiments in respect of this allowance are as follows: — Grenadier Guards, £3,915 17 s. 6d. per annum; Coldstream and Fusilier Guards, £2,610 11 s. 8d. per annum."
  He pointed out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that these were the allowances referred to by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) as relating to non-effective men; but the Stock Purse Fund was an allowance for recruiting. The Controller and Auditor General went on to say, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Kendal—
  "In answer to inquiries as to the authority for the increased amounts, I have been informed by the accounting officer that these allowances have been treated as company allowances of £130 10 s. 7d. per annum, and that the increase is consequent upon the addition in the year

  1089
  1854 of four companies to each of the regiments in question. The wording of the Royal Warrant would hardly seem to justify the allowances being considered to be of an elastic character; they are granted to ' captains of companies collectively,' not to each captain, and would appear to be more in the nature of a regimental than of a personal allowance."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not answered the question which he had put; and he therefore begged to give Notice—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is not conducive to the regularity of Business that in voting the total numbers of the effective establishment of the Army the same persons should be reckoned twice in the same Vote."
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, what he had endeavoured to explain was that the total number of officers under Warrant was only increased to the extent of the number of officers serving as Staff officers, instead of remaining in their place, and that the regimental establishments remained the same as before.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to give specific answers to the three questions he had put to him. He was not given to exaggerate matters, nor had he any wish to embarrass the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but the questions he had gone into were not slight ones. Therefore, he should be glad to know, before the Vote was disposed of, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to do on the three points?
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENremarked that before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to reply, he should be glad to know why the 30th Regiment and the 5th Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion, which he understood were fit to take the field and were first on the roster for foreign service, had been passed over for service at the Cape for other regiments not on war standing? He wished to know why these regiments had not been sent, instead of the Government going round the country picking up waifs and strays to fill vacancies in the regiments chosen?
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Stock Purse Fund appeared to him to be a sort of peculiarum to the officers in the Guards. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had wished them to understand that the proceeds of the sale of deserters'
  1090
  effects stuck to fingers instead of going into the Exchequer, he thought that was a very strange mode of the arrangement of the Army. He asked if the proceeds of the sale of deserters' effects went to swell the Stock Purse Fund; because, if that were so, they would be led to understand that the officers of the Guards would have a pecuniary interest in the number of deserters from their regiments. It was quite clear, if the proceeds of the sale of deserters' effects went to the Stock Purse Fund, and that Fund went to the officers, the officers pocketed the proceeds of the deserters' effects.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would let them know when they were to discuss the question of the pay of non-effectives, and the use of the amount accruing from the sale of deserters' effects. Of course, if it were more convenient to take the discussion later on, he would be perfectly willing; but he must ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give them a distinct answer then.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was confined to one item, and therefore it was not in Order to discuss questions affecting the other items in the Estimates.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would put himself in Order by speaking on the question raised by the hon. Baronet; and he would say that, although there was a great deal in his remarks with which he entirely agreed, yet he could not believe the necessity for a brigade of Irish Guards. In fact, he could not help looking upon this question as one of the "hobby-horses" of the House. A brigade of Irish Guards was the "hobby-horse" of the hon. Baronet, and the fact was illustrated when the hon. Baronet stated that he had never succeeded in bringing it before the House in a satisfactory way until that evening. They had had, from time to time, questions raised very much Royal—Royal Residents, Royal Princes—and various other very little Royal things—by Members, and this was another. The hon. Baronet had raised the question of a Royal regiment of Guards for Ireland in a perfectly legitimate way. However, up to the present time, the predilections

  1091
  of a large class of people in Ireland had only been granted so far as the appointment of the Royal Irish Constabulary —a body which was not "Royal" when it was established, but which he supposed had become so since it had taken the lives of some of its own fellow-countrymen. He had in his hand that night a telegram from Belfast, stating that the same distinguished body had fired upon a number of the people in the streets—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee is not the conduct of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but whether this Vote should be reduced by £10,000, in order that the Government should enrol an Irish brigade of Guards.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was quite aware of the fact, and he had only alluded incidentally to the point, in order to show that the predilections of the hon. Baronet for Royalty in Ireland had been, to a certain extent, gratified by the distinction conferred on that Force. For his own part, he did not think further inducements ought to be given to the Irish people to join Her Majesty's regiments. The population of Ireland, from which recruits were obtained, were in a starving condition; and the wiles of the recruiting sergeant were already sufficient, without his having the additional allurements of an Irish regiment of Guards into which to entice the people. It was true that Irishmen had fought and spent their blood for England, and that no one doubted the valour of Irish soldiers. At the present moment at least one-half of the regiments at the Cape were composed of young Irishmen from Tipperary and Connemara. He thought they were fools for their pains. They were fools, he meant to say, to enlist in regiments which were to be sent to Zululand to become the holacaust of that Imperialism which had lately become so much the fashion. These peasants, unfortunately, were very poor, and were in need of the necessities of life; and when the recruiting sergeant came round, they said to themselves they would see a little life, and they wanted a little fighting, of which they were fond; and therefore they would enlist. As an instance of the desire of his countrymen to see active service, he stated that while acting as a
  1092
  Justice of the Peace recently in Wicklow, a deserter was brought before him by a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to whom he had surrendered. The deserter stated that when he deserted there was no fighting going on; but that after being away several years he had given himself up, in order that he might join his regiment "on the frontiers of Afghanistan." He told the man that he had made a bad move, for, instead of being ordered to join his regiment, he would most probably be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. This was the way the Government treated men who desired to fight for them; and, therefore, he had no sympathy with the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He again repeated that they ought not to increase the inducements which now existed for getting Irishmen into the English Army, because they were only sent abroad to carry out cruel and unjust wars. He should be very sorry to have to vote against a countryman of his own in a Motion of this sort; but if it was pressed to a Division, holding the views which he had now expressed, he could not refrain from doing so.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he had introduced this Motion without premeditation. He had come down to the House for the purpose of criticizing the Estimates, and when he looked at them and saw the expenditure which had occurred, he thought that he had a right to ask that an Irish regiment should be included amongst them. If he had said anything unbecoming in reference to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, he begged to apologize. He would not intentionally say anything disrespectful to any Member of the House; but when the hon. Member spoke of him in the way he had done, he thought the style would be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
  MR. O'DONNELL: The hon. Baronet was out of the House when I referred to him. If, in the lively course of his remarks—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is in possession of the Committee, and it is out of Order for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to interrupt him.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he did not wish to add any more acidity to this debate; but he must say it was a too common practice for certain Gentle-

  1093
  men from Ireland to impute motives to those who uttered views different to those which they themselves held. He held notions which were consistent with loyalty to the Crown. And why should his views be taken to task by the hon. Member for Meath, who, it appeared, was a Justice of the Peace, and who, therefore, could not surely make a disclaimer of not being a loyal subject? Why, he believed, the hon. Member for Meath, in his Commission of the Peace, was addressed by Her Majesty as her "trusty and well-beloved," or some other similar appellation. There had not been a single statement made from the opposite Benches against the statement that the people of Ireland, as events showed, took pride to themselves in the conduct of their forefathers— the actions of whom were now relegated to Scotch and English regiments. He did not make this a grievance of a great character, though he had heard of very many lately which would require a microscope to discover, and required to be talked about for hours together, not as a salve for the woes of Ireland, but as a small grievance, with long speeches. He was one of those who did not believe in the universality of knowledge; and he sometimes felt that the arguments of his hon. Colleagues were wanting in logic, and that they were receiving on this Guards' question the thanks of a Government which had nothing to say for itself.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, as he understood the Motion, it was for a reduction of the Vote by £10,000, the object of the hon. Baronet being to get a regiment of Irish Guards. He was of opinion that, as they had English and Scotch Guards, there should also be a regiment of Irish Guards. If the hon. Baronet would bring forward a Motion on the subject, he would certainly support it.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. Baronet, who, a few minutes before, appeared to have apologized for statements made by himself (Mr. O'Donnell) while the hon. Baronet was out of the House, had again repeated that which he had acknowledged was offensive. The hon. Baronet suggested that there should be a regiment of Irish Guards. His opinion was that that might be a very admirable thing in its way, and under other circumstances; but that, under present circumstances, he did not believe
  1094
  that the Irish nation would feel the smallest gratitude for such a trifling favour, when in every other detail the Government was anti-Irish in each degree. He made no personal reference to the attack of the hon. Baronet on himself, but discussed the Motion on its merits. He concluded by stating that he should refuse to support the proposal for a regiment of Irish Guards until there was a probability of those Guards acting as an escort to the first Session of the restored Irish Parliament. Until then, Irish Guards would be a mockery and an insult to the Irish nation.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he believed the Irish people would not be gratified with the proposal of the hon. Baronet. In fact, he thought they had no sympathy in common with the English Government, and that, had a war with Russia taken place last spring, a very large majority of the Irish people would have been pleased if the Russians had proved victorious.
  GENERAL SHUTEtrusted that his right hon. and gallant friend the Secretary of State for War would favourably consider the wish of some Irish Members, that an Irish regiment should be added to the Brigade of Guards. He could say for himself, and a good many other Members, that he should like to see a regiment of Irish Guards officered by the hon. Gentlemen who sat below the Gangway—a condition being that it should be sent at once to the Zulu War, which would much expedite the conduct of Business in this House.
  Mr. BIGGARremarked, that many Members would, no doubt, be very pleased to see them all sent to Zululand; but that was the very thing they did not intend to do.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 120: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PARNELLexpressed a hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, before the discussion of the Estimates proceeded further, reply to the questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), and one or two other hon. Members.
  COLONEL STANLEYwas not aware that there were any questions of any particular importance which he had failed to answer. As to the two regiments to which the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County had referred —the 30th Regiment and the 5th Fusiliers—he could not say why they were set on one side in the order for foreign service, if, indeed, it was the first, which he did not admit, that they had been passed over. On the contrary, he believed that the roster for foreign service had, up to the present moment, been accurately followed out. If the hon. Baronet were not' satisfied with that reply, he would, perhaps, be good enough to put his Question on the Notice Paper, and he would, on a future occasion, endeavour to give him fuller information on the subject. As to the question which had been put to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) with regard to linked battalions, and the necessity of expanding depots in those instances in which both battalions happened to be abroad, he wished to explain that every means had been employed by the War Department to add to the strength of the depots by recruiting, and, as he had indicated a few nights before when introducing the Estimates, by allowing Reserve men to return to the Army, within certain limits, for service abroad. He had already stated that the present system, which, as the Committee were aware, was not proposed by the Government now in Office, required careful investigation, although he did not wish in any way to throw discredit upon it.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that in again rising to speak he had no desire to trouble the Committee with a purely Irish question, which he knew was always distasteful to the great majority of hon. Members, as was evident from the Division which had just taken place. The question which he was now about to press on the attention of the Committee was one of an Imperial character, although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had treated it in a very off-hand fashion; for, if he were to act upon the right hon and gallant Gentleman's suggestion, and come down to the House some evening and ask his Question, the probability was that he would receive a reply with which he would not be satisfied; and if, in con-
  1096
  sequence, he were to move the adjournment of the House, he might be called to Order by the Speaker—a proceeding which might be followed by something else still more disagreeable. Now, that was a position in which he, for one, did not care to be placed; and believing the question to be one of Imperial interest, he hoped the Committee would be kind enough to give him its attention on the present occasion. They had heard a great deal about the men who had suffered in the engagements which had occurred both in Afghanistan and South Africa, and some comments had been made on the physique of the troops who had been sent out to those places. That being so, he had ventured to ask the Secretary of State for War why it was that the 30th Regiment and the 5th Fusiliers, which were stated to have their full complement and which were next on the roster for foreign service, had not been despatched to Zululand? That, surely, was a question which admitted of an easy answer. One of those regiments had served in the Crimean War, and the other during the Mutiny in India, while they had been brought together under the same command at Chatham with the intention of sending them abroad. Why, then, numbering as they did some 800 or 1,000 men each, had their turn for foreign service been postponed, seeing that flying columns had been sent round the country to pick up waifs and strays, children and boys, to fight our battles in South Africa? The 30th Regiment and the 2nd Battalion of Fusiliers were complete; and when he asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why these regiments who were properly prepared, equipped, and seasoned, were not sent out to the seat of war, all the information he could get was an unsatisfactory reply across the Table, although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was fully aware of the harum-scarum way in which men were sent all over the country to get up a kind of scratch pack. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had scoffed at the views which he had ventured a short time before to submit to the Committee, with reference to the establishment of an Irish regiment of Guards; but the question why the two regiments of which he was speaking had not been sent into action was one he could assure him that would not be regarded lightly by the British people. He observed

