SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 17 April 1882 vol 268 cc802-67

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,966,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883.

SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAY

said, he thought those interested in the Refreshment Department of the Army Estimates would be pleased at the manner in which the charges were presented on this occasion, inasmuch as the absolute expenditure on the Services was shown. The probability was that some economy would result from the new system which had been adopted. As he understood it, the extra receipts which had hitherto been handed back to the Exchequer, and there, so far as the Army was concerned, lost sight of, would now be available, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), for promoting such minor changes as did not, perhaps, form part of the Estimates, and which could not be effected were it not for economies brought about. It had often struck him that the officers of our Army had not those inducements to study economy which it was very desirable they should have; and this was probably due, in a great measure, to the system which bad been in vogue. Hitherto, the result of economies effected had been handed back to the Exchequer; therefore, military men had had no particular interest in studying economy; but, under the present system, if general officers commanding districts were enabled to effect certain economies in those districts, he hoped that, under the direction of the Secretary of State for War, they would be able to lay out certain sums which they had never had the opportunity of laying out before, and the non-application of which had been, in the past, a great disadvantage to the Army. He trusted they might now look forward to the period when the Army was passing out of that transition state in which it had been for so long. They might say that for the past 12 years the Army had been in the hands of the reformer. Mr. Cardwell first brought forward many changes which, as was well enough known, were not received with much favour on that (the Opposition) side of the House; but following Mr. Cardwell came Mr. Hardy—the present Lord Cranbrook—who stated, in the first speech he delivered as Secretary of State for War, that at that period he was not able to say that he would reverse the policy of his Predecessor; and, on further consideration, he announced that it was not his intention to do so. Since that three Secretaries of State had had charge of the War Office; and he could say, without fear of contradiction, that in no case had there been anything like what they might call a serious reversal of policy. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) followed after Mr. Hardy; and he, impressed with the belief that continuity of work in carrying out the system was of the utmost importance—although, no doubt, he might have thought that many things might with advantage have been done in a different way—went on in the spirit of his Predecessors with many changes, improving here and there; but still moving in the one direction. Without pretending to go through all the improvements his right hon. Friend introduced, he must allude to one very advantageous reform which the right hon. Gentleman effected in the Pay Department. This had been a matter of great difficulty. They remembered that atone time it was thought that the officers of the Army, capable as they no doubt were to lead our soldiers, were not sufficiently instructed in such matters to be able to deal satisfactorily with accounts; but the right hon. Gentleman took a different view, and persevered in that view, and carried out a considerable change in the Department, which change he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) hoped to hear from the Secretary of State for War was working well. For his own part, he believed it was working remarkably well. He was assured that competent officers now had charge of the Pay Department, and were performing their duties to the satisfaction of all classes. Another reform which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire carried out, and which the House must remember hearing a great deal about, for it took considerable interest in it at the time, was connected with the Medical Department. The subject was one of great difficulty, and at that time, when these difficulties were before them, it was almost impossible to find medical men to enter the Army, so unpopular had the Service become. Now, however, in consequence of the useful reforms carried out by the right hon. Gentleman, medical gentlemen readily entered the Army, and were anxious to compete at the very difficult examinations through which Army medical officers had to pass. These were two points on which great improvement had been effected by his right hon. Friend. He would allude to another proposal, or rather scheme, which was formulated at the War Office by the right hon. Gentleman; and he must say that the right hon. Gentleman had considerable cause to regret being obliged to leave the War Office when he did, as he had at the time in hand some improvements which, if they had been carried out, would have redounded to the credit of the Administration. The right hon. Gentleman formulated the scheme which had subsequently been carried out by the present Secretary of State for War; and it must be a consolation to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire to see the plan which he and those who worked with him so carefully matured carried out so fairly and loyally by his Successor. It seemed to him (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) that perhaps the most important point which was raised by the pre- sent Secretary of State for War, in the speech which he delivered just previous to the Easter Recess, was that which related to the formation of a First Army Corps. They were in the habit in that House of referring to the opinion of the intelligent foreigner; but he would not go beyond quoting the opinion of the intelligent Englishman. His opinion was this—not, perhaps, always expressed, for they did not very often find Englishmen taking an active interest in the Army, believing, as they did, that everything was going on smoothly—but when the opinion of the intelligent Englishman was expressed, it was this—that for the large sum which was annually spent on our Army, we ought to have one fit to take the field at a week's notice, without disarranging and dislocating the whole of our Home system. The right hon. Gentleman, in coming to the War Office, had observed how essential it was that we should have an Army of this kind, and had set himself the task of giving it to us. He had, apparently, advanced a considerable distance in the direction of affording us such an Army, surmounting all the difficulties and obstacles which stood in his way. Now, what appeared to him (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) to be one of these difficulties, and perhaps the chief difficulty, in the way of having a complete scheme by which we could send the troops forward without dislocation, was that we had not a sufficient number of men; 10,000 more men were required. He did not, on this occasion, venture to recommend such a large addition as that, or any addition at all; but he wished to point out that if we had for our Home Army 71 battalions and a fixed number of men—without taking the depôts into consideration, 42,000 men—if the men were divided equally amongst the battalions, the result was that when they were ordered on service not one of them was fit to take the field. The result was that immediately a battalion was ordered on service it had to be made up to its full strength, and the method that had naturally suggested itself of doing that was by volunteering. As to the system of volunteering, it had fallen greatly into discredit. He did not altogether disagree with its use; but it was objected to, and the main objection taken to it was this. Supposing volunteers were called for, they were furnished from some other regiment, and that regiment in turn became weakened, and probably, a little later, that regiment itself was ordered on service, then they might have these two regiments serving together, the result being that because men from the first had gone into the second the officers of the first were well acquainted with the men of the second, as they had served with them, but were not acquainted with the men of their own regiment. But, for his own part, he thought there were great advantages in volunteering, and he trusted it would not be altogether dropped, because they could fairly use it as a proper mode of strengthening their companies, and they might take it for granted that it was not unpopular. Twenty shillings was about the sum that represented the objection which a lad had to changing his battalion. For that small sum of 20s. a soldier was generally perfectly ready to go into another battalion. Now, this necessity which he had spoken of in connection with the First Army Corps would not arise in a great emergency. It was only in a small war that it arose, because in a great emergency they had their machinery, which was well understood—calling out the Reserves and embodying the Militia, and so on. But, whether for a large or small war, he hoped we should soon be able to say that we had an Army Corps fit to take the field at a week's notice. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded by means of a sort of system of selection. He selected 12 regiments at the head of the Roster, or rather it could be said that these regiments, in a certain sense, selected themselves. They rose by a gradual process until they became the first regiments on the Roster. They were composed of about 12,000 men, and these, with the eight battalions in the Mediterranean—making about 18,000 men—and the three battalions of Guards formed the First Army Corps. Looking at the Return "The Army (Variation of Numbers)," which the right hon. Gentlemen had placed before them, a very curious similitude occurred to his mind. It really appeared as though the right hon. Gentleman had divided his 71 battalions at home after the manner in which Dante divided the spirits of those who departed into another world. Twelve battalions were raised to a most perfect state—it might be said that they were in a state of beatitude. But then, if they cast an eye down the Return, they found 37 battalions which, if the others were in the Paradiso, were certainly in the Inferno. The condition of the 37 was as unfortunate as that of the 12 was happy. They were in a state of attenuated shadows. Then, as an intermediate state between these two conditions, they came to 24 battalions which were eminently in the Purgatorio. They were rising gradually from the lower condition until they could venture to hope to reach the higher regions. It seemed to him rather unfortunate that whilst there were only 12 battalions in Puradiso there were 37 in Inferno. He would venture to say two or three words about these 37 battalions. First, as to the officers, the commanding officer of each was really in a very unfortunate position. Perhaps he had looked forward all his life to the time when he would have the great distinction of commanding his regiment; but, unluckily for him, he rose just at the time his regiment was in this transition state. The battalion would rise again; but then his five years would probably have elapsed, and by the time his regiment became complete he would have run out his period. What he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) wished the right hon. Gentleman to consider was, what could be done for these officers, because, undoubtedly, their case was a very hard one? They deserved that some means should be found of mitigating the hardship of their condition. Their duties were very important, and the officer who trained a young regiment up well deserved all the credit that could possibly be given to him. As to the regiments themselves, he wished to lay some stress upon this—that, as he had said, they were nothing more than shadowy regiments made up of recruits. It must be so—it could not be otherwise. They were not merely regiments half made up of recruits; but, as he understood the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, they would be more than half made up of recruits. By far the greater part of the regiments would be recruits; therefore nothing more should be expected of them than they were able to show, which would be very little. We should make up our minds to consider them nothing more than nurseries for the training of recruits; and, above all things, in his opinion, they ought not to be sent to Aldershot or any of the camps where they constantly came under the notice of their own countrymen and of foreigners. They should be kept as much as possible out of sight. Obviously the proper place for these regiments, the officers of which had nothing to do but drill a parcel of boys, was the county towns to which they were territorially attached. Their drill would be nothing more than recruit drill. They did not need to go through the higher courses of tactics which were taught at Aldershot. Nothing but the simplest matter, the alphabet of warfare, would be taught them; and he should therefore, be glad to see them sent to their own localities. This led him to a remark he wished to make in regard to an item of expenditure in the Estimates, which, he observed, related not to buildings, but to repairs