§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £758,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Work, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to point out that while certain works in connection with the battery at Dover Pier had been estimated at £111,310, £136,210 had already been granted. Would the right hon. Gentleman give him an explanation of the excess?
§ MR. CHILDERSexplained, that in general terms the excess was due to the great storm at Dover a year or two ago.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was a just ground of complaint that a very much larger sum was spent on fortifications in England and Scotland than in Ireland. He did not say that money should be spent simply for the sake of spending it; but he thought the amounts should be apportioned more equally. A very large sum was spent in protecting English seaports, and it was only reasonable that similar consideration should be shown for the Irish seaports. For that reason he should move to reduce the Vote by £50,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £738,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Re-
1029
pairs, at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, a very large sum had been spent on the fortification of Irish ports, and he did not think the amount had been inadequate.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, there was an enormous sum of money scattered over the English coast, and if money was to be thrown away, he did not see why Ireland should not have a share of it. He should not consider that an argument for giving money to Ireland; but it was an argument for curtailing expenses in England.
§ MR. CHILDERSreplied, that Ireland should get its share of any money that was thrown away; but he did not intend to throw away any money. This Vote was merely for finishing off works which, were nearly completed.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £164,100, Military Education.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to know how the examination of Militia officers had answered? He also observed that fewer commissions were now given both to those who passed through Sandhurst and also to those who entered through the Militia. One of the most difficult things the Secretary of State for War had to decide was whether the examinations were a fair and reasonable test of candidates' capabilities for the Service. He had known many men who had passed extraordinary examinations, and had got commissions, and were certainly not first-class officers, while many others who had not passed would have made far better officers. In that way many men who would have made first-class soldiers had failed to obtain commissions.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet on the last point, for what he had to do was to see that the examination was the best possible test, not merely of literary powers, but of fitness for the Service; but that was a most difficult matter. He had not been able to go thoroughly into the matter yet; and all he had been able to do was to lay down certain questions to be put, and to throw out suggestions, such as that about modern languages, in regard to which he had laid Papers on 1030 the Table. He hoped, however, during the autumn and winter, to go thoroughly into the question of the best examination both for the Line and the Militia; and he would rather not speak more definitely now, because it was a very large question. With regard to officers passing from the Line to the Militia, his own impression was that the present system was within limits not unsatisfactory.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman intended to consider the examination question, and hoped he would also consider the doing away with such requirements as poetry. He knew of many young gentlemen eminently qualified for the Army, who had been rejected because they were not strong in the Faerie Queen and other poems. He wished to know whether there was to be any further change with regard to the number of candidates for commissions?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, there would not be any reduction in the number beyond the extent already notified.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERinquired whether candidates for commissions in the Infantry received any instruction in the use of the sword, in single-stick, and fencing? That was a most important matter, for our officers generally were the worst swordsmen in Europe. Scarcely one of them knew how to use his sword. The men were the worst shots, and the officers were the worst swordsmen; and he did not know how they could be otherwise when they received no instruction.
§ MR. CHILDERSobserved, that when he was at school fencing and single-stick and drill were commonly taught to boys of his own rank of life; but he was afraid that no progress in this direction had been made lately. He should like to see this instruction more common, and he would make a note of the matter.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERthought the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) should not go uncontradicted. Having been in the Army himself, and having constantly engaged in single-stick exercise, he was able to contradict that statement so far as a great number of the officers were concerned; but he thought riding and swimming ought to be more generally required.
§ MR. ARTHTUR O'CONNORmentioned that this Vote included the Royal Military Academy and the Staff College, and drew attention to the fact that in the former metaphysics were taught, and in the latter French, drawing, fortifications, mathematics, and half-a-dozen other subjects; but there did not appear to be any instruction in military administration. If they compared what was done at the British Staff College with what was done in the German Army, or in the Military Schools of France, they would see that there was a good deal that was entirely left out in the programme of this country. The science of military administration was absolutely neglected, so far as the appointment of a Professor was concerned.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was a Professor of Military Administration at the Staff College. There was none at Woolwich or Sandhurst. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the question of military administration was of considerable importance.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it would be possible to obtain a programme of the studies showing the curriculum for particular years at the Staff College?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no objection to show the hon. Member the Report on the College if he wished to see it.