  1097
  the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) jumping up from his seat, eager for the fray. He could understand the noble Lord's anxiety to defend an arrangement of which he, no doubt, was one of the moving spirits; but he objected to matters of the kind being settled by some eight or ten men who considered themselves militaires, who believed they could lead a nation in arms, and who spoke of themselves as if each was an Alexander or a Napoleon. He, too, could speak on military matters as well, perhaps, as those amateurs, who prided themselves on their military capacity; but he was not now addressing himself to the noble Lord, but to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, a soldier born and by education, and who was at the head of the British Army. From him he should like to learn what were the real facts of the case which he had brought under the notice of the Committee.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was glad he had endeavoured to catch the attention of the Chairman, inasmuch as the hon. Baronet who had just spoken had, in consequence, been afforded an opportunity of airing his eloquence, even although it was at his expense. The hon. Baronet was, however, entirely mistaken if he supposed that his object in rising was to reply to his observations. He rose for the purpose of referring to what had occurred in the discussion which had preceded the Division which had just been taken. What took place in the course of that discussion was, he thought, matter of Imperial interest; for the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), in the remarks which he made in opposition to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, took occasion to say that if an Irish regiment of Guards were established, as was proposed, it might be employed in Zululand, in Afghanistan, or even against Russia, in the event of our being at war with that country. Then the hon. Member went on to state, and to repeat more than once, his firm conviction that if an Irish regiment of Guards were employed against Russia, the whole of the Irish people—[Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!] He had heard the hon. Member's words distinctly; and if his ears did not completely mislead him, he expressed it to be his belief that the whole Irish nation—[Cries of "No, no;
  1098
  a majority!"]—would have rejoiced at the defeat of England in the contest. The hon. Gentleman might substitute the word "majority" if he liked; but a nation, he would remind him, was represented by the majority. Now, he had listened to those remarks, he would not say with astonishment, as coming from the hon. Member for Cavan, because the House had by this time got accustomed to a good deal of strange language from that quarter. But he was, he must confess, greatly surprised to find that there were many Irish Members sitting in the vicinity of the hon. Member who heard the observations to which he was alluding, and who had not risen in their places to protest against such a libel on their countrymen and their nation, and upon the Irish soldier. Though not himself an Irishman by birth, he had Irish relations; and he knew that, whether they looked to the past or present, no more loyal or gallant soldiers than the Irish were to be found. He believed, too, that the Irish nation took a deep interest and pride in the welfare of this great Empire; and therefore it was that he had risen, not only to protest against the speech of the hon. Member for Cavan, but to express his astonishment that no Irish Member had entered his protest against the use of such language.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he felt he had quite enough to do, notwithstanding the surprise expressed by the noble Lord, to answer for himself, without undertaking to answer for any observations which might be made by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who, it should not be forgotten, represented one of the largest constituencies in Ireland. But he would point out to the noble Lord that the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), to whom he always listened with great respect when speaking on military questions, were, to say the least, quite as much open to objection as that of which the noble Lord complained; for in desiring to see an Irish regiment officered by Members from Ireland who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to imply that he would like to see all those hon. Members swept off the face of the earth. When, however, volunteers had been demanded

  1099
  for Zululand, a very large proportion of Irishmen had offered to fill the ranks of the regiments ordered on foreign service.
  MR. O'DONNELLwould venture to suggest that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who seemed to wish to act as the Representative of the Irish people on that occasion, that it would be well if his reproaches were addressed to his own Party, and to the Government, of which he was a supporter, who consistently acted as if they disbelieved in the loyalty of the Irish nation, rather than to his hon. Friends near him. Why did the Leader of the House congratulate young Members of his Party who dared to speak of the majority of the Irish nation as drunken and degraded? Let the noble Lord not presume to address such remarks to Irish Members, or to accuse them of disloyal or dishonourable conduct. Let him address his reproaches to that Government who, while they lavished benefits on England, seemed to make it the main object of their administration to intensify the discontent of the people of Ireland against their rule.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the noble Lord had entirely misquoted the expressions of which he had made use. That which he had to say he usually said very carefully, and he spoke plainly that only which he had thought over with due consideration. What he really had stated was—and he was prepared to repeat it—that a large majority of the Irish people—which was not the whole Irish people, for in Ireland, as everywhere, differences of opinion existed— of the Irish race all over the world, cared a great deal more for the honour and interests of Ireland than they did for those of England, and were for Ireland first, and England after. He would tell the Committee a story which he had a short time ago heard from an Irish-American from California, and who was not, so far as he was aware, in any way mixed up with political affairs. He asked the gentleman to whom he was referring his views as to the opinions of the Irish race in different parts of America—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the statement of an Irish-American from California was not relevant to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the question had been raised by the noble Lord opposite as to what extent the Irish people were in favour of the interests of Ireland as compared with those of England; and he simply wished to give an illustration in answer to the remarks of the noble Lord, which it would not take him half-a-minute to lay before the Committee. He was accustomed to be heard, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were not going to put him down by clamour.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that it is disrespectful to the Committee to disregard the ruling of the Chair.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) were in Order, in which he accused the Irish Members of disloyalty?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member was of opinion that the remarks of any Member of the Committee were out of Order, it was his duty to have called attention to them at once.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that the Government and hon. Members sitting opposite were allowed to rise and hurl sweeping charges against Irish Members and others sitting on that side of the House; but Irish Members were not to be allowed to speak in their own defence.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that he had been attacked by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), and he did think that he was called upon to vindicate himself. He would not further refer to the opinion of his friend from California after the ruling of the Chairman. He might, however, say that it was given him confidentially, and he was at perfect liberty to communicate it. But he was going to tell the Committee what the opinion of the Irish race all over the world was upon this question. First, they cared for the welfare of Ireland, and after that for the welfare of England.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that now they had got out of that troubled atmosphere, he wished to call attention to a few little matters in connection with these Estimates. He might here notice that he considered that a great many things in those Estimates showed very strongly the extreme carelessness with which they had been prepared. He could point to many matters which showed that the Estimates had been drawn in a most

  1101
  careless and negligent manner. In future years he should ask that these Estimates should be drawn in the same manner as the Civil Service and Navy Estimates. There was no reason why that should not be done—the War Office was in a very flourishing condition, and had a great many more clerks than it wanted. There was no reason, therefore, why such careless Estimates as these should be submitted to the House. On page 15 of the Estimates he found that the sum of £1,630 was put down to Contingencies on the General Staff. On the Estimates for 1876‒7 the item appeared at £1,533, in 1878–9 £1,587, and now the sum had increased to £1,630. The item put down under the name of contingencies to General Staff he thought required a little more explanation. Would the Secretary of State for War inform them whether this item was always increasing? There was another matter under the sub-head C, that of Regimental Pay, including Deferred Pay. He would wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that item of Deferred Pay was included in the Estimates for Regimental Pay?
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that as he had had no answer to his Question, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote on account of Deputy Adjutant and Quartermaster General, put down in the Estimates at £1,686, by the sum of £1,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet will not be in Order in proposing to reduce the items A and B, after having moved the rejection of item C.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would meet the objection, by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £250 for Miscellaneous under the letter O.
  MR. PARNELLthought it would be better to move a reduction under subhead C as Regimental Pay, otherwise hon. Members would be shut out from many reductions in the items preceding the letter O.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENaccepted the suggestion, and moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000 under the head of Regimental Pay.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item Sub-head C, for Regimental Pay, of £4,390,000, he reduced by £1,000."— (Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether the extra pay to the General Staff was drawn on the General Staff Pay List, or the Regimental Pay List? The General Staff Pay List was not increased by any sum, and it seemed to be reduced by £3,000. He wished to ask whether the pay of the 160 officers who had been struck off the Regimental List and transferred to the General Staff List was drawn on the Regimental or the Staff Pay List?
  COLONEL STANLEYhoped the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County would not think that there was any discourtesy in the reply which he had made to his question. He replied in the way he had, as he thought it the most convenient course. He had asked why the 5th and 30th Regiments had not been sent abroad in their turn? His answer was intended to convey to the hon. Baronet that he was not aware that they had been kept at home out of their turn. He could not profess to carry all these matters within his recollection, subject, as they were, to all sorts of changes from Colonial and other arrangements; but he had no doubt in his own mind that there was some reason for what had occurred. Therefore, if the hon. Baronet would be good enough to address his question to him on another occasion, he would do his best to answer it. At the present time, he might add that he had found that a battalion of the 5th was at Peshawur, and it was not unlikely that heavy drafts might have been required for the necessities of the Service there. With regard to the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) had addressed to him, he apprehended that the pay of the officers he had mentioned would be drawn from the agent in the usual way, whether returned upon the Staff or Regimental Pay List he was not at that moment able to say, but it would be charged in the agent's account in the usual form; and he apprehended that if the officer was found in the Army List, with his name in the list of his regiment in italics, as serving on the Staff, he would be borne upon the Staff, and not upon the Regimental Pay List. He could not, however, speak on the subject from his own knowledge. With regard to the contingencies to General Staff, he had no special reason to give for the increase