at Aldershot. He was under the impression that at Aldershot and at Shorncliffe there was already plenty of accommodation for the regiments the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put into the First Army Corps; and, if that were so, obviously what should now be done, if further money was to be expended, should be to improve the barracks distributed throughout the county towns, in order that they might be rendered efficient for the purposes for which they were required. Three millions of money had been spent on these depôt centres, and still they were not in that condition in which they ought to be. A slight further expenditure on them, however, would make them fit and proper places to receive the territorial regiments that belonged to them. It was not proper to run the two things together—the Aldershot scheme and the territorial scheme, which provided that regiments were to be quartered in the county towns amongst the people from whom they were recruited and amongst the officers, whom, he trusted, would all one day be drawn from the counties to which the regiments they joined belonged. He hoped, if there was further expenditure on buildings, it would be in the direction he had indicated rather than on the improvement of Aldershot, which they knew had swallowed up an enormous sum—much more than anyone in the House had anticipated. An enormous amount had been spent, and, to his mind, mis-spent, on Aldershot. Aldershot seemed to be a place fitted for a camp of instruction, where troops should go in the summer months and have instruction in the open air—under canvas if necessary. Buildings had been erected at Aldershot, as he said, at enormous expense, and further expenditure was going on there. This was the place the right hon. Gentleman ought to fix his eye on. He ought to take care that no further amounts were spent there. On the contrary, he should rather endeavour to make the territorial scheme more efficient by rendering the barracks fitted for the reception of battalions. Passing to the Report which was made to the Secretary of State for War by the officers in charge of recruiting, he was very glad to see that the pledge that was given last year—namely, that men of 19 years of age, or the equivalent of 19 years of age, should be the only men enlisted for the future in the Army, had been carried out, and was answering as well as could be expected. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman was sanguine of being able to say some day that he would limit the age to 20. If that was so, so much the better; but we must remember this—that we might not always be able to recruit as readily as we did now. At present we enlisted between 19,000 and 20,000 a-year; but agriculture and trade were a little slack at present, and we must bear in mind that a day might come when we might not be able to recruit with the same facility. He hoped, therefore, that nothing would be done to tie the hands of the recruiting staff; and that they should be allowed, if necessary, to take the men as best they could. He observed that the standard of height was rather reduced, and he did not understand how that could be, whilst, at the same time, the standard of age was increased. One would have naturally supposed that as they took men of older years, so the stature would have been increased; or, at any rate, that it would not have been reduced. Another point to which he wished to draw attention in the statement made by the Inspector of Recruiting was that which related to the physique of the recruits who came into the Army. He certainly thought it was a matter for congratulation to see the remarkably good physique of our troops compared with that of the troops of foreign nations. On looking at the Return, he saw that the English recruit, as compared with the French recruit, had the advantage in height of about 3 inches, and almost a similar advantage in chest measurement. Then they came down to Austria and Germany, and in both those countries the recruits were inferior to the English recruits by about 2½ inches in height, and the same in chest measurement. That was a point which ought to be noticed, because they frequently heard remarks made on public occasions as to the miserable condition and physique of the British recruit. Statements of that kind were frequently made in the Press, and were available to anyone who chose to cast their eye over them; and when such a reply as this was possible it should be given. The right hon. Gentleman had held out some hopes of being able to do something for the Volunteers; but he did not find in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he proposed to do much for them at present. He spoke of issuing capes to them, and it was to be hoped that would be done. It was really most essential—he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) could not say how important he deemed it—that protection should be given to our Volunteers, who had been exposed from time to time to most inclement weather. He was surprised they had not frequently found many of the Volunteers on the sick list, in consequence of the way they were exposed. He understood that the Volunteers were to be brought, to a certain extent, within the territorial system; at all events, the names of certain regiments would appear as forming the fourth battalions of certain territorial districts. He highly approved of that plan. There was no more territorial force in the Service of the Crown; indeed, he thought it was the most territorial force; and it was very desirable that we should be able gradually to draw the Volunteers into the system. Then, with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to warrant rank, hon. Members were perfectly satisfied. Non-commissioned officers might rise to have their names in The Army List associated with the names of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Commander-in-Chief, and the many distinguished people connected with the Army. It would, he was sure, be a great inducement to young men to join the Army to think that by good conduct they could rise to warrant rank, and have their names in The Army List. But he wished to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had left out the quartermaster sergeants. That was an unfortunate omission, as the quartermaster sergeant was a most important person, as they all knew. He was a more important person even than the sergeant major; not at home, perhaps—the sergeant major there being an officer, it was desirable to magnify and make as much of as possible—but on active service. The quartermaster sergeant had charge of the stores, had to face many difficulties, and was thrown into many temptations. His position was most responsible, and it would, no doubt, be to the benefit of the Service that he should be included in warrant rank.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was doing his best to give effect to all those measures which were calculated to be to the good of the Army; and the right hon. Gentleman was doing so with a liberality which could not fail to meet with success. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would deal properly and liberally with the many officers who suffered by the changes in their military system. It was heart-breaking, in many instances, for officers who were in the prime of life to be now put aside and placed on the Retired List. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to compensate those officers to the utmost extent. Of course, the officers who entered the Army hereafter must take the chances of service according to the new rules. Several changes of great importance had been made in the mode in which the Army Estimates were framed, one important change being to use the funds derived from the sale of stores, and hitherto paid into the Exchequer as Civil Receipts, in diminution of the Army Charges; but, whilst cordially approving of those receipts being so used, having been advocated whilst employed in the War Office, at the same time, those changes deprived them of the facility of comparing the present with the past Army Expenditure. He was perfectly well alive to the financial dangers and difficulties which might attend the appropriation of the extra receipts in diminishing the expenditure of the Army; and to guard against abuse it was necessary the greatest care should be taken by the Secretary of State for War, as well as by the Public Accounts Committee, in having a public record made of all the extra receipts distinct from the Appropriation in Aid. He was not yet satisfied that they had taken all the possible precautions to guard against abuse; but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had supplied him (Sir George Balfour) with all the information on the subject which was at his command, and he would carefully go into the matter and see if he could not make some acceptable suggestions. Another change had been made of showing the pay drawn by Staff officers in lump sums, including regimental and Staff pay. That was a right course; but it wholly deprived Members of the power of comparing the past payments with present payments. There was one point to which he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman's attention would be drawn, and that was the employment of our Army in Ireland. He looked with great apprehension upon the present employment of troops in Ireland. Judging from his experience in India, nothing had tended more to produce the Mutiny in the Bengal Army than the employment of troops very much after the way our soldiers were now being employed in Ireland. They were scattered in small bodies, and often detached under young subalterns, and they were charged with duties which soldiers ought not to be called on to perform. Military and Constabulary duties were of a different character, and yet our soldiers were used for the duties which police ought to perform. He earnestly hoped the Secretary of State for War would, as soon as possible, withdraw the troops from Ireland, and collect them in places where the discipline might be properly looked after. He could not express in words too strong the danger there was to the discipline of the Army by the employment of soldiers in the manner they were now employed in Ireland. There was another point to which he also desired to draw attention. They had long had doubts with regard to the efficiency of the troops in the field in the matter of firing. A Committee had inquired into the subject, but the Report of that Committee had never been made public; indeed, the Secretary of State had refused to make it public. He presumed that the very reason which existed to prevent the publication, of the Report ought to induce the Secretary of State for War to see to the efficiency of the troops in regard to firing. In the interest of the Army one essential point was that the men should be withdrawn from every duty which interfered with their efficient training as soldiers—for instance, every guard which could be dispensed with ought to be done away with, because it was well that, as far as possible, soldiers should be kept together in bodies, and day by day subject to military training under their regimental officers. In this country we had never attended to that with sufficient care; but in India, when he (Sir George Balfour) had the honour of being connected with military finance there, the guard and sentry employment of every kind by which soldiers could be taken away from their regiments was, with the approval of Lord Canning, done away with. Even the ordinary military guards for Commissariat and other Stores, treasure, and other minor purposes, were abolished, and watchmen employed, wherever it was practicable. Then, as regarded the formation of the regiments of Cavalry and Infantry. First, concerning the Cavalry, he wished to point out that 12 years ago a very important change was made under the administration of Lord Hampton, on the advice of the late Sir Hope Grant, by which the Cavalry was formed into squadrons. After the lapse of two years, however, Mr. Cardwell thought fit to change the system, and to return to the troop formation, mainly on account of the difficulty of reconciling the Purchase system with the squadron formation. That difficulty no longer existed. He (Sir George Balfour) regretted the retrograde step at the time, and he regretted it now. He would not at present express any opinion as to the recently proposed formation of Cavalry into brigades; but he thought that squadrons ought to be adopted at once. As to the strength and efficiency of battalions being improved, as supposed, by organizing that body in companies 10 in number, as formerly, and now in eight companies, he thought that a blunder, unless each company had at least 100 privates. But with battalions of 800 privates and under, he thought a six-company formation was the utmost that ought to be practised, and that, instead of having small companies of 30 or 40 men, no company should be com- posed of less than 100 up to 150 men. In that formation there would then be a captain and three subalterns effective with each company, and the Regimental Establishment should provide for having the officers and non-commissioned officers needed for that strength thoroughly effective. He approved of all the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) had said with regard to warrant officers, and he was proud that the Secretary of State for War had created that rank. Whilst at the War Office that rank was earnestly