§ MR. BYRNEwished to say a few words in regard to the manner in which the Royal Hibernian Academy was conducted. He thought that some of the officers of the School were overpaid, while the pay of others was not fairly or properly adjusted. In the first place, he found that the Commandant had altogether failed to give satisfaction either to the people of Ireland or to Her Majesty's Government. Questions had been asked in the House of Commons in reference to that gentleman; and he thought he was correct in saying that the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were not only not satisfactory to the House, but that they were not satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman himself. He believed the reason was that the right hon. Gentleman had not as much or as complete control over the Institution as he would like. The conduct of the Commandant in connection with the discipline of the School had 1032 several times been called in question; not that the officer in question was not a good commandant or a good governor, but because his treatment of the children was alleged to have been very brutal indeed. In some instances he had had the children stripped from head to foot, and flogged with some instrument he had brought from abroad. In one case, this species—this inhuman instrument—of torture was stolen by the Commandant's daughter, in order to prevent it from being used. The Commandant, however, charged the boys with stealing it, and beat them with such barbarity that the daughter, in order to save the boys, had to confess that she had taken it away. He believed that the Commandant had failed to give satisfaction to anyone in Ireland, and his conduct ought not to be passed over by Parliament. He received half-pay and 9s. 6d. a-day, and for such an amount of remuneration they ought to be able to secure the services of a humane officer who had not lost all his humanity, and who would render proper services. The Commandant also received half-pay as an Adjutant; and he (Mr. Byrne) was of opinion that the multiplication of offices in this way in the same individual was unsatisfactory. Then, again, he found, in reference to the chaplains, that while the Protestant chaplain received £200 a-year, the Roman Catholic chaplain only got £150, and the Presbyterian £60. He thought that such a disproportion was highly improper. He would venture to say that the number of Protestant children was not larger than that of the Roman Catholic children; and, at any rate, so long as they employed chaplains of different denominations, they ought to provide that their remuneration was the same. All the chaplains who administered to the spiritual wants of the children ought to be equally paid, and a sum of £60 a-year to the Presbyterian chaplain was certainly not sufficient to pay him for his time and trouble. If there was a sufficient number of children to require the attendance of a Protestant chaplain, the Government should provide that the chaplain was remunerated at the same rate as the Protestant chaplain—£200 a-year. Having regard to the want of humanity displayed by the Commandant, and the unsatisfactory manner in which that officer performed his 1033 duties, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £216 18s. 8d.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £163,883 1s. 4d., be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary" to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for Military Education."—(Mr. Byrne.)
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member in some of the remarks he had made as to the different rate of remuneration awarded to the chaplains of different denominations; and he had already stated, in reply to an hon. and gallant Member opposite, that, in regard to responsibility for these appointments, he thought a better arrangement might be made than that which now existed. But, at the same time, it was not possible to dispose of such a matter as the government of Kilmainham School at a moment's notice; and he could not undertake to say, on the spur of the moment, that he should be prepared to make an entire revision of the arrangements under which the Institution referred to was conducted. Passing from the general principle to the particular case the hon. Gentleman referred to, he believed that the state of the discipline of the Royal Hibernian School was not considered satisfactory by the military authorities last year; and Sir Thomas Steele, who was Vice-Chairman of the Governors, had in November appointed a Committee of Governors, presided over by that most admirable public servant, Sir Patrick Keenan, to examine into the state of the School, with reference particularly to the discipline administered by the Commandant. He had received their Report in the course of the spring, and, after careful consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it was not satisfactory—in fact, that it disclosed circumstances which were most unsatisfactory. It was accordingly sent back to the whole body of Governors for their consideration with reference to the facts disclosed in it. The Governors took great pains in going thoroughly into the whole question contained in the Report, and the end of the matter was that they—including the members of the Committee who made the first inquiry—unanimously reported that, although, in some respects, the Commandant had not been successful in carrying out the discipline 1034 of the School, yet, on the whole, he had made great improvement in the state of things which existed before he became Commandant. The Governors, therefore, recommended that he should be retained as Commandant until they had further experience of his efficiency. That was the unanimous recommendation of the whole body of Governors, including the three gentlemen who made the original inquiry. Upon that recommendation he (Mr. Childers) had felt it his duty to act, and the Commandant had been provisionally continued in his office. He (Mr. Childers) had taken very great pains in the matter, having read the whole of the Report and Evidence, and he had not come to this conclusion without being supported by those who generally advised him in such matters. He therefore hoped, under the circumstances, that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) would not press his Motion for the rejection of this item. If, after further experience, the conduct of the Governor was still found to be unsatisfactory, he would be removed. In regard to the emoluments of this officer, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken. As a rule, the gentlemen selected for these appointments were not old officers who had been retired; but they were paid in the same way as officers in the Army holding Staff appointments. As to the chaplains, the hon. Member stated that the Protestant chaplain received £200, and the Roman Catholic chaplain £150 a-year. The salary of the Protestant chaplain was originally £231, and it was now, in the present year, £200. The Government considered that that was a very fair salary, having regard to the duties performed. He believed, but he was not quite sure, that the Presbyterian chaplain was a gentleman who was engaged in the performance of other duties, and that the number of boys under his charge was very few.