  1103
  in the present year except this—that all the charges included under the head of Regimental Pay were increased by last year being Leap-year.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment, after the explanation which had been given.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas strongly of opinion that this part of the Estimates should be made clearer, and he thought the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) was quite right in raising the question he had. The Secretary of State for War might render useful service in revising the table of strengths at page 6 of the Estimates.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not answered his question with respect to deferred pay. He wished to know whether that was included in the regimental pay? Moreover, his explanation with regard to contingencies was very unsatisfactory. He explained that an increase of nearly £100 was due only to the fact of one more day's pay having to be provided for, owing to its being Leap-year. He must again ask him to inform him whether all the deferred pay was included under the regimental pay?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Deferred pay is included in the regimental pay.
  MR. PARNELLcould not find that that was stated in the Estimates at all. On pages 10 and 11 the numbers of the Infantry of the Line were set forth. They found there that the total number of non-commissioned officers and men of the Line was 67,278. They received deferred pay at the rate of 2d. a-day, and that would amount to a sum of £204,637. On reference to pages 148 and 149, they found that the amount paid in respect of deferred pay to officers of brevet rank was £167,158. That was £37,500 less than the deferred pay of the soldiers of the Line. That was to say, the additional pay and deferred pay of the officers of brevet rank amounted to less by £37,500 than the deferred pay of the soldiers of the Line. Either the calculation was erroneous, or the present statement, that all the deferred pay was included in the regimental, required some explanation.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not think that the discrepancy to which the hon. Member alluded would really be found to exist. With regard to the deferred pay, the difference in the Estimate would be found to depend upon the fact that the pay, although it had to be calculated on the number of men borne, yet in itself it depended upon the actual service of the different men. Therefore, they could not bring the actual amount estimated for in exact accordance with the amount paid. In fact, those who were cognisant with these matters told him that it was impossible to tell what these amounts would come to until the deferred pay was drawn in the ensuing year.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that it was very difficult, in Committee of the Whole House, to go thoroughly into these Accounts. His point was that the additional deferred pay, and the pay of the officers of brevet rank, as shown at the bottom of page 149 to be £167,158, amounted to less than the calculation of 2d. per day for 67,000 men, without taking into account the allowances for officers of brevet rank. The difference between the two sums amounted to £37,500.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, that the discrepancy which the hon. Member for Meath appeared to see did not really exist. Not only the deferred pay, but the additional pay of the officers of brevet rank was less than the calculated amount, for allowance had to be made for all sorts of contingencies. A number of men did not receive the amount of deferred pay which it was estimated they would. There would also be a deduction on other accounts. Then, again, a great number of men would not receive their deferred pay until a later period, in consequence of their taking further service, so that the explanation which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had given was perfectly correct.
  MR. PARNELLwas much obliged to the hon. and gallant Baronet for the explanation he had given. Under subhead D there was an item in respect of regimental extra pay. A little book called Tommy Atkins; or, the Soldier's Band Book, was placed in the hands of every soldier, and it contained a considerable amount of information for his enlightenment. A soldier was bound to possess the book, and it informed him

  1105
  as to the good-conduct pay and pensions which he might earn. By the Royal Warrant of 1870, soldiers were to reckon their service, both in the Army and in the Reserve, towards their deferred pay. In that respect Tommy Atkins and the Army Warrant coincided; but other Royal Warrants had been issued which did not coincide. The Army Warrant of 1874 provided that service in the Reserve should not count towards deferred pay. Notwithstanding that, soldiers were still told in Tommy Atkins that service in the Reserve did count towards deferred pay. In 1878 a special War Office Circular was issued, which laid it down that men enlisted after a certain date should reckon their service in the Reserve for pensions only, and not for deferred pay. He wished to know what the men generally knew about War Office Circulars and Royal Warrants? All they understood was their Tommy Atkins, and they knew nothing about those Circulars and Warrants; and he submitted that it was exceedingly unfair to deprive soldiers, who had enlisted under the terms of a Royal Warrant of 1870, by subsequent Warrants, of that which was promised. The Secretary of State for War, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot), admitted that the General Order, No. 36, dated 1st of May, 1878, laid it down that service in the Reserves was reckoned towards pensions, and not deferred pay. That statement was inconsistent with the terms upon which the men entered the Reserve. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also said that the alteration had been made, and was about to be published; and he wished to ask him whether the anomaly had been corrected, in accordance with his promise, or whether it still continued?
  COLONEL STANLEYhad every reason to believe that the Circular was published in accordance with what he had stated; but he must refer entirely to the documents laying down the subject. Soldiers were to be guided only by the Army Circulars and Royal Warrants, and he had no reason to believe that any case of inequality had arisen.
  MR. PARNELLasked if hon. Members were to understand that this Vote provided for the inequalities that had arisen? But there was another question which he must raise with regard to
  1106
  depôot brigades. He had not quite caught all the observations upon that subject, and was not aware whether the point which he should now bring forward had been touched upon. Some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was Premier, the present Premier attacked the Government, and spoke in strong terms of our attenuated battalions. Whether that epithet was more justly applicable to the Army now than then he would not say; but, in view of the recent statements of the Secretary of State for War, that one of the regiments sent to South Africa had to be recruited by volunteers from eight regiments, and that another battalion obtained recruits from 11 regiments, he thought that there was some reason for now designating our regiments by that name. He should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was satisfied with the present system, by which a regiment was never fit for service when wanted; and whether he wished it to be continued? Some portion of the present Vote was on account of gratuities. The necessity for gratuities to volunteers arose from the feet that the brigade-depôt system was a failure. He had not quite caught the point raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock); but as he thought it was in connection with that matter, he should not trouble the Committee by raising it again.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to call attention to the system under which military bands were now kept up. If they were really worth anything, they ought to be fully recognized as necessary to the efficiency of the Army, and should be fully paid for by the State. At present, they were bolstered up by a very peculiar system. Every officer was mulcted of eight days' pay, for the purpose of supporting the band of his regiment. He could understand such a thing as officers of specially musical tastes being allowed to contribute to the bands of their own regiments; but it was not right that the expenses, which, if necessary, should be borne by the State, should be cast upon the officers. If the bands deserved the support of the country, why were they not supported altogether by the country, like any other branch of the Military Ser-

  1107
  vice? Why should officers be mulcted out of their scanty pay of eight days' pay for what was necessary to the Army? Why should not the band allowance be paid altogether from the general fund? Why did not the Secretary of State for War put the full charge upon the Estimates, and not go about in this shabby way, mulcting their hard-worked and not over well-paid officers to support bands which were recognized as useful for the country at large? He had heard nothing in justification of the present system, and he knew it was a very great grievance, especially to the poorer class of officers. He would remind the Committee, also, that under recent Regulations there were likely to be more poor officers than ever in the Army; and since the abolition of Purchase had brought about the abolition of the old rich-officer system, they ought to deal with their officers as men who were not paid one penny too much for their services.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the practice of volunteering from one battalion to another was by no means confined to making up battalions for active service. The Vote for volunteering was also taken to cover the gratuity of £2 paid to men to extend their period of service when under orders for India. It was a complaint that men went to India having only a short term to serve, and came back, at great expense to the country, before the time came for the return of the regiment. The Government thought it advisable to take power to extend the service of the men, with their own consent, for two years, and for that purpose increased the gratuity. With regard to the bands, that was one of the open questions upon which a great deal might be said on both sides. In a great many distinguished regiments the officers took a pride in their band, which, if it were entirely removed from their control, they would not be so likely to feel. There was an allowance made for bands. He was not prepared to say whether the precise amount the officers contributed was exactly what they would care to give, but there was no general complaint on the subject in the Army; and, at a time when the Government was desirous not to increase the Estimates more than was necessary, it was not an item which he felt it very desirable to enlarge.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether it would not be possible in next year's Estimates, to distribute the items for levy money and recruiting under different heads? The Accounts would then show what was spent in levy money, in medical fees, and in grants to volunteers for an extension of service, of which he had just spoken. It would be very convenient to the Committee if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would do so, for it would enable them to judge of the policy in regard to each of those items, which were entirely different. Then he would also ask whether any of these sums for levy money or for recruiting, and, if so, how much, were included in the recruiting expenses of the Guards? These recruiting expenses of the Guards were supposed to be borne by the Stock Purse Fund; but, in reality, none of the Stock Purse Fund bore them. The Brigade of Guards got more from other sources—such as fines and purchases from discharge—than was paid out of the Stock Purse Fund for recruiting services; and he was, therefore, anxious to know whether the recruiting money of the Guards was paid out of this Vote? If not, he would ask what Vote it was paid out of? Also, before he opened the question of the Stock Purse Fund — which would take him some little time—he would like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he was prepared to abolish the Stock Purse Fund altogether, and to place the Guards on the same footing as other regiments?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Stock Purse Fund, as he had before remarked, was a subject of extreme complication, and the desire of the Department had been gradually to consume it, and leave the charges upon the ordinary Estimates. With regard to the distribution of levy money, the Returns did not show how it was distributed under the different sub-heads.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, what he wanted to know was how the levy money, mentioned in the Return, was divided? The Vote at present was only divided thus— Extra pay, £6,900; band expenses, £700; extra duty pay, £400; additional, £3,079—making altogether the amount of the Stock Purse Fund. But there was nothing about levy money for recruiting purposes in that Vote; and he wanted to know whether any money