urged; but the opposition of the Horse Guards' Branch prevented its creation. But by its creation the Secretary of State had effected a great improvement in the Army in this respect. He was confident that great good to the Army would result from the formation of the rank of warrant officers, inasmuch as a number of young men would now be induced to enter the Army who would not otherwise think of doing so. There was no part of the Indian military system that had been of so much benefit to the Army as the creation of warrant officers. At the time when every branch of the Imperial Army was in want of recruits, the Indian Army obtained an unlimited supply, and mainly because promotion to warrant rank could be secured. He spoke from experience when he said that the warrant officers in the Indian Army had behaved themselves fully as well as the commissioned officers. He would even go so far as to say that they would find fewer courts martial in regard to warrant officers than in respect to officers of the Army. Any distinction that the right hon. Gentleman could make with regard to warrant officers would have his warm approval. Another subject on which he (Sir George Balfour) wished to speak was in connection with the responsibilities and division of work at the War Office. No doubt the Secretary of State was wholly charged with every duty; but there existed a division of work of a rather curious character. Under the present system the Commander-in-Chief, the Financial Secretary, and the Surveyor General of Ordnance acted under Orders in Council issued 10 years ago during the administration of Lord Cardwell. Their responsibilities and duties were defined by those Orders, which ought to have been specially laid before Parliament in a direct and formal manner, instead of becoming known through a Select Committee. It was fully admitted that no duties assigned to those officers by the Orders in Council could be performed except under the distinct control of the Secretary of State. But in order to show that those officers, charged, as they were, with such important duties in this special and formal manner, had an appreciation of their duties, and that they did attend to them, it was essentially necessary that they should be required to present an annual Report on all the heads and duties detailed in the Orders in Council. For instance, his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office should submit a Report concerning the whole of his Department to the Secretary of State for War. So, also, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance and the Commander-in-Chief should report on the working of the several branches assigned to them in the Orders; and the Secretary of State, in turn, would be enabled to lay a full and ample Statement before the House, as well as the Reports in question. There were many points connected with the administration of the Army with which it was impossible for the Secretary of State for War, in his Annual Statement, to deal. Able as the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman were, they were usually confined to generalities. The Reports, however, to which he (Sir George Balfour) had referred would supply a great deal of the required but omitted information. He thought that the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General should also be called upon to report upon the administration of justice in the Army, and generally on the working of the Army Act. And now he would ask the Secretary of State for War if he would be good enough, when making his Statement next year, to compare the present expenditure on the Army and Navy with the expenditure under those heads in the year 1869–70? In the latter year the Army Expenditure was brought down to less than £14,000,000, being a lower sum than it had stood at since the Crimean War, and since that time it had been increasing yearly, and now it was upwards of £16,000,000. Of course, if they wished to have efficiency, they must expect to have a heavy expenditure; but still he could not help thinking that if they were to compare the details of the present expenditure with that of 1869–70, some mode could be shown by which economy might be effected. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to make some saving by a reduction in the number of general officers. He (Sir George Balfour) heartily approved of the suggestion, for he was satisfied a smaller number of officers of this rank would be quite competent to perform the necessary duties. He had also again to complain of the mode in which the military expenditure was swollen by the charges on account of the guns, projectiles, ammunition, and warlike stores needed for the Navy. In the present Estimates the sum of £616,000 was charged to the Army, which really belonged to the Navy. That was a higher amount for their Supplies than hitherto charged in any year before. Surely the Navy could take that expenditure which was incurred by the re-organization of the Naval Ordnance upon their own shoulders. These re-organizations were constantly occurring. During the last 20 years there had been four or five Naval re-organizations of guns, and probably before they had paid the money necessary for the purpose of carrying out the present re-organization they would have another re-organization, so that there would never be an end to the Army military expenditure bearing a new charge. All these changes in a degree flowed from the erroneous course of making the Army Estimates bear the cost of the Naval Stores. But he (Sir George Balfour) was fully willing to admit that the like mistaken course was followed in making the Naval Estimates bear the cost of the Transports required for the Army. Both practices caused carelessness in regard to the expenditure. But as he saw there were other hon. Members who wished to take part in the debate, so he would reserve whatever else he was inclined to say till a future occasion.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, there were one or two points in connection with these Estimates upon which, with the permission of the Committee, he would like to address a few observations to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In the first place, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his recent speech at Pontefract he said that the compulsory retirement of officers at the early age of 40 was an evil the most dangerous to the efficiency of our officers that could possibly be imagined; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this danger was not likely to occur shortly in the Brigade of Guards unless steps were taken speedily to stop the present stagnation of promotion which, prevailed in that corps? The causes of that stagnation were not far to seek. When, in 1871, the privileges of the Guards were prospectively abolished, the intention was expressed of assimilating the Guards in every respect to the regiments of the Line; but, in one very important particular, that intention had never been fulfilled—namely, no second lieutenant colonels were appointed to the battalion of Guards, as was the case in the Line; and, consequently, promotion which would result from those appointments was seriously affected. In the Line two lieutenant colonels retired within a period of six years; but in the Guards there were only two retirements in eight years. It appeared to him that the only remedy for this evil was the immediate appointment of second lieutenant colonels to the battalion of Guards. Certainly, unless some steps were taken, and that speedily, to remove the present block of promotion, the professional prospects of many promising young officers who entered the Service immediately after the privileges of the Guards were abolished would be seriously endangered. He made this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, not so much in the interest of the officers themselves, but in the interest of the efficiency of the Brigade of Guards, which, as all would admit, ought to be maintained so long as the brigade itself was maintained. Passing to the important subject of recruiting, he heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the large number of recruits which he had at present obtained. He had correspondents in the recruiting districts who fully bore out the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. What was the cause of this sudden development of martial ardour? The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech at Pontefract, attributed it to the advantages which he recently conferred on the non-commissioned officers. He (Colonel Alexander) did not wish to underrate in any way those ad- vantages. On the contrary, he thought that in conferring them the right hon. Gentleman had established a lasting claim to the gratitude of the Army; but he was bound to say, for the information of the Committee, that the Inspector General of Recruiting, in his Report, assigned other reasons for the exceptionally large influx of recruits at the present time. The Inspector General of Recruiting said that the result was due partly to the lower standard of height prevailing in the Infantry, and partly to the localization of that arm. Now, it did appear to him (Colonel Alexander) somewhat strange that in the long and interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman in explaining the Estimates—a speech to which he (Colonel Alexander) listened with the greatest attention—the right hon. Gentleman passed by, as if beneath notice from him, the fact that last year the standard of height in the Infantry was reduced to a lower point than it had touched at any period since the year 1870, when short service was first introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman was obtaining such a large number of recruits—almost more than he wanted (as Sir John Adye boasted at the Guildhall)—why, then, by reducing the standard of height, did he disregard the advice given last year by the Inspector General, who, in his Report, said— That the standard, once fixed, ought never to be disturbed, and that the conditions of recruiting; ought always to he as simple and as permanent as possible. The Inspector General, in his present Report, took very good care not to revert to this extremely inconvenient subject; but he made a casual remark which went far to explain the reasons which actuated the right hon. Gentleman in reducing the standard for the Infantry last year to 5 feet 4 inches. The Inspector General remarked, in his Report, that the minimum age of recruits was raised last year to the physical equivalent of 19 years, and that the standard of height for the Infantry, was at the same time, reduced to 5 feet 4 inches. Now, the Committee would recollect that last year the right hon. Gentleman took great credit to himself for raising the minimum of age to what he called the physical equivalent of 19 years, adding that he hoped, after a time, to make the minimum 20 years. The right hon. Gen- tleman never said at that time that the carrying out of his scheme would involve a reduction of one inch in the standard of height for the Infantry. The right hon. Gentleman evidently felt that he owed some apology for making this reduction in the standard of height, for the Inspector General of Recruiting, in an Appendix to his Report, said that, even with a standard of 5 feet 4 inches, our Army would still be taller than any other Army in Europe. That the large influx of recruits was almost entirely due to the reduction of the standard of height was conclusively proved by the remark of the Inspector General that neither for the Guardsmen or gunners of the Royal Artillery the recruiting came up to the standard required, because both for the Guards and gunners of the Royal Artillery superior qualifications were required. He understood that within the last few weeks the chest measurement for gunners of the Royal Artillery had actually been reduced from 35 to 34 inches. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of the increasing popularity of the Service; but if the Service was so popular as he alleged it to be, how did it happen, as mentioned by the Inspector General in his Report, that so large a number of men purchased their discharge just before the completion of their period of service? Now, in his Report last year, the Inspector General reckoned the discharge by purchase as part of the waste of the Army; and it was now proposed to diminish, or rather to utilize, this waste by allowing men who would otherwise have purchased their discharge to pass into the Reserve after three years' service with the Colours. It appeared to him that this artificial increase of the Reserve was strongly to be condemned, for the men who would thus pass prematurely into the Reserve, and who would otherwise have purchased their discharge, would, in his opinion, and, he knew, in the opinion of many competent officers, be amongst the discontented spirits of the Army, and would have, moreover, nine years in which to forget the little they had learnt. He was surprised to see in The Times, a few days ago, a rumour—he believed it was something more than a rumour—that a certain proportion of the First Class Army Reserve were to receive an immediate discharge on the condition of taking military service in South Africa. He must confess it passed his comprehension how the right hon. Gentleman, after laboriously building up the First Class Army Reserve at the expense of the active Army, could, with so little consideration, recklessly disperse it. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he was getting not only more men, but better men, and that characters were now required with recruits. He was very much astonished by that statement, because a commanding officer of Infantry and an adjutant of Cavalry had both assured him that under no circumstances whatever was a character required with a recruit; and the commanding officer of Infantry had added that, under such circumstances, the number of recruits obtained would have been infinitesimally small. The fact was, the less that was said about character the better. The Police Gazette of a very recent date contained the names of no fewer than 319 deserters; and, until the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in materially reducing that very ominous list, it was absolutely idle to talk of a better class of men now pervading the ranks of the Army. He regretted that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. John Holms) was now gagged. Hon. Gentlemen who sat in the last Parliament would remember how eloquently that hon. Member used to descant upon this theme. He did not deny that a considerable number of recruits now presented themselves for enlistment, and it was said that the territorial system was the cause of the increase. The Inspector General, in his last Report, admitted that there was a great variation in the recruiting capabilities of the various districts, and that, so far, the territorial system had been interfered with; and he expressed a hope that, in the course of time, the recruits required for each regiment would, in the majority of cases, be found in their own districts. Except for the principle that "hope springs eternal in the human breast," the foundation for this expectation appeared to him extremely slender, for surely it was obvious that in maintaining so many districts varying in their recruiting capabilities there must always be a surplus in one district and a deficit in another; and where there was a surplus, that must be got rid of, either by passing men prematurely into the Reserve, or by transferring them into other regiments. The Committee would see that the latter course was not likely to conduce to the popularity of the Service, for men, instead of being allowed to serve in their own local regiments, would be forced to enlist for general service. Would not the right hon. Gentleman do much better to get rid of some of those recruiting districts? What possible use could there be, for instance, in maintaining the 32nd District, which produced last year exactly 40 recruits? This territorial system was avowedly based on the German system; but in Germany the conscription was the keystone of the arch, and without conscription the territorial system was like the play of Hamlet with the part of the Prince of Denmark omitted. If the system was the success which the right hon. Gentleman asserted it was, how did it happen that no fewer than 20 territorial regiments, including the Regiment of Pontefract, were now without any fourth battalion, while one regiment had neither the third nor fourth battalion? Did the right hon. Gentleman ever expect to raise another battalion of Militia in Cornwall, where, as the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) told the Militia Committee, the population preferred either the Navy or the Marines? The fusion between the Line and the Militia was little more than nominal, for if it were real officers would be interchangeable. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at Hamilton, which, in answer to a Question he had put last year, the right hon. Gentleman had prophesied would be the great recruiting ground for Highlanders, had gained, between the 1st of July last year and the 1st of January this year, exactly five Highland recruits for the two battalions of Highland Line Infantry? The fact was that Hamilton was much too near Glasgow, and Glencorse too near Edinburgh, to make those stations of any practical use for recruiting under the present system. One-third of our Infantry consisted of attenuated battalions of, perhaps, 450 men, and great fault was often found with commanding officers, because they did not like these attenuated battalions. But why did not they like them? Not because, as was alleged, of their poor appearance on parade, or because of the absence of the "pomp and circumstance of war," but because those attenuated battalions offered no adequate means of instruction to officers or men. A general officer commanding a district had told him that, with two of its battalions, he could not place more than 80 men on parade. Our case was very much like that of the French Army, as described a few months ago by the Correspondent of The Times, who stated that for many months to come tactical instruction in the French Army would be practically in abeyance, for, after making some necessary deductions for sick, guards, and employed, there would not be a dozen men per company for parade. Before Easter the right hon. Gentleman had stated that in each of the 71 battalions stationed at home there would be, on an average, 270 recruits—in other words, that nearly one-half of the forces available at home must always consist, under any circumstances, of recruits. Even at the risk of being called a pessimist and a croaker, he could not help expressing a fear that we should suffer in the future, as we had suffered before, from the fatal youthfulness of our Army. He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman had denied the youth of the Army which was defeated last year by the Boers in South Africa; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at Glasgow, had attributed the defeat, not to the youth of the men, but to a mistake committed by a most gallant but unfortunate commander. Upon that point he should not like to say much, for he could not help remembering a short time ago The Times stated that without promotion by selection we must inevitably recur to the military imbecility of former days; but he would ask whether last year we had not in South Africa the pick of the choicest talent which the Staff College could afford? Further, he would ask whether any of the "military imbecility" displayed in former days could have been attended with more fatal results than were the battles of Laing's Nek and Majuba Hill? There was a disposition at this moment on the part of the public to believe that we had the best possible Army. God grant that the public might not be some day fatally undeceived! But, in the meantime, if our Ministers prophesied falsely, they were entitled to take refuge in the plea that the people loved to have it so.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he wished to call attention to the case of those soldiers who were entering now upon their 12th year of service, and would suffer great hardship through the operation of the Queen's Regulations of last year. From a Return which the right hon. Gentleman had furnished him with, it appeared that there were over 4,000 private soldiers who enlisted in 1870, under the Act of 1867, who were now eligible for re-engagement. The Act of 1867 gave these men the privilege of reengaging after seven years' service. It did not give them the right of re-engagement; but they were encouraged to do so by an additional 1d. a-day, and, from his knowledge and experience, he could say that no man of good character had ever been refused. But the Act of 1870 took away the privilege of re-engagement after seven years, but put it at 12 years, and so it remained until the issue of the Queen's Regulations last year. By those Regulations the re-engagement was almost absolutely forbidden; it was only allowed under special circumstances, and each of such cases was to be submitted to the Adjutant General for his approval, accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which re-engagement was recommended. In 1880, 2,000 men were re-engaged; and, therefore, he assumed that of the 4,300 who were now eligible, or would have been eligible under the old system, somewhere about one-half wished to re-engage. The right hon. Gentleman had assured him that he would construe the new Regulations liberally, and he was certain the right hon. Gentleman would do so if he could. But there was the litera scripta manet. There were the words of the Queen's Regulations, upon which a commanding officer must act, and commanding officers might not take a liberal view of such Regulations. They considered that they were only entitled to recommend private soldiers for re-engagement when there were special grounds; when, for instance, the soldier was an artificer, or in some other way useful. The system of not retaining old soldiers was a bad one; and nearly all the commanding officers examined before Lord Airey's Committee had agreed that 25 per cent of these men should be re-engaged. After this year there would, of course, only be soldiers in the Army who enlisted under the Act of 1870, and, therefore, enlisted with their eyes open; but those men who enlisted under the Act of 1867 were entitled to some special consideration; and, however favourably the right hon. Gentleman might consider the matter, it would be of little use to them, unless he would issue an Order, or in some other way provide that these men should be treated exceptionally—that they should be reengaged now, if they would have been reengaged under the Regulations prior to 1881. The new Regulations ought not to be used to their detriment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to make this concession, because every one of these men, if discharged against their will, would be warning beacons against recruiting in the districts to which they went. Men who went to India in 1870 had no chance of going to the Reserve, and after serving 10 years in India they were now to be sent adrift. It would be for the interest of the Service, and to the credit of the country, if the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

I must preface my remarks by expressing my great regret that we were not able to bring on this discussion before 10 o'clock to-night. I do not think it is quite fair in the case of these Army Estimates, in which there is a vast sum of money at stake, and upon which a certain number of Gentlemen come down at a certain stated hour to discuss, that we should be driven to the hour of 10 o'clock before discussing them. I say this on behalf of some of my absent Friends, particularly in regard to the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who is unable to be present to-night. He would have been glad of an opportunity of discussing several of the important matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward. I must also express my regret that I do not see those Liberal Benches on the opposite side very largely filled. There are Gentlemen on that side of strong politics, and with a keen eye to reducing as far as they can, in the interests of the taxpayer, the great expenditure on the Army. I do not see in his place, for instance, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) or the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). Those Gentlemen, so far as my experience extends—and on the question of the Army Estimates it extends over many years—have always been in their places; and although I do not always agree with them, still they have always upheld the interests of the public, so far as financial matters are concerned. I was much disappointed because the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) did not touch a little more upon the question of expenditure. I must give my right hon. Friend (Mr. childers) a great deal of credit for the clearness and facility with which he put his proposals before the Committee; at the same time I observed that he was very apologetic. He entered into a long disquisition in order to compare the Estimates of this year with the question of population, and even with the amounts received from the Wine and Malt and Spirit Duties; and he produced figures showing, as compared with the population and Revenue, we were paying very-much less for our Army than we were 25 years ago. I will not follow him in a matter of that kind; but I will go simply to the year 1880, when we left Office. In the year 1880—I take the figures he gave us—the net Expenditure was £14,980,000. What is the Expenditure this year? £15,458,000. That is to say, an increase of £500,000 upon the amount three years ago. That is a very serious addition in three years; and I think the question which the Committee and the public generally have to consider is, what additional value have we got in efficiency for this larger expenditure of money? I have made a careful computation, from which I will give a summary of the number of men in all the branches of the Service this year as compared with the number in 1880. I find that this year we have 2,671 fewer Regular soldiers, 6,036 fewer Reserve men—in the First Class Army Reserve—and 26,138 fewer trained Militiamen than we had in 1880. It is true that we have 2,000 more Volunteers and about 109 more Yeomanry. Then, if I go further and consider what the military necessities of the moment are—and I also consider the fact that something like 10,000 more men have been required for Ireland than two years ago—it makes the account on the bad side, as far as regards our efficiency, for defen- sive purposes very much worse. I find that we are really practically weaker in all ranks by something like 45,000 men this year than we were in 1880, and, at