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, he was much obliged for the courteous and full explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future he would make himself responsible for watching the conduct of the Commandant, and seeing that he did not commit any of the barbarous acts he had been charged with persistently committing. After the explanation of the right hon. Gentle- 1035 man, he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. OTWAYthought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) could take no other course than that which he had taken, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. But, at the same time, he wished that his right hon. Friend had been able to say a little more. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should insist on the entire abolition of punishments of this kind. It was a mistake to suppose that the boys of a British soldier could not be managed as other boys were. Nor was this sort of punishment given in all cases to English boys. They had, side by side, two Schools, in which the system pursued was entirely different. In one of them—and the boys educated in it were not inferior to those of any other school—no boy was allowed to be struck by anybody. The instruction given to a Sandhurst boy was that if he was ever struck he was to strike again, and no sergeant dare lay a hand upon him. It was absurd to tell the House that an English boy could not be managed without the use of the stick. He, therefore, hoped that his right hon. Friend would go a little beyond the statement he had made, and would see that in future the education in the Military Schools was conducted without corporal punishment, so that a stop might be put to this barbarous system of flogging.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the general use of corporal punishment in the School was the special subject of complaint.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, he had never in the past, and would never in the future, make a statement which he did not believe to be entirely capable of proof. If the right hon. Gentleman would direct an inquiry to be made, he would undertake on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) to bring evidence forward in substantiation of all the charges which had been made, and to show the brutal conduct of this gentleman.
§ MR. CHILDERSstated that the case had already been thoroughly investigated, and the result was the censure upon the Commandant, which he had already explained.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that there was something which 1036 sank deeper into the mind of a boy than a blow, and that was words of opprobrium and insult. There was no doubt that in this case the Commandant had flagrantly offended, and the accusations against him had been repeated in every quarter of Ireland, until an amount of feeling had been excited against him which it was impossible to over-estimate.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if any further serious complaint of the kind was made, and it could be proved, he could only say that the Commandant would not be allowed to retain his position.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, if he could explain the reason why the expenditure on this Vote for 1879–80 was nearly double the amount of the expenditure in the three preceding years? In 1878, it was £27,000; in 1879, £28,000; and in 1880, £23,000; and they were now asked to vote more than £40,000.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had not got with him an account of the expenditure for the last two or three years; but the increase this year had reference to services in South Africa.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, there was a sum of £5,000 for extra batta, which had nothing whatever to do with the war.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to take up as little of the time of the Committee as he possibly could; but having last night given a silent vote when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) moved the reduction of the Vote, he did not wish to repeat that step upon the present Vote. At the same time, he had no desire to do more than satisfy his own conscience; and he would, therefore, content himself by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £6,360, as a protest again the Contagious Diseases Acts.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £33,740, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will
1037
come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must oppose the reduction of the Vote; and in regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), said he had ascertained that the reason for the increase of the Vote was as he had stated—namely, that there had been a large expenditure in connection with the war in South Africa.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 53: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 355.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (4.) £222,200, Administration of the Army.
§ (5.) £34,000, Rewards, &c.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in regard to colonels who were retired when in receipt of distinguished Service pay. Would they be allowed to retain that pay? He had also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other day that a colonel who was retired, and who had a prospective claim to a regiment, would receive the actuarial calculation of his chance of obtaining such regiment.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would answer the hon. and gallant Member on a later Vote.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £129,700, Half Pay.