  1109
  for recruiting for the Guards was paid out of this sub-head J? He could not find from what source it was paid, if it were not paid out of this sub-head; and if it were from this, he wanted to know how much it was?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he could not answer at that moment whether these expenses were paid out of the Stock Purse Fund; but if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to ask the question later on, he would be ready to answer with accuracy on the point.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to ask a question in regard to the amount charged for instruction in musketry and gunnery. It was only £300 per annum for the Artillery, while it was £4,300 for the Line. Now, it seemed to him of obvious importance that the Artillery should be taught gunnery; because, if they were not, how were they to use their guns? He did not see the use of going to great expense for enormous arms and the latest improvements, if they did not take the trouble to teach the Artillery men how to use those large guns. According to this Account, as much was given to the Foot Guards alone for instruction in musketry as was spent on the whole of the Artillery.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, in reference to this question of the bands, that he thought he had placed his argument on an undeniable basis. It was no answer to him to say that the officers took pride in their military bands, because the soldiers did that. Why should the officers be mulcted in eight days' pay any more than the soldiers? In the old system, when a regiment was a proprietorial concern, owned by the commanding officer, and officered by his relatives, there was some good reason for the band, like other portions of the equipment, being supplied at the commander's expense; but now-a-days the Army was a National Army, and the soldier was simply below the officers in point of rank. In fact, a soldier might become an officer, and even rise out of the regiment altogether. The band, just like the muskets, ought to be supplied out of the Public Exchequer; and to tell him that the officers took pride in the band was no answer at all. It seemed the rule with Ministers in charge of Departments, when they brought on their Estimates, to give the least possible
  1110
  amount of satisfaction. The present occupant of the War Office certainly discharged his duty most courteously; but he gave the Committee just as little satisfaction upon points raised as was at all consistent with the courtesy of his character. He had often heard complaints from poor officers as to this charge, and it was one which ought not to be made at this stage of Army organization.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, the way in which officers' pay was entered in the Estimates was a deception to the public. An officer was put down as receiving 7s. or 11 s., or more, a-day; but the public were not aware that these were subject to deductions for band and for mess, which was really most unfair. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, it was unfair. Another point not mentioned was that the subalterns were not subject to this deduction; whereas they certainly should be, just like any other officer in a regiment.
  MR. PARNELLthought he had better go at once into the question of the Stock Purse Fund. He was sorry the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not made up his mind to get rid of this great scandal. He had said that he desired to make it an annual charge in the ordinary Estimates; but that was just precisely what it was now. The Vote of the Stock Purse Fund appeared in the Army Estimates every year; and he thought it was an annual charge which should now cease to exist, being an allowance which had long ago fallen out of date. Before he went into the general subject, he wished to direct attention to the criticisms of the Controller and Auditor General on this subject, at page 9. He said—
  "Certain charges included in the pay lists of the several regiments of Foot Guards appear to call for some remark. The Royal Warrant of 1846, regulating the pay and allowances of these regiments, authorizes as follows:—To captains of companies collectively, an allowance in lieu of the pay of non-effective men, formerly home upon the establishment—namely, to the Grenadier regiment, £3,393 15 s. 2d.; to the Coldstream and Fusilier regiments, each £2,088 9s. 4d. per annum. The amounts at present drawn by the regiments in respect of this allowance are as follows:—Grenadier Guards, £3,915 17 s. 6d. per annum; the Coldstream and Fusilier, £2,610 11 s. 8d. each per annum. In answer to inquiries as to the authority for the increased amounts, I have been informed by the accounting officer that these allowances have been treated as company allowances of

  1111
  £130 10 s. 7d. per annum, and that the increase is consequent upon the addition in the year 1854 of four companies to each of the regiments in question."
  Then the Auditor General went on to say—
  "The wording of the Royal Warrant would hardly seem to justify the allowances being considered to be of an elastic character. They are granted to ' captains of companies collectively, 'not to each captain, and would appear to be more in the nature of a regimental than a personal allowance."
  That was the observation of the Controller and Auditor-General on an allowance in lieu of non-effective men. He went on to say, with reference to the Stock Purse Fund—
  "Previous to the year 1834 a non-effective allowance of 1s. 1d. per day for eight men per company was drawn by each of the regiments of Foot Guards; but in that year a commuted allowance of £158 5s. 6d. per company, was fixed in lieu. This was subsequently confirmed by the Royal Warrant of 1846 as an allowance for recruiting and hospital expenses."
  Now, he wished to point out that here was an allowance for recruiting and hospital expenses of £158 5s. 6d. per company, first allowed in the year 1854, and yet none of the current expenses of the Guards were paid out of this Fund. The hospital expenses were paid out of it; but a considerable part went into the pockets of the commanding officers and field officers. The amount in the present Estimates was £6,000 odd, and by that amount he proposed to reduce this Vote. The Controller General went on to observe—
  "This allowance, together with the hospital stoppages retained by the regiments, formed a fund from which was defrayed not only the recruiting and hospital expenditure, but also extra pay to Staff and other non-commissioned officers, allowance, in aid of band expenses, &c. After these expenses had been defrayed there always remained a considerable balance, which was equally divided amongst the Guards' officers as their own emoluments. In 1855, owing to the heavy calls made upon this fund caused by the Crimean losses, it was found insufficient to meet the demands made upon it, and Lord Panmure, then Secretary of State for War, decided that the Guards should henceforth render an account of these expenses as compared with the allowance to defray them, and that the balance upon each account should be paid by or to the public as the case might be. I may add that since the year 1855, with the exception of the years 1857, 1858, 1859, 1862, 1863, and 1864, the Votes of Parliament have each year been called upon to make good a considerable deficiency. It was also decided that the profits which the officers had been in the habit of dividing should
  1112
  still be secured to them on an average of the sum they had drawn during the preceding three years, such amount to form a charge against the annual allowance of £158 5s. 6d. per company. These allowances were as follows:—"
  It was not necessary for him to repeat what they were. Then he goes on again to say—
  "I have requested to be informed whether these allowances have ever received the sanction of the Treasury; but as yet I have received no information on the point. With regard to the Stock Purse Fund, I may also observe that until the present year the various charges against it have not been shown in detail in the War Office Accounts. The practice was to charge the public with the annual allowance of £158 5s. 6d. per company, and in addition any balance which might be required to enable the fund to pay the officers their annual allowances, both being charged to Vote, the 'Regimental Allowances.' In the present year, however, the £158 5s. 6d. is not charged against the Vote; but the various payments on account of hospital expenses, levy money, band expenses, and extra pay to noncommissioned officers, are classified to the Votes to which they properly belong. The rates of extra pay to non-commissioned officers differ in the several regiments of Guards, and in no case do they appear to be sanctioned by any Royal Warrant. I have applied for information upon the point, but have not yet received an answer."
  Some years ago his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) asked a Question in reference to this Vote, and Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who was then Secretary of State for War, said it was an allowance for recruiting, hospital, and miscellaneous expenses, and agreed to give a Return of the amounts which made up the lump sum of £13,190 in the Army Estimates. The Return, No. 168, he had now got, and it purported to be a Return of all special allowances, besides an allowance for band expenses. It was a most remarkable document, for it purported to give a great deal of information, and it practically gave none at all. It purported to explain the items and details of the expenditure of this large sum of £13,190, and this was all the explanation that was given:—Three depots, £77 12 s. 6d.; quartermasters, additional, three regiments, £140; apportionment to first major of each regiment, £100; field duty, three regiments, £166 18 s. 4d.; recording the proceedings of courts martial, £18 7s. 6d.; the total being £502 18 s.; and that was all the explanation they had of the details of this Vote of £13,190, the rest being left entirely unaccounted for under the head of Stock Purse Fund, at £158 5s. 6d. per company—£11,070 15 s. His hon.

  1113
  Friend, when he got his Return, found he was not much wiser than he was before, and moved for another Return to explain the Stock Purse Fund. That second Return was of a still more extraordinary character than the first. Indeed, everything about this Stock Purse Fund seemed to be wrapped in some wonderful mystery; even when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke about it, and professed his good intentions, he seemed to be as much in the dark as everybody else; and it was for this reason that he was now going into the matter in detail, in the hopeless attempt to make the subject clear to the Committee. This second Return purported to be a balance-sheet of the disbursements and receipts of this Fund. On the one hand, they had the hospital expenditure— £8,939—levy money, or recruitment money—the point to which he directed the attention of the Secretary of State a few minutes ago—£145. Thus, out of all this money, which was originally granted for hospital and recruiting expenses, only £145 was spent in recruiting expenses. He would show, by-and-bye, that not even that small sum of £145 was spent in the recruiting service of the Guards, because they obtained £713 levy money to replace the £145. Under the head of disbursements, they found bounty expenses £1,360; Staff allowances and non-commissioned officers, £905; and then average profits of field officers and captains, £6,278 odd. Then, on the other side—on the Receipt side—they found the Stock Purse Fund £158 5s. 6d. per company, amounting to £11,079 5s. voted in the Estimates, leaving money charged, £713; hospital stoppages, £2,669; the three together amounting to £14,461 5s. The total disbursements under the head of allowances to non-commissioned officers and band expenses, amounted to £17,960 5s. 6d.; and if from that sum was deducted the total receipts, there would remain a balance of £3,000, which was not in any way accounted for; while, in the Estimates, no information was given as to the source from which it was derived. He called the attention of the Committee to this extraordinary omission from the Return, which, although it purported to be a regular balance-sheet, only added to the mystery that surrounded the Stock Purse Fund, and which he was determined to penetrate.
  1114
  The disbursements exceeded the receipts; and hon. Members were told that, in order to make up the deficiency, a sum of money had been voted annually since the Crimean War. He found that by a previous Return some money had been voted by Parliament to make up the deficiency of one year—namely, £1,607; whereas the actual deficiency amounted to £3,158, from which it was quite clear that, as he had said before, the Return was highly untrustworthy. It came to this—that they were voting every year a sum of money amounting to £11,079 5s. for the Stock Purse Fund of the Guards, distributed amongst the Votes under the following heads:—Vote 1, Sub-head D, £6,900; Sub-head E, £700; Subhead F, £400; Vote 10, £3,079. The amount of the Stock Purse Fund voted in this way, per company, was £158 5s. 6d. But what he desired to know was, where the balance was charged in the Estimates, which the Controller General spoke of as being the only balance made up by a Vote of Parliament? Under what Vote was it to be found? He (Mr. Parnell) was not actuated by any hostility towards the present officers who were enjoying the money, but certainly thought it quite right to raise that important question; and he was of opinion that a charge of such an exceedingly doubtful character, which involved the necessity of presenting to the House of Commons Returns that could not be relied upon, should be put a stop to, without loss of time, and that the hospital and recruiting expenses of the Guards should be put on the same footing as those of the rest of the Army. The recruiting expenses of the Guards were at present provided for out of other moneys than the Stock Purse Fund; and, consequently, the Fund, which was originated in order to meet those two expenses of hospital and recruiting, now only met a portion of those expenses, and was assisted by an annual Vote of Parliament to make up the annual deficiency. He repeated, that both the hospital and recruiting expenses of the Guards should be placed on the same footing as those of the rest of the Army. Therefore, let an actuarial estimate be made of the interests of the Guards who enjoyed those allowances. And let that interest be calculated upon the number of years that the captains of companies might be supposed to remain at their