the same time, we are paying something like £500,000 more. If my calculations are at all correct, I must say that that is a very serious indictment. I give my right hon. Friend a great deal of credit for what he has done for the non-commissioned officers and in some other ways; but still the expenditure on the Army has gone on gradually increasing, while the number of men is diminishing. Then I come to one portion of the Expenditure which I shall have to touch upon again, and which I touched upon last year—namely, the Non-Effective Vote. Last year I never got any explanation upon this matter, although I brought it forward in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining it. I will repeat now what I read last year, but which was not explained. In 1880–1 the Non-Effective Vote amounted to £2,743,000; in 1881–2 it jumped up suddenly to £3,019,000; and this year it is £3,049,000. Therefore there is something like a £250,000 increase upon this one Vote since 1880–1 when we left Office. That would account for half the increased Expenditure, and it is this Expenditure, as I pointed out then and again point out, which we had a right to hope would diminish rather than increase; because it was certainly the expectation of Lord Cardwell, when he introduced the short service system, that if that system did nothing else, at least within a certain time—which must now have nearly elapsed—there would be a decrease in the Non-Effective Vote. But that has not taken place. On the contrary, it has gone on increasing, and has made a very sudden and extraordinary jump within the last three years. I should like to pass now to something more interesting than figures, and to touch upon the question of the age of recruits. Something has already been said upon that matter. For many years past I have wished, if possible, to get seasoned men of 20 years of age. I give the right hon. Gentleman great credit for having increased the minimum age to 19; but I must remind him of his promise last year, which he has renewed this year, that before long he would raise the minimum from 19 to 19½ years. I hope before long he may be able to raise it to 20 years. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one recommendation of Lord Airey's Committee was that recruits should, if possible, be enlisted, for two reasons, at the age of 20—first, because they would be much better seasoned; and, second, because they would cost a great deal less than younger men. The Committee reported that every efficient Infantry soldier cost the country no less than £100, and every Cavalry soldier £96—that is to say, if the men are enlisted at 19; and they pointed out, also, that if the men enlisted at 20, an Infantry soldier would cost £58, and a Cavalry soldier £57—that is, nearly 50 per cent less. If these calculations of the Committee are correct, and by enlisting soldiers at 20 years of age 50 per cent of the cost would be saved, I cannot help thinking it would be better to offer some extra inducement, whether in the shape of pay or as extra bounty, in order to get better and more seasoned soldiers at a cheaper rate. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is most anxious to arrive at such a state of things and what I wish to do, if I may use the words without offence, is to grease his wheels—that is to say, to give him every assistance in arriving at that result, which, I am sure, will be of great benefit to the Service and to the taxpayer. Then I would like to say something about the Militia. The reason why there has been a great falling-off in the Militia is that the Irish Militia have not been called out for the last two years. The result is that whereas we had in 1880 113,500 trained Militiamen, we have now only 87,000 trained Militiamen upon whom we can depend. We are thus deprived of 26,000 trained Militiamen upon whom we have a right to depend. I have no wish to enter into the political reasons for this reduction. This is not the time to do so. I only wish to point out that, so far as the strength of the Militia is concerned, it has been reduced by the number of 26,000 in consequence of the Irish Militia not having been called out during the last two years, and that is a very serious matter. And while I am upon this subject I should like to call attention to an expression made use of by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, upon which he appeared to lay great stress at the time. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the Militia Artillery, and he said—"The Militia Artillery would become Royal." I did not quite understand what he meant by that—whether he meant that the Militia Artillery was to become Regular Artillery by becoming "Royal," or what, in fact, was the full force of the term "Royal." There have been reports abroad that not only the Militia, but the Volunteers are to be incorporated with the Regular Forces before long. If that is the case—and I appeal to the frankness and candour of the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is so or not—I think we ought to have been told so earlier. We ought now to be distinctly informed whether there is an intention before long of incorporating the Militia with the Regular Forces, and that the incorporation will be extended bye-and-bye to the Volunteers. Such an expression as the official statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Militia Artillery would become "Royal" certainly puzzled me at the time, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will explain what the full force of the term is. I come next to a question which I do not think has been at all touched upon in the remarks which have been made by other hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee. I do not think that any hon. Member has mentioned the fact that there is a proposition to reduce the number of regimental officers by something like 500. Now, the reduction of 500 regimental officers is a very serious matter. I used to hear it said, in my professional days, that we had not one officer too many. I am perfectly ready to admit that when we come to the Non-Effective Services it is quite possible to make a reduction; but, as far as the working regimental officers are concerned, I do not believe that there is one too many; and when I heard the statement that the right hon. Gentleman was going to reduce the regimental officers by 500 I did think that that was a very large number out of something like 5,000. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the matter. The right hon. Gentleman touched upon another question in regard to the regimental officers—namely, that it was his intention to abolish all extra subscriptions. I do not object to that. On the contrary, I am very glad to hear that the right hon, Gentleman proposes to make regimental life as inexpensive as possible. There could be no greater boon to the regimental officers than to abolish those extra expenses of which they complain. I hear that there is also a proposition under consideration with regard, to the furniture and mess property. If that question is under consideration, I must say it seems to me that there are a great many important matters now under consideration; and although, of course, I do not wish for one moment to ask precisely what are the instructions which have been given to these Committees, or to expect them to be laid upon the Table, yet there are certain ways of finding out, besides the rumours that are abroad, that great and serious changes are contemplated. I should, therefore, be very glad to know what the right hon. Gentleman can tell us upon these matters. There are three Committees sitting at this moment. There may be more; but there are certainly three sitting now—one on the very serious question of the retention of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; another sitting, I am told, on a question of the change of dress in the Army; and there have been rumours abroad that the old traditional red coat is to be done away with. That may, or may not, be so; but if there is any intention of the kind, I think the public and the House cannot be too soon informed. There have also been reports and rumours that may not be true; but they only show how very much excited the public mind is about these matters; and there have been so many changes in the Army that it is impossible to predict what other changes may not be in store. There have been rumours abroad that the patronage of the colonels of the Guards is to be done away with, and that they are no longer to appoint to first commissions. That may be, or may not be, true. I do not for a moment say that it is so but I wish to point out, in regard to this and other matters, that when we find two or three Committees appointed to consider what may turn out to be very serious changes in the Army, and we have hints dropped here, and hints dropped there, and remarks made that certain services are to become "Royal," and so forth, it is impossible for us to know exactly where we are; and I am bound to say that the impression is gaining ground that revolutionary changes are in contemplation, and that, notwithstanding the changes which have taken place within the last 10 years, the Army is not yet to be allowed to rest. I must protest, in the name of the Army, against the course which has been pursued with regard to it. It has been practically turned inside out. Every grade, from the general down to the drummer boy, has had its pay, its retirement, its promotion, and its prospects considered in every possible way; and the result is that many of the older officers are now trembling in their shoes, not knowing what may come next. I put a Question only to-day with regard to the promotion of general and field officers under certain circumstances. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman understood perfectly well what the purport of that Question was. It is not my intention to go into the matter now; but I wish to say most distinctly that it only shows, at the present time, how much our officers are afraid that some change in their promotion may occur which they have not calculated on, and which may tend still further to disgust many of them with a Service in which it is of the greatest possible importance that they should be retained. And now I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to say one or two words on the subject of the guns. I dare say that we shall have to say something about it on Vote 12; but as I put a Question on this subject also some time ago, and as the right hon. Gentleman informed me there was little or no truth in the matter, I think it only right to say that, from inquiries I have been able to make, I have been told that, although, of course, the newspaper paragraph from which I obtained my original information was not strictly true, still there is a certain amount of truth in the statement. This is what appeared not very long ago with regard to the subject of the breech-loaders of the Woolwich pattern. It was stated— That about 27 of the guns were ordered of a particular contractor, and a similar order was given to the Royal Gun Factories. None of the latter have failed; indeed, the failure of a Government made gun has been a thing unknown for years past. Four or more of the contract guns are, however, reported to have failed at proof. Neither of them has burst, bursting being scarcely to be expected in guns of the coiled wrought iron type; but the coils have opened, which is much the same thing. These were the observations made in regard to the contract guns, and the answer which I got from the right hon. Gentleman was that I was mistaken, and that the report which had appeared in the newspapers was not correct. Now I am informed that there has been a failure of some kind. [Mr. CHILDERS: I said something more.] I believe that the right hon. Gentleman did say something more; but I cannot give his exact words, as I have not got them with me. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that I was not quite correct, or, at all events, that this paragraph was not quite correct, in what it stated. Now, this is a very serious matter. The question of the guns has been under consideration for something like three years. I recollect before the late Government left Office that the whole matter was thoroughly well considered; and it was thought that within a year, or at any rate within a limited time, we certainly should be able to obtain a gun which would not only pass every proof, but be an entirely effective gun. That limited time—whether it was a year or more—has long since passed. We still hear that the New Ordnance Committee is doing a great deal; but so it has been doing a great deal for some years, and as yet no positive conclusion has been come to, and it is becoming a serious matter for the interests of the country. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman if there is any chance of the Committee arriving at a conclusion within a reasonable time. We hear of foreign nations arming themselves with guns of powerful calibre; that their Navies are very much more powerful than our own; and that they are far better prepared with war material of all kinds than we are. It is, therefore, most necessary and most important that our Ordnance Committee, which I, for one, have every confidence in, should come to a speedy conclusion upon the matter. I know that this question will probably be brought on again when the Navy Estimates are before us; but it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee what is now being done, and will further tell us when the Financial Report of the Ordnance Committee may be expected. I do not know that I have anything further to observe which I cannot reserve for the discussion of the other Votes; but I should be extremely glad if my right hon. Friend will add to what, if he will allow me to say so, was his very businesslike and lucid statement some information on two or three matters which were somewhat lightly passed over. I think my right hon. Friend will admit that one or two questions were very lightly passed over, and that other questions of the very highest importance have been handed over to the decision of Committees—questions which, if they are to be decided upon and carried into effect in future years without being first considered by the House and the public, will certainly occasion a good deal of alarm and disappointment. I will not trouble the Committee with any further remarks; but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be able to give the Committee an explanation upon the various points to which his attention has been called.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, that referring to the Institution which had been mentioned, Chelsea Hospital, he trusted that no efforts and no expense would be spared to add to the comfort of our soldiers. There were something like 85,000 old soldiers, almost all desiring admission there; and he should be glad to learn that they were placed in a condition of comfort and contentment. The noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Eustace Cecil) had drawn attention to the fact that, at the present moment, there were various Committees sitting Upon Army matters, one of which was engaged in an inquiry into the question of the dress of the Army. He confessed that, so far as his own opinion went, he thought a great deal might be done to improve the dress of the Army. Tight red coats were a most uncomfortable costume to march in, and an improvement in that respect was most desirable. He was also in favour of any plan by which a supply of furniture could be provided for married men which would diminish the amount of baggage which often accompanied a regiment on the march. The establishment of coffee shops in the different barracks had also been of great advantage to the soldiers, and was, he believed, very much appreciated by them. Indeed, he believed that few more valuable boons had ever been conferred upon the men; and he sincerely thanked his right hon, Friend the Secretary of State for the steps he had taken in the matter. With regard to the condition of the Army, it was very well known that we had not got either too many men or too many officers. We had a very small Army indeed, for so important a country; and, so far as the officers were concerned, it must be borne in mind that they were becoming more and more instructed every year in the duties of their Profession, and were, consequently, rendered more valuable to the country. He was, therefore, very sorry to hear that there was any idea of reducing the number of officers. Our officers ought to be the best instructed in the world, and there was no difficulty in obtaining the best men, because there was a strong desire shown by numbers of the most intelligent classes in the country to enter the ranks of the Army. At the present moment we had not got one man too many; and he believed that it would be of great benefit to the country if the services of many officers who were now subject to retirement at an age when they were still able to do duty were retained. The last time that the House was engaged in a discussion of Army questions he had mentioned his extreme anxiety that something should be done to make better provision for the welfare of sick and wounded soldiers; and his right hon. Friend stated at the time that steps would be taken in that direction. He should be glad to learn what steps had been taken. He had himself moved for Returns with regard to the Army Hospital Corps which would show their present state of efficiency, and how far they had been doing their duty. There was one other subject which he desired to mention to his right hon. Friend, in which he had always taken a deep interest—namely, the superannuation of men at a time when they were not incapacitated from doing duty. In the present state of the Army, he felt that that was a very serious matter, and one in which the interests of the country were greatly concerned. He believed that, under the system now prevailing, the country, both in connection with the Army and Navy, had lost the services of officers who were in a perfect state of efficiency, and who ought to have been retained. As he had said already, they did not possess one man too many; and it was most desirable that so long as an officer was thoroughly efficient, and not incapacitated by old age or infirmity, he should be retained, and that when it became absolutely necessary that he should retire from the Service of the country he should receive a bonus. He believed that many perfectly efficient officers would prefer to continue in the Service rather than accept the pecuniary reward they received on leaving the Army. He was satisfied that if any means could be devised by his right hon. Friend and the Government by which they could retain for the Service of the country those officers of the Army and Navy who were thoroughly efficient and willing to remain very great advantage would be derived.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER

said, that he entirely concurred in the observations which had been made a short time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel colthurst) with regard to old soldiers being allowed to re-engage after the short period of service. He thought they had been placed in a somewhat unfair position, because they enlisted in 1870 and 1871 under the supposition that they were to be allowed to re-engage. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would take into consideration the case of those men who were under the idea, when they enlisted, that they might continue to perform the full service for which they engaged. With regard to the remarks which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) in reference to the Guards, he could substantiate all that his hon. and gallant Friend had said. Indeed, he was able to go still further, and to give even stronger reasons and figures than his hon. Friend had done in the matter. The senior subalterns in the Guards averaged now a little over 12 years' service, whereas the senior subalterns in the Line averaged only nine years' service; and he would venture to say that there was no prospect whatever of the junior subaltern officers in the Guards obtaining any kind of promotion for some time to come. The rule was that a major was to be retired at the end of seven years' service; but it must be borne in mind that there were very few officers of that rank who would retire during the next two or three years, and, further, that the Guards had a certain number of officers who would have to be absorbed before any promotion could take place. He believed he was correct in stating that in the Grenadier Guards there were five cases of senior officers who would have to be absorbed. No doubt he would be told that two of these officers had been retired within the last few weeks; but there would still remain three officers who would have to be absorbed. In the Coldstream Guards there were three officers still to be absorbed, and in the Scots Guards also three; but he admitted that one of these had only retired a very short time ago. He must also recall to the recollection of the Committee that, since the new Warrant had come out, there had hardly been one case of a senior officer having been retired from the Brigade of Guards since 1881; and he feared that the cases of retirement in future would be very rare. He did not wish for one moment to say anything against the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed and carried out for the senior officers of the Guards, because he thought that their retiring pensions and retiring allowances were very handsome indeed; but what he wished to bring before the Committee was the condition, and what would be the condition, of the subordinate and junior subalterns of the Brigade of Guards. They could not hope to obtain promotion for some time to come; and while the promotion was, as it were, in a state of abeyance, it must be borne in mind that there could be no fresh appointments for some time to come, while the matter remained in its present condition. He would now pass on to another point, because he believed that he was in Order in speaking upon the present Vote on Army matters generally. Having taken the greatest interest in all Army matters during the past year since the new Warrant came out, he thought he was justified in making a few remarks in regard to that Warrant, and the grievances which had been brought about by its promulgation. He would allude first to a grievance which he knew had already been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and which he (Sir Henry Fletcher) brought before the House some time ago—namely, the question of the retired purchase captains under the Warrants of 1877 and 1878. Last year he felt it his duty to call attention to the question of what he might term the existing purchase captains before the new Warrant of the 25th of June came into existence; and he felt bound to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having taken into consideration the matters which he had brought forward in connection with these officers. The right hon. Gentleman most kindly paid attention to all the arguments used on the occasion referred to, and most certainly the right hon. Gentleman had taken steps to promote the interests of the officers, and to benefit them to an extent which he (Sir Henry Fletcher) had hardly expected. But there was a case of another class of purchase officers which he had felt it his duty to bring before the Committee that evening—namely, the case of the purchase captains who were retired under the Warrants of 1877 and 1878. He was aware that it was a question of finance, and he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to use his best endeavours with Her Majesty's Treasury, in order that he might induce them, if possible, to bestow justice upon these officers. He was perfectly aware that the matter did not rest entirely with the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for War; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make an appeal to the Treasury, in order that he might obtain funds to apply to the benefit of those officers. They were retired under the Warrants of 1877 and 1878, and a Memorial had recently been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman on their behalf for his consideration. He would not trouble the Committee with reading the words of the Memorial, because, no doubt, they would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. A reply was sent to the Memorial, stating that the application of these officers could not be considered; and, when the reply was received, he (Sir Henry Fletcher) was asked to make a further statement to the right hon. Gentleman. He did so, and he held in his hand the answer he had received, and which, he hoped, the Committee would allow him to read. In was dated the 11th of February, 1882—Financial Secretary's Department, War Office—and it said— Sir,—I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th ult., forwarding a letter and copy of Memorial from purchase captains retired on pensions prior to the issue of the Royal Warrant of the 25th of June 1881, and to inform you, in reply, that the Secretary of State for War is unable to give retrospective effect in the cases of officers who voluntarily retired. In connection with that reply of the Secretary of State for War, he humbly begged leave to state that the officers whose cause he was advocating did not voluntarily retire. There were, no doubt, some officers, and perhaps many officers, who did voluntarily retire under the Warrant of 1877 and 1878; but the case of the officers whose cause he was advocating was this. They were under the Warrant; but they had arrived at the age of 45, at which the Warrant stated they should retire; and it was impressed upon them that they would not receive promotion from the rank of captain to that of major on account of age; and they were told that if they remained in the Service they would be superseded by junior officers, who would be passed over their heads. What he maintained was, that when an officer was placed in such a position he had no alternative left him but to retire. It might be said that this was voluntary retirement; but he maintained that it was not voluntary retirement in the ordinary sense. When an officer was placed in that peculiar position, and told that his juniors would be passed over his head, he had, in his (Sir Henry Fletcher's) opinion, no other course open to him than to ask to be allowed to leave the Service. He would now quote the cases of some officers, each of 25 or 26 years' service, which appeared to him to be most prominent, and should be happy to furnish the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with the list, which he held in his hand. The officers whose cases he selected did not form the whole number of those retired under the Warrant; but he thought they would be sufficient to convince the Committee that the class in question had not been quite fairly dealt with. In giving the details he should have no hesitation in mentioning the names of the officers to whom he particularly referred, inasmuch as they were public property. Lieutenant Colonel Beasly served 29 years—19 years as captain; he passed through the Staff College; served on the Staff; obtained extra first-class certificate in musketry; passed the highest examination in Hindostanee, and qualified himself in every way for command when senior captain of his regiment. A junior officer, however, was put over his head; and he felt, under the circumstances, that no other course was open to him but to retire, which he did, on a pension of £280 a-year. The next officer to whose case he would ask the attention of the Committee was Lieutenant Colonel Rawlins, of 26 years' service—19 years as captain; he was officially informed that he would be superseded if he remained in his regiment, and retired in consequence on a pension of £259 a-year. Had this officer served five months longer, he would have retired under the Warrant—of which he received no notice—on £300 a-year. The next case was that of Lieutenant Colonel Clark, of the 50th Foot, who was informed, from the Horse Guards, that he had become ineligible for regimental promotion on account of age, and was, therefore, compelled to retire on a pension of less than £300 a-year. He contended that if these three officers had been allowed to remain in the Service, they would, under this new Warrant, have obtained the maximum pension of £300, instead of the amounts he had named. Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence, if possible, with the Treasury, in order that a certain number of officers—not the whole, as he said before, of those who retired under the Warrant—who had retired on pensions varying from £259 to £280 per annum, might be allowed to take the benefit of the new Warrant. He thought the cases he had referred to deserved more consideration, because, although the right hon. Gentleman had said, in answer to a Question put by him upon the subject, that they could not be further considered, inasmuch as the officers in question had received a step of honorary rank, he (Sir Henry Fletcher) wished to point out that purchase captains, under the Warrant of 1881, received two steps in rank, which these officers did not. If the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider these cases, he would, undoubtedly, receive the thanks of a most deserving body of officers, who, for a considerable number of years, had served their Queen and country with credit. He would now turn to another subject that had been before the House during the present Session of Parliament and on previous occasions. The new Warrant of the Secretary of State for War was issued last June, and he had certainly been led to understand that brevet promotion was to be abolished. But since that time a corrigenda Warrant had been issued, under which the right hon. Gentleman had again introduced brevet promotion, and that simply for corps of Royal Artillery and Engineers. He pointed out to the Committee that by this unexpected system of brevet promotion a certain number of majors of Line regiments had been superseded and their interests materially prejudiced. The officers in question were men who had served with the rank of major for more than seven years, most or many of them having received their proper rank for services in the field. By the Return which he held in his hand it appeared that the average length of service of these 20 majors was 27 years; that three of them had been wounded severely; that the number of medals possessed by them was 34; that nine of them were promoted for distinguished service, and that eight of them were mentioned in despatches. Notwithstanding these facts, the officers in question had, by the corrigenda Warrant and the brevet of last October, been passed over by 75 officers of the Ordnance Corps of Royal Artillery and Engineers, and it was only natural that they should feel aggrieved in consequence. It might be said that a precedent would be created if these officers were placed in a position of seniority to the officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers; but he could safely say that there were only seven Line majors on the Active List who could be superseded before the year 1886, and many of these would probably receive regimental rank before that time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to do justice to these aggrieved officers. He would now briefly allude to a subject which was touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman in the Statement made by him a few weeks ago, and which had also been referred to by an hon. Member opposite—namely, the mess and furniture of officers of the Army. This question had been specially dwelt upon by previous Secretaries of State for War, and it was one which required great consideration. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the officers' mess should be limited to the sum of 4s. per diem. Now, as an old soldier of the Line, and one who had for many years kept up his connection with his brother officers, he ventured to think that this arrangement would interfere very much with the social life of officers in Her Majesty's Service. Further, he would like very much to know from the right hon. Gentleman how it was proposed to carry out a plan by which an officer should be able to get his three meals a-day for the sum of 4s? Was it intended that the Government should find sergeant caterers or mess-sergeants, or were the officers of the regiment to seek out some person who would undertake to mess them at the rate of 4s. a-day? He ventured to say it was impossible for any private person to provide for the officers at that rate; and if it was to be dependent on the officers to select a sergeant from their own regiment to do it, a considerable portion of their time would be spent in endeavouring to carry out the necessary arrangements. He did not for one moment wish to see extravagant messes in the Service; but he thought that this laying down of a hard-and-fast line of 4s. a-day, which was not to be exceeded, would greatly interfere with the social life of officers, and would have the effect of driving men away from the regimental mess to hotels and other places where they could meet with better accommodation. He remembered that 28 years ago, when he was in a Line regiment—a four-company depôt, which he was sorry at that moment was not in favour with the right hon. Gentleman—a squadron of Cavalry was stationed near them, and even their four-company mess was not considered good enough for the Cavalry officers, who would not condescend to dine there, and went to various hotels in the neighbourhood. On the whole, he felt sure that the officers of regiments would not like to have their social affairs interfered with in the manner proposed. In connection with this subject there was another matter to which he would refer. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to dispose of, or take over, the regimental plate, which was the property of the officers of various regiments? How were the knives, forks, spoons, centre pieces, and goblets, the presents from old officers who had served in the regiment, and the collection, perhaps, of 100 years—how were these to be disposed of in view of the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements for diminishing the expense of transport? If it was intended to take over all the plate from the officers at a certain price, he thought they were clearly entitled to information on this head, or sufficient notice to enable them to make their own arrangements, if an answer to this inquiry could not be given at once. There was another matter to which he would call the attention of the Committee—namely, the present position of colour sergeants transferred to the Volunteers. A Question had been asked in the House upon this subject last year; but no reply, as far as he was aware, had been given to it. Previous to last year colour sergeants of the Army were transferred to the Volunteers under certain regulations. They had to revert to the rank of sergeant in order to become sergeant instructors and to serve out their Army engagements. At the time they were transferred the rate of pension was the same for colour sergeants and sergeants; but by the new Warrant brought out by the right hon. Gentleman an additional 3d. per day was granted to colour sergeants. Therefore, as he understood the matter, the colour sergeants who were transferred to the Volunteers before the year 1881 would be losers of 3d. a-day. He maintained that this amount of 3d. a-day should be extended to the colour sergeants now serving as instructors with the Volunteers under their Army engagements; and he could not but think that their exclusion was due to an omission on the part of certain officials at the War Office. The matter being one of great importance to sergeants in the Army, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that it should be inquired into. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay)that the Home battalions of the territorial regiments were mere shadows under the present system. The Home battalion now consisted of 420 men; but it was quite impossible for the commanding officer to get anything like that number on parade. After a regiment came home from foreign service it consisted simply of a number of recruits, and for years it was nothing else than a travelling depôt, the commanding officer having the greatest difficulty in getting 200 men to appear on parade by turning out servants, tailors, cooks, and others. He maintained that, under the present system, it was impossible to make the Home battalions for the first few years of Home service efficient or ready for any emergency. It might be said that they were not required to be kept ready for any emergency; but they had seen, during the last few months, that battalions which had come home from foreign service had been sent to Ireland, and that might occur for some time to come. He therefore urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that every inducement should be held out, and every method devised, in order to enable officers commanding Home battalions to get as many men together, and as much drill out of them, as possible. He was unable to see why men, when they enlisted as soldiers, should be compelled to spend so much time in attending school and gymnasium, which took them away from their military duties. As a matter of fact, recruits were overworked, and were disgusted with having to go back to school. Commanding officers were unable to get their men together, and the consequence was that they had no opportunity of instructing their young officers in drill and other matters connected with their business. He would urge that the attendance at school and at the gymnasium should be limited as much as possible, especially as the soldier was now only allowed to remain a few years in the Service. In his opinion, those few years should be devoted entirely to instructing the soldier in the duties of his Profession. Again, he desired to call attention to the practice of employing men as clerks and otherwise in general offices. When a regiment arrived where there was a general office, the commanding officer was applied to for men to fill clerkships and other subordinate offices connected with it. He considered this objectionable, because it was desirable that every available man should be at the disposal of the commanding officer for military purposes; and he thought that the staff of clerks and others should be formed and supplied by pensioners and Army Service men. Finally, he would refer to fraudulent enlistment, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said, on a former occasion, was a most difficult matter to counteract; but added that for this offence the House of Commons would not for one moment tolerate branding. He (Sir Henry Fletcher) submitted that the word "branding" ought never to be used in connection with this subject. There were certain ways of marking a man without branding that would enable him to be identified as having previously served in Her Majesty's Forces; and as fraudulent enlistment was one of the great evils to which the Army was at present exposed, he trusted that the authorities at the War Office would use their best endeavours to cope with a grievance that tended so much to the detriment of Her Majesty's Service.

MR. SEELY (Nottingham)

asked for information as to the proportion which the Artillery bore to the other branches of the Service. He understood that the usual proportion of Artillery in European Armies was three guns to 1,000 men. The 300 guns which we had were, therefore, in correct proportion to the Regular Army of the country; but it must be bore in mind that the Government were forming a Reserve of between 40,000 and 50,000 men, which would increase the number of guns that we ought to have at our disposal to 460. Again, there were the Militia and Volunteers to be taken into account, which brought up the Forces of the country to something like 450,000 or 500,000 men, the requisite number of guns for which force would be 1,200 or 1,500. But, instead of that number, it appeared that we had only 300 guns; and, therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what he considered ought to be the proportion of Field Artillery to the other Forces of the country?