§ (7.) £1,054,700, Retired Pay.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought he would now be in Order in raising the important question he had referred to a few moments previously. It was a question in which a large number of officers were interested, and many of them were looking forward with anxiety for the statement which the right hon. Gentleman might make as to the amount it was intended to award, and the way in which the New Warrant was to be carried out. He would first take the case of the colonels; and he wished to know whether the case of those who had a claim to become prospective colonels of regiments would be taken 1038 into consideration? Would an actuarial calculation be made as to the sum they would in that case have become entitled to? The next question he wished to put had reference to the case of generals who were compulsorily retired, not on account of age, but on account of not having been employed for five years. He knew of one or two instances in which generals so retired were quite young men, and they found themselves mulcted of £10 per annum for every year they were under 62 years of age, so long as the amount did not exceed £100 in the whole. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would consider the point with the view of providing that when such officers reached 62 years of age they should receive the same amount as if they had been retired at that age—namely, £700 per annum. Many of these officers, as the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, would be rather hardly dealt with under the New Warrant. They would be hardly dealt with in this way—that, being young, they had not been employed as they might have been, older officers having been selected in preference to them, simply because they were older officers. Therefore, some consideration ought to be given to their case. Then there was the case of officers who were retired at the age of 70 by the Warrant which was passed in 1877. There were not many of them—he believed not more than 12—but the officers who had been so retired had been looking forward with hope to the arrival of the time when they might get regiments. But regiments were scarce, and they had been retired on an allowance of only £450 a-year. Those who were fortunate enough to obtain a distinguished service pension had £100 a-year extra, or a pension of £550 a-year; but there were generals who had only £450. And he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fairness to these men, he did not think the case was one which ought to receive serious consideration? He knew one officer who, after 50 years' service had been compulsorily retired on £450 a-year, with a distinguished service allowance in addition of £100 a-year. And this officer had always been on full pay, and repeatedly on active service. Where there was the prospective chance of obtaining a regiment, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to 1039 consider whether some allowance should not be given beyond the compulsorily retired pay of £450 a-year. Some of the more fortunate brethren of these officers, retired now under the New Warrant, would receive £700 per annum.
§ MR. CHILDERSMy hon. and gallant Friend has stated the two cases quite clearly. In the first case, that of the senior colonels whose case is specially provided for by the Warrant of 1877, but who will not be promoted under this New Warrant, they will be allowed such a rate of retired pay as will represent the full actuarial value of their prospect to obtain an honorary colonelcy of a regiment. Each case will be referred for calculation to the Purchase Commission. Therefore, I answer that question in the affirmative. The second question which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked me has reference to the case of general officers who have retired at less than the fixed age of retirement under the clause which relates to non-service, and who have a certain deduction made from the amount of their fixed retired pay. He asks me if it is true that since that scheme was laid down we propose that they may receive the full amount of retired pay when they reach the maximum age? Yes, Sir, we have determined that that shall be so, and I believe that the change will remove a great deal of heartburning on the part of general officers subject to retirement. Thus, major-generals will get their full rate of retired pay when they reach the age of 62. I believe that that is a fair and equitable arrangement. The third question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend is this, whether an officer retired under the Warrant of 1877, and who receives the present rates of unattached pay, will have a prospective chance of the value of a regiment? Certainly; he will have not only the prospect, but the £1,000 a-year in his turn, precisely as now. But I could not go back as to such officers and give them the choice of the new rates of retirement.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not think that his right hon. Friend had quite understood the question. What he had put was the case of those who chose to accept the scheme of retirement; and he had simply asked whether they would have any chance of getting an actuarial calculation of their pros- 1040 pects of getting a regiment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point, and by allowing them an actuarial calculation give them a chance of getting the £1,000 a-year, or such addition to their pay as such a calculation would entitle them to.
§ MR. CHILDERSI am not sure that I quite understood the exact proposal, but I will consider it.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that some time ago he had asked a question as to the pensions of officers who had been placed on half-pay. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that, legally speaking, the officer was not entitled to a pension. He wished to know whether the Government would reserve to themselves the right of conferring upon these officers the rights they were entitled to if they had not been placed on half-pay?