  1115
  present ranks; because they would, in course of time, be promoted, and cease to have any interest; but let their rights be respected and calculated upon the basis indicated. By this means a very great scandal, that year by year was attracting increased attention, and which no Minister had ever been able to justify, would be removed. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £6,278.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,591,722, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was not one of those who stood up to defend the Stock Purse Fund, which was an arrangement that in itself was objectionable, and ought to be put an end to. In that respect he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Meath. The hon. Gentleman had said that the charges for hospitals and recruiting should be brought under their proper heads, and that it should be ascertained, by an actuarial calculation, to what sum each particular officer was entitled under the Stock Purse arrangement. That was precisely what was being done. And he believed that at that very moment an actuary on the War Office list was employed in ascertaining what sums represented the interests of each of the officers who had a proprietary right in the allowance. He hoped that before another year had passed the subject would be made quite plain to the Committee, and that they would be able to determine what steps should be taken.
  MR. PARNELLconsidered that until they were in possession of the details for the basis of the actuarial calculations, it would be difficult to decide how far they were satisfactory. After the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he did not wish to press his Amendment.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANinquired if he was correct in supposing that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) admitted a proprietary right to exist in the officers with regard to the Stock Purse Fund, and the Hospital, and other build-
  1116
  ings of the Guards? Because that appeared to him to be a matter about which there might be two opinions. He did not wish to express any final opinion upon the subject, but hoped it would not be assumed, without investigation, that there was an absolute proprietary right on the part of the officers. The whole arrangement, as it then stood, was anomalous and indefensible, and should be put an end to. It was not clear, however, that the pecuniary result was disadvantageous to the public purse. It must be observed that that the Guards' officers were not provided with quarters, and it was doubtful whether a good bargain would be made by the country if new barracks were built, or an equivalent lodging allowance at London rates given to them, in lieu of these Stock Purse allowances. It appeared to him right to say a word on that occasion against accepting without any demur the idea that buildings erected by officers partly out of the public funds were proprietary in those officers.
  COLONEL STANLEYadmitted that the right must be properly proved; but that the opinion of the Law Courts had, at any rate, established what seemed to be a primâ facie right.
  MR. PARNELLthought it very fair and reasonable on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should propose to ascertain, by actuarial calculation, the proprietary interest which the present officers enjoyed in that amount of £6,278. The money had been voted for many years; and, undoubtedly, some kind of vested interest existed.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to say a few words before the Motion was withdrawn, and to point out that the Guards had a very considerable reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which the Controller and Auditor General had dealt with that subject. His Report said—
  "Previous to the year 1834 a non-effective of 1s. 1d. a-day for eight men per company was drawn by each of the regiments of Foot Guards; but in that year a commuted allowance of £158 5s. 6d. per company was fixed in lieu. This was subsequently confirmed by the Royal Warrant of 1846 as an allowance for recruiting and hospital expenditure. This allowance, together with the hospital stoppages retained by the regiments, formed a fund from which was not only the recruiting and hospital expenditure,

  1117
  but also extra pay to Staff and non-commissioned officers, allowance in aid of band expenses, &c."
  Then, continued the Controller and Auditor General—
  "After these expenses had been defrayed there always remained a considerable balance, which was equally divided amongst the Guards' officers as their own emoluments."
  That was a very curious circumstance; but a more remarkable fact still was that in 1855 the hospital expenses were so large as to swallow up the company allowances altogether. The Controller and Auditor General proceeded—
  "In 1855, owing to the heavy calls made upon this fund, caused by the Crimean losses, it was found insufficient to meet the demands made upon it, and Lord Panmure, then Secretary of State for War, decided that the Guards should henceforth render an account of these expenses as compared with the allowance to defray them, and that the balance upon each account should be paid by or to the public as the case might be."
  Thus it would be seen that from 1855 any existing balance was to be paid to the public; but, strange to say, from the very time when the Guards' officers were required to pay over a balance, it was quite impossible for them to find any balance to pay into the Exchequer. The Report continued—
  "I may add that since the year 1855, with the exception of the years 1857, 1858, 1859, 1862, 1863, and 1864, the Votes of Parliament have each year been called upon to make good a considerable deficiency. It was also decided that the profits which the officers had been in the habit of dividing should still be secured to them, on an average of the sum they had drawn during the preceding three years, such amount to form a charge against the annual allowance of £158 5s. 6d. per company."
  The result of that arrangement was that the officers of the Grenadier Guards received each per annum £92 6s. 1d.; Coldstreams, £78 4s. 2d.; Fusiliers, £80 2s. 6d., as representing their share of a fund originally established for hospital and recruiting purposes. He (Mr. O'Donnell), of course, did not pin his faith to the statements of the Controller and Auditor General; but he was obliged to remark that they were not at all flattering to the officers of the Guards.
  MR. PARNELLdesired to know whether the sum of £1,506 included the amount accruing from deserters from the Guards; and, if not, why this was
  1118
  not so, and what became of the deserters' effects? Again, who were the legal authorities that exempted the Guards from the operation of the provisions of an Act of Parliament which was intended to apply to the whole Army? The other question which he had asked before the introduction of that relating to the Stock Purse Fund, referred to in the Report of the Controller and Auditor General, was whether the notice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been called to the Report of the same officer on page 10, where he said, with regard to the allowance in lieu of pay to non effective men of the Guards—
  "The wording of the Royal Warrant would hardly seem to justify the allowances being considered to be of an elastic character, but that they appeared to be more in the nature of a regimental than of a personal allowance."
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that as the Controller and Auditor General was perfectly competent to deal with the points which had been brought under his notice, he was doubtful whether any nearer approach would be made to a practical issue by pursuing the subject at that moment. But he would mention that the payments in question had been made from a date long antecedent to that of the Royal Warrant of 1846; and, further, that there was no special Warrant for such allowances. The War Office had always acted upon the instructions contained in the Official Letter of Lord Panmure, which ran as follows:—
  "In consequence of the heavy casualties which have taken place in the present war, and with a view to the interests and exigencies of the Service, I have thought fit to require from the officers of the Guards a yearly account, in which shall be credited the sum of £158 5s. 6d. per company."
  Of course, when the number of companies was increased, it was thought right to add the amount for each new company to the original total. He thought that the Controller and Auditor General might be left to deal with the remaining small point that, up to the issuing of the Report, that officer had received no reply to his inquiry as to whether the allowances in question had ever received the sanction of the Treasury. About the deserters' effects, he had not any special information at the moment; but he concluded they were included in the General Accounts.

  1119
  When he ascertained definitely, he would take care to make the facts known.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNE MAJOR O'BEIRNE moved that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £6,300, allowances to officers of brigade-depôts. He had no doubt that these positions were complete sinecures, as was shown by the fact that Cavalry officers were generally appointed to them, the fact being that there was nothing to do. It was a waste of £6,300.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,591,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Major O'Beirne.)
  MR. PARNELLthought the Motion was entitled to some consideration, although, of course, he knew it was very disagreeable to hon. Members to sit and listen to arguments, and to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. But he must recollect that he did not sit there every night, but only once a-year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken away from them the opportunity of discussing the question at other times; and if they could get no replies from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the duty became very hard upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was not aware that he had directly or indirectly complained of the duties he endeavoured to perform. He had given all the information in his power, and by taking stops to endeavour to place the facts before hon. Members at once. The reasons why officers in charge of brigade depots received a larger allowance was not guided by the number of men under their command, but had reference to the general duties they were required to perform. He had always understood that the amount of 5s. a-day was given rather in respect of the expenses which such an officer had to incur, and which were similar to the expenses of an officer in command of a regiment. Such an officer was in a quasi-Staff position, and it was in consequence of his holding that position that the allowance was granted. He saw no reason for disturbing the present arrangement.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was under some misapprehension as to the officers of brigade depôts. Their duties were to inspect the Volunteers and Militia twice a-year; and the fact that Cavalry officers were appointed to these duties was, in his opinion, sufficient proof that they were incapable of doing their duty.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member who had last spoken was himself labouring under a misapprehension. He had belonged to a regiment of Militia for 10 years; and his regiment had been inspected every year very efficiently by the commanding officer of the brigade depôt, for the time being.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 148: Majority 141.—(Div. List, No. 46.)
  MR. BIGGARpointed out that, in his opinion, there was an unreasonable discrepancy in the payments for musketry and gunnery instruction.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, there used to be a gunnery instructor at each brigade depot; but they were now dropping these. The question was, whether the instructor should not be maintained? Unless there was an able teacher of musketry the men got into the habit of applying themselves to some other employment. This was the case with the Artillery, where gunnery instructors were being allowed to die out.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was not fully aware of the present position of this question; but he believed that now all officers attended the course at Shoeburyness, and that, in course of time, they might be able to teach gunnery.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had given the best explanation in his power, he did not wish to press the question.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £50,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Divine Service, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL moved to report Progress. He had a number of details to bring forward which he did not wish to go into at that hour. One point was

  1121
  with reference to the attendance of Catholic chaplains with the Forces at the Cape. He was informed, on the best authority, that a great many of the men at the Cape were Catholics—he was answered that the number was one-half—and as this was a very important question, he asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to let them report Progress, so that they might have full time to discuss it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not wish to press this Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the position in which we stand. I do not wish to make any remark upon the way in which hon. Members think it right to conduct discussions in this House as a general rule; but I must point out that if we spend as much time in the discussion of every Vote in these Estimates as we have spent to-night over the first Vote, it seems impossible that we can get through the Business of dealing with Supply in the course, I may say, of this Session. My right hon. and gallant Friend has been ready and anxious to give information on every point on which he has been questioned; and I must say, so far as I have been able to observe, there has been very great consideration shown to my right hon. and gallant Friend by a good many Gentlemen who usually take a great interest in the Army Estimates, and whose views we often hear with very great advantage. But there has been a very extraordinary amount of conversation—I hardly like to call it discussion—upon parts of this Vote, which has been carried on very much from one particular quarter of the House. Now, I am far from saying that many things that have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and others, have not been worthy of consideration. Everyone who perceives the way in which the hon. Member for Meath devotes himself to the study of every question he takes up must be aware that he has often matters to bring forward that are worthy of attention; but, on the other hand, I must say it has struck me that there has been a very great
  1122
  waste of time—a frequent repetition of the same arguments.
  MR. PARNELL: By me?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not speaking specially of the hon. Member for Meath.
  MR. PARNELL: I rise. ["Order!"]
  I rise to Order—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the House.
  MR. PARNELL: I rise to a point of Order. Last Session, during the proceedings of the Committee on Public Business, it was distinctly given in evidence that a deliberate waste of time by the repetition of the same argument was a contempt of the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not exactly charged me individually with a deliberate waste of time, but he has said there has been a waste of time. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make such a charge against Members of this House; and I submit, as a point of Order, that when he charges Members of this House with a deliberate waste of time, he should charge the individual Member with it. I challenge him to substantiate the charge against me.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rises to a point of Order, and says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used expressions with regard to the Business of the House of Commons; but he has not shown that he has committed a breach of Order against the hon. Member. It appears to me that no question of Order has been raised.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was very far from imputing to the hon. Member, or to anybody else, that he had been guilty of a waste of time; but I hold that the course followed this evening has led to a waste of time, [Mr. PARNELL: On your own side.] And if that course, or any similar one, is pursued during our discussions, a great deal of time will be wasted, and it will be impossible for this House to get through the Business which the country wishes it to get through. I do not desire now to pursue the subject, but only to call attention to it; and I hope, in so doing, I shall be understood as only endeavouring to fulfil my duty in the position in which I now stand, and in order to clear the Government from the idea that they are wasting time,

  1123
  and that they are not endeavouring to get forward the Business with which they are intrusted. It is our duty to bring forward the Estimates, and my right hon. and gallant Friend has been the whole evening in the House, and has done his best to explain and answer every question that has been put to him. I do not think he could possibly have done more; if we have not made any progress, it is not our fault. The Question immediately before us is, whether we shall proceed to any more Votes tonight? I quite admit, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has done, that it would not be convenient now to enter into Votes which would lead to serious discussion or controversy. We have got through the first Vote, and my right hon. and gallant Friend will be prepared to withdraw Vote 2, and postpone any other Vote likely to lead to any discuscussion; but we do hope the Committee will allow us to pass other Votes which give rise to no question, in order that we may get through a certain amount of Business.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had been absent from an early hour in the evening until a few minutes ago, and was not aware exactly of what had passed during the whole course of the evening; but, so far as he understood, the Committee had voted something like £4,000,000. He thought that was a considerable Vote to take in the time. With regard to what had been said as to waste of time, it should be remembered that it was the business of the Government to propose these Estimates; but it was likewise the business; of hon. Members to criticize them. There was as much obligation upon Members to criticize these Votes as there was upon the Ministry to propose them; and, so long as the criticism had been conducted in good faith, he saw no reason to think that anyone had done anything but discharge his duty. As for the Secretary of State for War, he had acted, no doubt, as he always did, with the greatest courtesy and readiness to answer, and good temper. Of that, he had the utmost testimony from hon. Gentlemen round about him. No discussion that had taken place had been raised on the part of his hon. Friends but with a desire of discussing the Estimates. It was exactly the sort of discussion that ought to take place in that House. Henceforth, there were going to be
  1124
  genuine debates on the Estimates in that House; and there was not a page or an item in them that would not be discussed. Numbers of hon. Members intended to qualify themselves for fully discussing these Estimates; and would, if necessary, give their whole time, not only during the Session of Parliament, but during the Recess, to this study, in order that, when brought forward, the Estimates might be thoroughly and genuinely discussed.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if the Government prolonged the discussion at that hour of the night, they would be likely to lay themselves open to the charge which hon. Members opposite had resented, he thought somewhat unduly, as coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not think that it would be useful to continue this discussion that night; but he hoped the Committee would consent to the proposal which he would make. They had been two nights discussing one Vote; and he did not think it too much to ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion to report Progress, on condition that the remaining effective Votes were omitted, and they should proceed to take Vote 17 for the non-effective Services. That Vote provided for matters regulated long ago by Warrant, upon which no question could fairly arise. Thus, all questions of policy, which might be open to discussion upon the Votes for the active Services, would be put aside for that night, if the hon. Member would consent to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. PARNELLthought the proposition of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was fair. He had taken a great deal of pains in making himself acquainted with these Estimates, and there was scarcely a single Vote upon which he had not found a good deal of matter for inquiry and discussion. It was not his intention to waste time; and he might say that he had taken the trouble to write down almost every word he had said to the Committee, and the notes that he had prepared were open to the inspection of any impartial person if he chose to look over them, in order that he might say whether he had uttered that evening a single unnecessary word. He must confess that he felt aggrieved by the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by his saying that the time of the Committee had been wasted;

  1125
  but so far as the proposition of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War went, he thought the proposal to take Vote 17 was very fair.
  MR. BIGGARobserved, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he thought he might be justified in saying that neither himself nor any of his Colleagues had found fault with anything the Secretary of State for War had done. He must say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had acted with great courtesy throughout the debate; but he did think they had cause to complain in not being furnished with a copy of the Appropriation Account until last Saturday morning, when the Votes were to be taken on that night. From not having the Appropriation Account until so late, they had been compelled to occupy more time than they would otherwise have done, by reason of the Accounts being new to them. The manner in which those things were managed had given rise to a great deal of opposition; and if the authorities at the War Office would keep their Accounts in a more business-like way, there could be no question that the Business of the country would be much facilitated. Moreover, it would prevent discussions on the Estimates extending to the length which they had done that night. But he should contend most strongly that the course which had been adopted was simply in discharge of the duty of the hon. Members to criticize the Estimates.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (2.) £33,100, Rewards for Distinguished Service, &c.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that this subject was alluded to by the Controller and Auditor General, in paragraphs 34 and 35 of his Report of 1876, as follows:—
  "Appended to this Account will be shown an Explanatory Paper (No.11), showing the receipts and disbursements passed to the general account of Fines for Drunkenness. This fund is appropriated to the granting of gratuities to well-conducted soldiers on their discharge, a sum being annually transferred from it as an Appropriation in Aid of Vote 17, under which the gratuities are estimated for. It is the rule that the amount of gratuities paid must not exceed the available balance of the Fines Fund. The history of the Fund is briefly as follows:—In
  1126
  accordance with the recommendation of the Commission on Courts Martial, appointed by Royal Warrant of 10th March, 1868, power was given by the 77th Article of War, 1869, to commissioned officers to inflict summary fines for drunkenness, which fines it was decided should be formed into a General Fund, and applied, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War, to objects tending to the benefit of the soldiers of the Army generally. The proposed scheme was not immediately carried out; and in the years 1867–8, 1868–9, and 1869–70, the amounts received was paid over to the Exchequer as Extra Receipts. In 1870, however, a Committee was appointed to devise a plan for carrying out the original intentions, and its recommendations being approved by the Treasury, were embodied in Army Circular, 197, of 1870. The Fund having accumulated in 1872 to £45,000, it was thought desirable to extend the system of gratuities, and fresh Regulations for the future having been drawn up, received the approval of the Treasury in January, 1874. Both the original and revised Regulations seem clearly to have referred to the fines received from non-commissioned officers and men of the Regular Army; and the Accounts of the Fund, laid before the House of Commons in the Explanatory Paper referred to, show that up to the financial year under consideration, the Militia fines had been in no way dealt with.
  "35. Owing to the large claims upon the Fund under the extended system of gratuities, the balance of the Army fines, on 31st March, 1877, was found to be insufficient to recoup the Vote the amount which had been expended from it; and to meet the deficiency a sum of £2,135 3s. 2d. has been transferred from the fines received from the Militia. In answer to my inquiries as to whether the approval of the Lords of the Treasury had been obtained for the course adopted, I have been informed that such approval has not been applied for. As I think it is open to considerable doubt whether the War Office were justified in appropriating the Militia fines to the payment of gratuities to the Regular Army, I have brought the subject under notice."
  He also would bring the subject under the notice of the House.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that no doubt there was a good deal of inconvenience in the arrangements of last year, the fact being that gratuities had been given originally upon this Vote. The gratuities had been very much greater than was anticipated; and, instead of being given only to a certain proportion of well-conducted men in the Army, they were given to every soldier who had completed 21 years' service. Therefore, the matter turned out much more expensively than was estimated. It would be seen that the charge was one beyond their control. As the subject was one giving rise to considerable difficulty, a Committee was appointed at a time when he did not occupy his pre-

  1127
  sent position. Certain recommendations were made by that Committee, which were brought to the notice of the Treasury; and the Committee reported on the 31st of March last year. The Committee stated that they had communicated with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury about the 9th of August in the previous year; that the Treasury had no objection to offer with reference to the recommendations of the Committee on the subject. They also said that they were not prepared then to advise any alteration in the Regimental Debts Act, and that the Treasury would require further advice before interfering with that Statute. He believed that was substantially the answer which the hon. Member required.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £98,000, Pay of General Officers.
  MR. BIGGARobserved, that the number of General Officers seemed this year to have increased from 248 to 292. He could not see on what account that could be defended, and should like to know whether these extra officers were really required, otherwise he did not think the Secretary of State for War would be doing his duty unless he reduced the number? It was a scandal that gentlemen who were doing no duty should get their pay and be supplied with money by the public.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, with regard to the question of the hon. Member for Cavan, that he could only tell him that the number of General Officers stated in the Estimates was correct. It was hardly wise or right for the country to expect to receive good service from men, and when they had grown too old to discharge active duty to put them aside. Some of those General Officers received full pay, some half-pay, and some unattached pay; and the number of them had been fixed by the Warrants arising out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £918,100, Retired Full Pay, Half Pay Pensions, and Gratuities, &c.
  MAJOR NOLANdrew the attention of the Secretary of State for War to a matter which arose in connection with the retirement scheme. He had always
  1128
  disapproved of the retirement scheme, and an instance of the inequality with which it worked had recently been brought to his knowledge in connection with the Royal Artillery. The object of the scheme seemed to be to retire lieutenant-colonels as fast as possible, in order not to check promotion. But, as it now worked, it allowed officers, after a certain amount of service—that was to say, lieutenant-colonels—if they had been promoted since the 1st of October, 1877, to retire; but in the case of officers who had been promoted before that date, they were not allowed to retire, even if they wished it. The answer given by the military authorities to that anomaly was that the officer was better off if he did not retire, inasmuch as he had his chance of becoming a full colonel of Artillery, a rank very rarely given. If the object of the scheme were to retire lieutenant-colonels, he did not see why officers promoted before the 1st of October, 1877, should not be retired as well as those promoted after. It was surely a curious system which compulsorily retired junior officers, and did not allow the senior officers to retire even voluntarily. This was a matter which, he thought, the Secretary of State for War might fairly be asked to look into, and see whether he could not remedy it.
  COLONEL STANLEYobserved, that if the hon. and gallant Member had been in his place on Friday, he would have heard a good deal of discussion on this point, and on others connected with the same subject. The result of the discussion was that the House had adopted an Address to Her Majesty, praying for a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of pay, promotion, and condition of the Royal Artillery. He conceived that the matter which the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward would be a very proper subject for that Commission to inquire into.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £121,500, Widows' Pensions, &c.
  (6.) £16,800, Pensions for Wounds.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In-Pensions), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880,"
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that there were some points in connection with this Vote which would require discussion, and also in the next Vote—that for Out-Pensions; and the following Vote for the Militia, Yeomanry, Cavalry, and Volunteers. He should, therefore, move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  COLONEL STANLEYtrusted the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion; and, if there were any questions which he could not then answer, he would be willing to postpone the Vote.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, there were points in this Vote, and in the subsequent Votes, on which he must raise some discussion.
  COLONEL STANLEYthought it both inconvenient to the Government, and everyone else, not to proceed with those Votes at that time. There could be no possible objection to taking these Votes, which the State was bound to provide for. He was willing to pass over the Hospital Vote, and to take those for Out-Pensions, Superannuation, Militia, Yeomanry, Cavalry, and Volunteers.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he must oppose the Vote.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, there was no Notice on the Paper, and he was not aware of any question which could arise on this Vote. It had been passed, year after year, without comment; and the money was spent under a Royal Warrant, administered by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners, in accordance with the regular custom of the Service. He was not aware of any question which would arise on this Vote; and in asking the Committee to pass it, he was only asking them to do what they had done year after year.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he must press his Motion to report Progress. There were points with regard to this Vote which would need a good deal of discussion, and on which he intended to take a Division, as he had told the Secretary of State for War several times. He had shown no disposition that night to prevent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from getting his money Votes; but where they had points for discussion it was not fair to require them to proceed
  1130
  with their arguments at that period of the morning. A very important question was involved in this Vote; and although, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, there was no Notice of it on the Paper, he also knew that no one anticipated that this Vote would be reached, for everyone thought that Vote 23 would not be taken until the previous Votes had been disposed of. This point had been made for the convenience of the Government, in order that they might get through some of their less important Votes without discussing the more important ones. It always had been a rule never to take money Votes after half-past 12; and the present Government, and notoriously the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, always refused money after that hour. When in Opposition, they used all the Forms of the House to prevent Votes from being passed after half-past 12. He thought the Government was acting most unreasonably to press them in this way; and he did not know what they wanted in doing it, or whether their object was to drive him and his Friends into a corner or not.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, this Vote, which they were asked to pass, was for £1,000,000, and it was truly preposterous to pass such a Vote at that hour. The great object in debating these questions was that what they said should, through the reporters in the Gallery, be reported in the morning papers. They knew very well that nothing stated after half-past 12 was reported to the country; and, therefore, the nation remained entirely ignorant of what was done after that hour. He did not raise these questions on the Vote for the General Officers; but he did think it was preposterous, unjustifiable, and utterly unreasonable for the Government to proceed in this claim.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 96: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he found the Government had obtained £5,700,000 that night, and he was astonished at their attempt to take such a Vote at such an hour. There had certainly been a long debate that evening, although he