§ MR. CHILDERSThe case has been most carefully considered, and, as I have already stated, it was treated in a purely judicial manner.
§ MR. BIGGARexpressed a hope that no reflection was cast upon the half-pay officers of their having displayed any want of zeal in the Service.
§ MR. CHILDERSCertainly; I did not look upon the question in that light. I did not understand that anything underlay the bare fact that they had been placed on half-pay.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £124,200, Widows' Pensions.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERasked whether the widow of a quartermaster who died with the rank of a captain would receive the pension of a captain's widow, and whether the widow of a quartermaster who died with the rank of a major would receive the pension of a major's widow?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the widow of a quartermaster who held the rank of a major while serving would receive the pension of a major's widow.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that it was an important point, and many officers were anxious about it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a definite answer before the close of the Session.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would make inquiry, and take an opportunity of answering the question on the Report.
§ Vote agreed to.
1041§ (9.) £17,000, Pensions for Wounds.
§ (10.) £33,900, Chelsea, &c. Hospitals.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was now able to answer the question which had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander). In the case of a quartermaster, riding-master, &c, the pension of the widow would be according to the relative rank of the officer while serving.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that upon the present Vote for Hospitals the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), two years ago, drew the attention of the Committee and of the then Secretary of State for War to the disparity between the remuneration paid to the Roman Catholic chaplain of the Chelsea Hospital and that paid to the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham. In the first case the salary was £400 a-year, the principal inmates being Protestants, the Catholic chaplain only receiving a 16th part of that sum; but in the case of Kilmainham, where the great proportion of the inmates were Catholics, the Catholic clergyman only received £60 a-year, as compared with £400, notwithstanding the fact that the Catholic inmates of the latter hospital were four times as many as those which the chaplain of the majority had to deal with in the Chelsea Hospital. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had promised to make an inquiry as to the number of Catholics and Protestants in the two Institutions, and to see whether in future some arrangement might not be carried out by which something like an equitable proportion should be maintained between the salary and the number of inmates attended religiously.
§ MR. CHILDERSThe stipend of the Roman Catholic chaplain in Chelsea Hospital was brought under my notice, and the allowance has lately been increased. Some questions were raised at the same time as to the facilities for attending Mass, especially in the case of children; and I believe the requests that were made have been acceded to. We are endeavouring, as far as possible, to act impartially towards the chaplains of different religious creeds.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORstated that a representation was made to the War Office some time ago as to the inadequacy of the allowance made, not to 1042 the priest personally, but on account of the fact that the priest was compelled to keep a curate owing to the existence of the hospital in his parish. If it were not for the existence of the hospital in the parish a single priest would be sufficient to perform all the duties; but because the hospital did exist there, the duty was imposed upon the authorities of the Catholic Church of seeing that the Chelsea priest had a curate. He thought it was hard upon the Catholics of London that they should be saddled with the extra expense of providing a curate for a particular parish to do work for which the small remuneration of only £25 a-year was allowed by the State. [Mr. CHILDERS: The allowance has been increased.] That was not all. His main objection to this Vote was that while in London, where the majority of the inmates of the hospital belonged to the Established Church, the Protestant chaplain was allowed £400 a-year, and the chaplain of the minority only £25, in Ireland, in a similar hospital, where the majority of the inmates were Roman Catholics and the minority Protestants, the chaplain of the minority got four times as much as the chaplain of the majority. That was considered in Ireland to be a great grievance. The mere amount of money was not of very much consequence; but it was the feeling of religious ascendency which was involved, and which, until every trace of it was removed, would continue to work like a canker in the minds of the Irish people.
§ MR. CHILDERSThe present allowance to the chaplain at the hospital has been £250 per annum, but it is intended to reduce it. The allowance has only been provisional. The question of appointing chaplains to attend small numbers of men where a regular military chaplain is not necessary has always been one of considerable difficulty. This very day, it so happened that I had before me the question of chaplains in the Mauritius, where very few men required the attendance of clergymen, and I have been careful not to disturb vested interests, which happen here to be Roman Catholic. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the whole matter will be fully and fairly considered.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was the last man in that House to allow his own religious views to affect the distri- 1043 bution of the allowances of the State. He hoped, when the opportunity served, that the right hon. Gentleman would revise the present scale of allowances and render them more equitable. It was manifestly unjust that a Protestant chaplain should receive a larger rate of remuneration than a Roman Catholic chaplain, when the latter was attending to the spiritual wants of a much larger number of persons.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that where allowances were made to ministers, not regular Army chaplains, the rates were the same for all denominations.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (11.) £1,386,500, Out-Pensions.