  1131
  had scarcely joined in it more than five minutes altogether; but then he had always objected to the way in which this sum of nearly £4,600,000 was rushed through Committee. It was a Vote which affected all the great questions of the Army, including pay, and many others, and it ought to take a long time in discussion. This Vote 23 was a great deal over £1,500,000. It was£1,576,000. He was quite aware that only £1,186,000 was charged to this country; but on that Vote they had to discuss their policy as regarded India, and so they must take the whole sum at £1,500,000. He was not going into the subject himself that night; but he would only point out that it would be perfectly right on this Vote to discuss the policy of long service and short service, of pensions, and other matters affecting our Indian Army. He mentioned these points to show the Committee on what they were embarking at 20 minutes past 1; and he thought the Government ought to be contented with the large sum and the very considerable number of Votes they had already got. He begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major Nolan.)
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, technically, there was one Vote—22—for Chelsea and Kilmainham, and that he had offered to postpone. He knew that was a very fair subject for discussion, and that there were a good many matters open to criticism. He hoped nothing he had said would be considered as a complaint of any fair or reasonable criticism as regarded the different Votes; but he did hope the Committee would allow him to take Vote 23, which was for Pensions that would have to be paid as under Warrant very shortly. That was not a Vote which raised any question of policy; and although the Vote was unquestionably large, so were the claims made under it. It was as a matter of convenience that he asked the House to dispose of this Vote.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there was no present urgency for this £1,500,000, for there was nothing of any consequence to be paid until the beginning of the next quarter; and if they got the money before the 1st of April, they would be quite in time for meeting their quarterly
  1132
  engagements. The Government had already got over £5,000,000, which was quite enough; and, after the lecture they had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were not disposed to give any more money. As a general rule, the more they were lectured, the less disposed they would be to submit to it. They stood, upon their Constitutional right, and protested against the encroachments of the Executive upon the legislative functions of the House. It was the set policy of the prime mover and central genius of Her Majesty's Government to turn the House into a mere recording office of the Resolutions of the Ministry; but though he might have educated his Party up to that position, the country was not to be so educated, and if the Motion was brought to a Division, he should certainly support it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his right hon. and gallant Friend had already shown, by the readiness with which he postponed any Votes upon which there was any prospect of discussion, that he was not anxious to stifle the full examination of the Estimates. In proposing, however, to pass the Vote now asked for, he was simply asking for what it would be impossible to raise a discussion upon. If he did not get it, it would be impossible for him to meet the engagements into which the country had entered. The hon. Gentleman said that the money would not be wanted before the 1st of April; but he forgot that engagements had been made for discussions of interest to the House generally, and certainly to the country, for which the Government had been obliged to make provision; and he must remember, also, that there were other Services which also had to be provided for, while the Government were subjected to very severe and not unnatural comments if they took money for one purpose and applied it to another. Yet such a course was almost rendered necessary, if Votes were refused when there was no reason for refusing. If he were to take the comments of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) as throwing light upon the conduct of hon. Members opposite, he should have to modify very materially the remarks he made a little while ago. He did not then attribute any deliberate intention to obstruct the Business by the

  1133
  length of time spent in the conversation of that evening, because there were a great many subjects fairly for discussion. He did think, however, that that discussion was somewhat prolonged; while the last remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan threw a somewhat different light on these proceedings.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, if the Government forced the Committee to transact Business at improper hours, lectures directed to a considerable portion of the House were, at any rate, not calculated to facilitate Business. The Government had no more right to lecture him, a humble Member of the House, than he had to lecture the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had great powers, and, therefore, great responsibilities; and sometimes he was obliged to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his responsibilities, when he seemed a little inclined to forget them. The only argument brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that so many nights were promised beforehand for important discussions; but there was at least another night for the Army Estimates, and that would give plenty of time to discuss these Votes. When the Army Estimates were brought in again, he supposed they would finish these Estimates. He did protest against this frequent reference to the long time spent over a Vote of £4,500,000. That was a heavy Vote, and it must necessarily raise a great number of questions; but he and his Friends had not introduced very many Amendments, and the Government had got their money after all. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not persist in their references as to throwing light upon motives, and so on. That in no way shook the resolution of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House to make a fair and free use of their Parliamentary rights.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, after the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated him that evening, he should deal very differently with the Government in future. He should take Divisions upon points on which he was entitled to take Divisions, and he should not again exercise the forbearance he had exercised that evening. He should use his full rights, and show no forbearance whatever towards the Government.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan), because he explained exactly on what grounds this Vote would be discussed, and ought to be discussed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was acknowledged to be a first-class authority on Army subjects, and it was a very bad course for the right hon. Gentleman to ignore any argument from such a quarter. The right hon. Gentleman was also thoroughly unreasonable in his charges against the Members on that side of the House; and it was perfectly preposterous to say, as he did, that the same argument was urged over and over again. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to get up and make an apology to the different hon. Members who spoke on the Motions that were before the Committee. If the object of the critics of the Votes had been to waste time, they could have wasted an enormous deal of time by taking Divisions. That, however, was not done, and the proposition to report Progress was not made until after 12.30.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that at that hour of the night he did not think he could press the question further, and ask hon. Gentlemen who had supported him so far to sit up any later. Therefore, he would postpone the Vote.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there was no objection to Vote 24. That was the only Vote upon which there was no controversy. [Mr. PARNELL: DO not give them a Vote.] His hon. Friend was unreasonable.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would withdraw this Vote in order to take Vote 24, and then he would report Progress afterwards.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he objected to taking any more money at half-past 1 in the morning, and if the Motions were withdrawn he should move to report Progress.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would consent to report Progress at once.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

MOTIONS.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): I am about to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Liability of Employers for Injuries sustained by their Servants. I am aware it is somewhat late in the evening to address the House at any length on this matter; but as the Bill is a very important one, I must ask the House to give me their attention for a few minutes, while I explain the measure we propose. The liability of employers for negligence occasioned by their servants in the course of their employment is a question which has recently led to a very considerable amount of discussion. It has been said that the law on this subject is a hard law—a law which is exceptionally unjust; that there is an urgent necessity for this Bill; and that the present law is unfair, unequal, and unjust. In order that the House may appreciate and decide whether the existing law is unfair, unequal, and unjust, let me explain, in a very few words, what the law is as it stands to-day. Any master, in regard to those who are not in his employment, and the outside public, if I may use the expression, is liable for his own personal negligence, and for the injuries occasioned by the negligence of his servants, if such negligence is caused in the course of their employment as such servants. With respect to persons in the employ of the master, although masters are liable for any personal negligence of their own, or for personal default of their own, the law does not provide sufficient materials, or sufficient machinery, for punishing the negligence or default of their servants. Although the masters are liable to the persons in their employ, they are not liable for injuries which are occasioned to servants in their employ in consequence of the negligence of those who are their fellow servants. Now, this distinction, so far as I can make out, has this foundation—that when servants enter into the employ of the master they impliedly take upon themselves the risk which arises from negligence of which their fellow-servants may be guilty. It may
    1136
    be said that although this may be the doctrine of Courts of Law, it is not a doctrine which can be justified really and truly, and that no such position in law should be allowed. I must admit that the question is one of very considerable difficulty—I may say, of enormous difficulty. Different minds may take different views on this subject. On the one hand, it is said by the workmen, and by those who direct workmen, and whose counsel workmen follow, that there should be no difference in the law, and that masters should remain liable for injuries occasioned by those in their employ, just in the same way and extent as they are liable to the outside public, or those not in their employ. It is said, in effect, that they should be liable to the utmost extent of their fortune to their servants for any negligence incurred by their negligence, although it might have been committed without their consent and without any authority from them, and may, in fact, have been committed by the servants doing that which the master had expressly and distinctly forbidden. Of course, there is this merit in it—that is to say, that it is a simple proposition, and if carried into effect, it would make the law perfectly equal, and it would remove every possibility of complaint. But it involves a proposition of a very serious nature. Is it just to subject an employer to such a vast additional liability? Let us take a simple illustration. The owner of a mine, or the worker of a mine, who lays down the best rules he can for all who work for him, and takes every precaution which science and ingenuity and skill can suggest to prevent accidents; nevertheless, one of his workmen, in defiance of orders not to go to a part where there may be a dangerous gas with a naked light, does go there—there is an explosion, and it may be that hundreds of men in that miner's employ are either killed or seriously injured. If the mine worker is to be rendered liable to the servants who are injured by this negligence, the consequence would be that he would be utterly ruined, although he is not himself in any way to blame for the explosion. If the law subjects a man to such an enormous responsibility, the result would be to stop mining altogether. Let me put a humbler illustration. A greengrocer has a cart, and has

    1137
    taken care to engage the best servant he can get. This servant takes out goods and goes to a place where they are to be delivered, and in the course of his round is guilty of some negligence by not looking around him, or so on, and drives over some lawyer who is making thousands a-year, or over a Bishop, or somebody else equally important. Is this greengrocer, for no default of his own, to pay such compensation as he may be called upon to pay for such an injury? It is difficult to say that such a liability as this should be placed upon the master. In dealing with such matters we have to consider the consequences, and they would in such a case be that every master would have thrown upon him such an enormous additional liability that he would be unable to compete in the race of life, and the ultimate consequences must be the ruin of the masters, and with the ruin of the masters would be involved the ruin of the workmen, for whose benefit we are now called upon to legislate. Other people take a different view. They say, although the exception to which I have drawn attention renders the master not liable for the negligent acts of the fellow-servant—although the law may not be justifiable on any logical ground; yet to subject the master to liability for the negligent acts of his servant, if done against his will and without his authority, would be essentially unjust. Those who take this view say—"You can easily remedy this, and you can remove the injustice by making the masters only liable for their own negligence and not for the negligence of their servants, and so putting everybody upon the same footing." Each of these different views have prevailed, one Party advocating one alteration of the law, and the other advocating another alteration in an entirely opposite direction. These conflicting views, after being constantly brought before the House and the country, were in June, 1877, referred to a Committee appointed by this House, and to that Committee the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was referred. The Committee took a good deal of evidence, and discussed the matter with a great deal of care, and there was a considerable difference of opinion amongst the Members of that Committee. Ultimately, however, they drew up a Report, which was not acquiesced
    1138
    in by the whole Committee, or by anything like the whole of the Committee; but it was the Report of the majority of the Committee. That most able and learned Report was drawn by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson). That Report has been under the consideration of the Government, who have also considered the subject, both before and since the appointment of the Committee, and they certainly do not agree in the extremest views of either side. They do not think it wise to subject masters to the enormous additional liability which many of the workmen of the country, and those who advised them, ask that they should be subjected to. But, at the same time, the Government cannot take the view that the law should be altered to the extent that some of the masters say it should be altered. The Government do not consider it would be wise to free masters from all liability for the negligence of their servants; and they have come, indeed, to very much the same conclusion as that which has been come to by the Committee in their Report. There are certain cases of incorporated companies where no one, from the very nature of the society or Corporation, can be made liable or responsible for the acts of his fellow-servant. By the very nature of the case the Corporation cannot be made liable. In this case it is thought right, where there is a Corporation of this sort, that those who are in truth the managers of the business of the Corporation, or a distinct department of the business of the Corporation, should be placed in the position of masters and outside the category of fellow-servants. And if any accident or injury should be occasioned by the negligence of one of these persons, those placed outside the category of fellow-servants, and who was in the position of manager or partner in the business, then the Corporation or Company should be liable for that person's negligence, although he may be a fellow-servant. So that, in the case of private concerns, where they are placed under the management of managers, or where part of the business, or important departments of a private concern are placed under a manager, it is fair to consider that the master has delegated to the manager the control and management of that part of the business; and it is

    1139
    fair to consider, as we do, that in such a case the manager shall be considered in regard to the master as his alter ego, and the manager cannot be treated as a fellow-servant. These are the views which the Government entertain, and they accordingly propose to enact that there shall be in some employments specified in the Bill—such as railways—persons intrusted by the Company with the management of the railway or of the traffic-way, or with any particular part of the railway, traffic-way, or any station of the railway, or any work connected with, the railway—that the person so intrusted shall be considered servants in authority. Again, persons in charge of or managing any great concern—such as a particular pit or colliery, whether above ground or under ground—shall be considered servants in authority with regard to manufactories and works. A servant in authority is to be one who is appointed by the master as a manager of a factory, or works, or otherwise, or of any distinct branch, or portion thereof. Then the Bill, in a very simple enactment, declares that in regard to those persons, if they are guilty of negligence in the course of their employment, and that negligence occasions injury to any fellow-servants, the master of the Railway Company or the Mining Company shall be liable. That is the proposition which I have to submit to the House. I do not know whether it is a proposal which will satisfy what, perhaps, I may call, without speaking disrespectfully, a popular clamour. I cannot tell whether it will do so; but I cannot help thinking that the thoughtful part of the community will accept this Bill as imposing upon masters and employers of labour who, after all, are the main source of the prosperity of this country, as great a liability as they ought to be made to bear. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, there were one or two errors in some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General to which he must call attention. The illustration he gave of the humble greengrocer was exactly the law now. If the greengrocer's man upset a Bishop, who, he learned for the first time, was an important individual—he always thought Bishops were exceedingly
    1140

    humble individuals, following in the footsteps of their Master—the greengrocer was liable for the injury done. Again, the hon. and learned Attorney General said that if a heavy responsibility were thrown upon the masters, they would be handicapped in the race of competition; but he was informed that the principle of the Bill, which he himself introduced on behalf of the great bulk of the working people of the country, was exactly the law of France at the present time. The law of Germany, again, was very largely in the same direction. In Belgium, again, as he had ascertained by a personal visit, the law laid down was very much the same as that which he had ventured to suggest as desirable to pass for the benefit of the workmen of this country. Yet those countries were now crying out for protection against British manufactures, and from British industries. Therefore, he had a perfect right to say that the masters could very easily assent to the law asked for. Again, the hon. and learned Attorney General had said that it was the workmen, and those who acted for them, who held these views; but he must remind the House that a very distinguished Judge, who was by no means one of those who agitated the working people of the country—Lord Justice Brett—gave it as his opinion that the law, as it now stood, could not be supported. Several other legal gentlemen came before the Committee, and gave an opinion equally strong in regard to the matter. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) said, quoting a case that had happened in Massachusetts, that the workmen entered upon these risks knowing, as well as anybody else, what they were. He could only say that the illustration used was one of the most feeble, and, if he might say so, one of the most foolish, that possibly could be uttered by any man. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that such a law as he advocated would throw a terrible responsibility upon the employers; but he must know well that this was the law of Scotland up to the year 1857; and yet that was the period when Scotch manufactures increased more largely than at any other period. He thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for having presented this modicum of what was

    1141
    wanted, because he knew full well that by-and-bye they were bound to have more. In the case of the Factory Acts, after dealing with the question in a general way, the Home Secretary at last took them well in hand, and settled them in a manner which thoroughly met the wants of the people of the country. He felt perfectly satisfied that the question between capital and labour would also be finally settled in a similarly satisfactory way. He would strongly recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to take a little more thought on the subject, and to bring in a Bill with the strong hand which characterized the Secretary of State for the Home Department in dealing with the Factory Acts. He asked him to do this, because he felt convinced the present Bill would only disturb the question, and would not settle it; and, therefore, he wanted to see the question grappled and finally dealt with at once and done with. He should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman when the Bill would be printed and brought in for the second reading, because he might rest assured that it would not pass in its present form.
    MR. COURTNEYwished to ask two questions by way of explanation. In the first place, was it proposed to make the responsibility of the superior master for the act of a servant in authority unlimited? And next, did the responsibility of the person placed in authority extend to all persons in the same employ, or only to the particular class under him? For example a stationmaster might be guilty of negligence which would expose not only the persons in the station to accident, but guards, or even a director or secretary travelling along the line. Was the responsibility of the Railway Company to extend upwards and laterally as well as downwards?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,said, although the hon. and learned Attorney General spoke in so hesitating a tone in the early part of his speech, when he came to describe the details of his Bill, it appeared to him to go somewhat beyond the recommendations of the Committee. If it were so, he was glad to find the Government were moving in the right direction. However, this was a matter which required very careful consideration, and only with the Bill before
    1142
    them could they understand perfectly the details of the explanation which they had just heard. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain the points raised by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Courtney), because it was a matter which came under the consideration of the Committee; but the Committee did not, in that case, think the Corporation ought to be liable for the acts of the stationmaster. If, however, the hon. and learned Attorney General contemplated including such a case, he would include also many other similar cases, and go much further towards settling the question than his speech at the commencement would have led them to suppose. He believed also that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite accurate in his explanation of the law. He was, of course, scarcely prepared to dispute such a question with him; but he certainly thought that in the circumstances stated, the greengrocer would under the present law be responsible.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, he had hoped that the question would have been considered from another point of view, and that was, whether the law affecting the liability of masters not only to servants but to the general public did not require amendment. The great difficulty the Select Committee felt, and the difficulty which he suspected the Government and the House would feel, was that which resulted from the apparent anomaly which at present existed. They had a master responsible to third persons, and yet not responsible to his own servant; therefore, the servant who said this was a hardship upon him had a primâ facia case; but the question to be determined was whether the general law was right—whether the exception was to be advocated or the law condemned? He had always entertained a very strong opinion that the true juridical principle was to make everybody responsible for what he himself was actually to blame for, and for nothing else. He wished the Government had boldly grappled with the law, and put it, as it affected everybody, on a firm and satisfactory footing. Had it been on such a footing the question as to common employment and the relation of master and servant would never have arisen. As, however, they had shrunk from doing that, he saw little to complain of in the Bill as announced. It went

    1143
    somewhat further than the recommendations of the Committee, which simply were that no workman should ever be without a master for whose negligence he could obtain redress. At present, there were many workmen who served Corporations and persons who took no personal part in their work, and that was a state of things which the Committee thought ought not to continue and were willing to see redressed. His hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) looked upon the Bill as a modicum, and as a concession to the principle which he (Sir Henry Jackson) himself had never seen any basis for. If the principle of taking everybody out of the category of common employment was found in the Bill when they came to discuss it, he should certainly oppose the second reading, because it was a principle which he conscientiously believed to be a very bad one.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, in using the illustration of the greengrocer, his simple object was to show how heavy the present law was in some cases. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) whether the liability for the neglectful act of a servant in authority was unlimited, the Government did propose that it should be unlimited, and it would be extended to any servants of the master. In the case of a railway, supposing some servant to be guilty of negligence and some other servant of the railway, belonging to no matter what branch of the employment, and no matter what his rank, were injured, the Company would be liable. The Bill would be printed at once. It was impossible to say when the second reading would be taken, but it should be taken without delay.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend the Law relating to the Liability of Employers for injuries sustained by their Servants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 103.]

    LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (BISPHAM, &c.) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," relating to Bispham, Carleton, and Thornton Improvements, situated
    1144
    in the parishes of Bispham and Poulton, in the county of Lancaster, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    "Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 104.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.