§ (12.) £202,200, Army Superannuation Allowances.
§ (13.) £37,400, Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the people of Ireland considered it very unreasonable that a sum of money should be annually voted for a Volunteer corps in England and none in Ireland. Some hon. Members were decidedly of opinion that there ought to be a Volunteer force in Ireland. At the same time, in the absence of such a force, it was a substantial injustice that the Irish people should be called on to bear a large proportion of the taxation for Volunteers. He did not see why a grant of this nature should be given to Volunteers in England when there was no corresponding force existing in Ireland. Then, in regard to the Yeomanry Cavalry, he thought they were all agreed that the money voted for that service was not required. The Yeomanry Cavalry were mostly farmers, who met together once a year for some seven days' drill. They were not soldiers at all, and would never make soldiers. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote, unless he received a satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Vote was for pensions, not for services rendered by existing officers and men, and he trusted the hon. Member would not move the rejection of any part of it. A farmer, or even a provision merchant, might be a useful member of a Yeomanry corps.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he could only look upon the member of a Yeomanry Cavalry corps as a tailor on horseback. Most of them when out for drill got thrown from their horses. But, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, these persons were not responsible for the weakness of their organization, and therefore he would not divide against the Vote.
§ MR. BYRNEwished to ask a question in regard to the Militia in Ireland. He understood that it was owing to the Militia not having been called out—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I must remind the hon. Member that this Vote is simply for pensions for the Militia, and has nothing to do with the organization of that force.
§ MR. BIGGARasked if no question could be put in regard to the Militia?
THE CHAIRMANIt would not be regular upon this Vote; but if it were only a simple question, not likely to lead to discussion, perhaps the Committee would allow it to be put.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, he was desirous of asking the question, because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had hitherto been so courteous in giving information, and it might prevent the question being asked at another period. The Militia in Ireland had not been called out this year, and the consequence had been that a number of gentlemen had been deprived of the opportunity of serving for a sufficient period to qualify themselves for becoming officers of the Line. He wished to know whether any steps would be taken to place them in the same position they would have occupied if the Militia in Ireland had been called out this year, and whether provision would be made that they would not suffer?
§ MR. CHILDERSI have done my best to meet the case referred to by the hon. Member. In some instances the officers have been excused from undergoing the full period of training, and in other instances they have been allowed to train with other regiments, so that practically we have met the case.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ MR. CHILDERSI propose now to take two items in the Supplementary Vote which I explained last night, and which has reference to the expenditure in South Africa to the end of the year.
§ (14.) £1,100,000, Army (Indian Home Charges).
§ (15.) £30,000, Supplementary Estimate, Pay, Allowances, &c.
§ (16.) £290,000, Supplementary Estimate, Provisions, &c.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether this was a liberal Estimate, and would cover the whole of the expenditure to the close of the year? He also wished to know what number of troops it was proposed to withdraw from South Africa on the 1st of November, or about that time?
§ MR. CHILDERSThe Estimate is framed—I do not know whether "liberally "is the right word—on such accurate information as the Department can obtain; but, of course, these things are often merely conjectural. I am not quite sure that I can state at present the number of troops that will come home.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote, or to oppose it in any way; but this was the last opportunity he would have this Session of protesting against the manner in which Vote 10 of the Army Estimates had been passed this year—absolutely without any discussion at all upon the merits of the items which went to make it up. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning in an attenuated House, when not more than five Members were conscious that it involved the voting of millions of money. He had strongly protested, in general terms, against the propriety of introducing such a Vote on such a miscellaneous collection of subjects at such an hour and in such a state of the House. The money was at last voted, but without anything in the nature of criticism of the component parts of the Vote. The services which the Vote covered were never properly canvassed this year any more than they had been in previous years. He mentioned the matter only for the purpose of entering a further protest against the system upon which the Estimates were voted.
§ MR. CHILDERSI regret that there was not a full discussion; but the circumstances of the present year have been such that I hope some allowance will be made.
§ Vote agreed to