COLONEL WALROND

said, he understood that the territorial regiments were established for the purpose of enlisting in them men belonging to the same part of the country. But he was also informed that, supposing a Devonshire man came to the London depôt for the purpose of enlistment, although the authorities could send him to Scotland, they could not send him down to Devonshire—he would have to go there at his own expense. He believed this question was one which might be fairly considered by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to see that it was proposed to add £10,000 to the sum assigned for Volunteer camps, which there could be no doubt were amongst the best means for increasing the efficiency of the Volunteer Forces. Still, there were other matters in connection with this subject that he might be excused for alluding to. The right hon. Gentleman had invited 15,000 Volunteers to assemble at Alder-shot, to take part in the Autumn Manœuvres, which, he believed, extended over a period of three days. It appeared that the Volunteers were to pay their expenses to Aldershot, but that they were to receive 4s. a-day after arrival. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the three days over which the Manœuvres extended would be distinct from the eight days which it had been the custom to assign to the Volunteers during the month of August? He suggested that it would be far easier and cheaper in the long run if the counties of Devon, Cornwall, and Somerset had a brigade camp within easy distance of Plymouth, at which the Volunteers of those counties could assemble, under the command of officers from the garrison, the same privileges being granted to them as at Alders hot This arrangement, he believed, would be productive of the best results, and he commended it to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. In his own county four battalions of Volunteers went out under canvas, within a fortnight of each other; and he believed that, with a little arrangement, they might be able to get all the four regiments under canvas at the same time. If they could do this it would be an immense boon, not alone to the men, but to the officers also. The five commanding officers in Devonshire—of whom he was one—had no chance whatever of taking part in brigade drill. He had been trying hard to get up a brigade drill for Whit Monday; but he was met by the excuse from the other battalions that the expense would be too great. He was aware that the battalions situate in and near London had great advantages in this matter; and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) could see his way to making a grant, in order that other battalions might have opportunities of rendering themselves efficient in this drill. The efficiency of the Volunteer Force would be greatly increased thereby. He should like to say a word as to the arming of the Volunteers. It was with great satisfaction he had learnt that an additional issue of Martini-Henry rifles was to be made to the Force. They were to have 4,500 distributed to them this year, in addition to the 3,000 they had already, for purposes of match shooting. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could at once see his way to arming the whole Force with this weapon. At any rate, he believed the time was not far distant when they would have it. Perhaps, after what had taken place in regard to the Militia, they might look forward to having it served out to them next year. It would be a good opportunity then for the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the scheme he foreshadowed in his speech, of making the efficiency of the Volunteers depend more on their efficiency as marksmen than on their efficiency in drill. There might not be the same number of efficients in every regiment; but it would give an additional inducement to the officers to look after the shooting, if efficiency more largely depended on it. But it must be borne in mind that it would open a very wide field for dishonesty, especially where canvas targets were used. It was well known that even in the Standing Army, where no money was at stake, men were sometimes passed through their third class when they really had not obtained the requisite number of points. More care, particularly where sums of money depended on it, should be exercised in providing safeguards to prevent "chiz-zeling"—if he might be allowed to use the expression—by the markers at the butts. A great deal had been said about the shooting of the Force during the past 12 months, it having been brought prominently before the mind of the public by the disasters which had been met with in South Africa. Well, he should be glad to see more practice in field firing given to the Volunteers. So far as he and his men were concerned, they were rather fortunately situated in Devonshire, inasmuch as they were within easy reach of a range where they could practice field firing. The officer who superintended the range at Oakehampton had invited them down to shoot last year, and after the practice had expressed himself well satisfied with the result. They had been obliged to go down at their own expense, and he believed that if some pecuniary assistance were given to the men by the State a great many more would, on another occasion, be induced to take part in the work. Some hon. Members had alluded to the Army firing, and to the Committee sitting to consider the question. All he had to say about that was that he should be very glad indeed if every commanding officer had an unlimited supply of ammunition at his command, for this would tend to encourage practice in shooting. The expense would not be very great—he should think £100,000 a-year would cover it—and, of course it would increase the efficiency of the men enormously. He should like to say one word with regard to uniforms. At the present moment the Volunteers wore uniforms of three shades—namely, red, green, and grey; and, so far as he understood it, it was optional with each regiment what colour it should wear. There had been rumours that the Government intended to issue an Order requiring all Volunteer regiments to adopt one colour; and as these rumours had not been contradicted, and tended very much to prevent officers from joining the Force, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not any Order was to be issued on the subject. At present the regiment he belonged to wore a green uniform, and the fear that an Order might come down at any moment requiring them to wear red restrained gentlemen from accepting commissions, as, if such an Order did come down, the amount they had expended on their green uniforms would have been thrown away. There was an element of uncertainty about the matter which it would be advantageous for the right hon. Gentleman to dispel, seeing that Volunteer officers were very much wanted. He had been asked to say a word respecting an Order issued not very long ago respecting adjutants of the Volunteer Force being detailed for duty in their regimental districts. He was right, he believed, in saying that an Order was issued stating that Volunteer adjutants might be detailed for garrison duty in their regimental districts. This operated very hardly sometimes where the place to which the adjutant was called was along way from the town in which he was located. The right hon. Gentleman had allowed the officers of the Auxiliary Forces to render themselves proficient in tactics; and he was informed that his adjutant was instructing the officers in tactics, having arranged beforehand the week, day, and hour, when an Order came down from the depôt to say that he was to attend a Court of Inquiry. Of course, lie had to throw over his appointment with the officers in order to attend to the Order from the depôt. If the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into consideration he would confer a benefit on some of the adjutants. One other question he should like to draw attention to—namely, the position of the sergeant instructors. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that at present first-class sergeant instructors were not allowed to be employed in a civil trade. Beyond their duty with the Volunteers they were only allowed to drill schools, and for that they had to obtain the sanction of the commanding officer. Second-class sergeant instructors, however, were allowed to be employed in any trade with the sanction of the commanding officer, provided the sanction was confirmed by the General of the district. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to putting first-class sergeant instructors in the position of second-class sergeant instructors, it would do no harm, and would be very advantageous to the men concerned. There would always be the safeguard of the sanction of the commanding officer confirmed by the General of the district. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but would conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done for the Volunteers during the two years he had been in Office. They appreciated his endeavours to improve the efficiency of the Force, but, at the same time, wished to impress upon him the desirability of keeping them as distinct as possible from the other Services of the Crown.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that, as was usual and natural on the Army Estimates, most of those who had addressed the Committee were connected with the Army or the Auxiliary Forces. And, also, as was usual and natural, these Gentlemen had made suggestions, no doubt very useful suggestions, but suggestions which would add to the already very great expenditure on the Army. Now, the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), complained that no Radical had addressed the Committee on this subject. The reason, he took it, why the Radicals had not engaged in the discussion was that they were in despair at the great, excessive, and increasing expenditure that took place on the Army. They came down to the House to protest, but they found that their protests were not listened to; and every year, now under one pretext and now under another, the expenditure on the Army increased. He spoke as a taxpayer and as a Representative of taxpayers. At that late hour—12.45 A.M.—he was not going into all the different abuses that existed, and which might be pointed out in the Estimates which had been submitted to the Committee. He would only point out three, and respecting each he would ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. He had taken them rather as test questions, in order to show how wasteful the expenditure was on the Army. The first was with respect to the Life Guards. He wanted to know what in the name of goodness was the use of three regiments of Life Guards, two of which were in London, the other usually being quartered at Windsor? He found, on reference to the Estimates, that the pay of these men was £70,540; and, if that was a proper estimate, he took it that the total expenditure on the three regiments was £150,000. These regiments had never been out of the country since the battle of Waterloo, and he presumed they never would be sent out of the country again. It was now generally admitted that these very heavy horses and men were almost useless in time of war. There were some notable charges during the Franco-Prussian War, he believed; but now-a-days a charge of such a body as a regiment of Life Guards would lead almost to its total destruction. As he had said, although we had been several times at war during late years, the Life Guards had never been used. All they did was to provide two men for the sentry boxes at Whitehall, and to act as escorts to Her Majesty when she came down to London, or drove about Windsor. He had been told, and had seen it stated in the newspapers, that these heavy troops could not keep pace with Her Majesty's carriages, and that a regiment of Lancers had to be employed as escort when the Queen came to London. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would give some reason why these three regiments of Life Guards were maintained. In the late Imperial Court of France, where things were done on a grander scale, perhaps, than they were in England, all the ornamental objects of these three regiments were fulfilled by a body which was called the sond garde; and in England, if it were necessary rather as an ornament to the Court than anything else to have a body of Cavalry—consisting of large men and large horses—the same results could be obtained by having 100 men, and quartering them in London when Her Majesty was in London, and in Windsor when there was any occasion for their presence there. His next point was as to the Foot Guards. He did not suppose they were any better or any worse than any other regiments in the Service. What did he find in the Estimates? He found that the special pay of the Foot Guards was £18,250, whereas the special pay of all other regiments of Infantry, exclusive of the Foot Guards, was £10,500. The band allowances for the Foot Guards were £1,200, whilst for all the rest of the Infantry they were £7,300; and the mess allowances were £5,300, whilst those for all the other Infantry regiments only amounted to £23,000. Of course, these figures made the average infinitely greater for the regiments of Foot Guards than for the rest of the Infantry; and he wished to ask this question—Why was all this extra expenditure? If there was a reason for it, well and good; but he did not see any valid reason for this excessive expenditure; and if there was not, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman why, as an economist, and as a Member of a Government pledged to economy, and as a Representative of the Liberal Party, he maintained this expenditure, and did not put an end to it? There was another point to which he would draw attention, and that was with respect to the bands—and he had no doubt many hon. Members would agree with him in what he had to say. The bands were divided into two classes, the useful and the ornamental. The useful consisted of what were called "drummers;" but half of them, he believed, were buglers. There were light drummers and light buglers in each battalion, and their duty was to give the signals, and to go to the front in battle. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might smile, but he could assure them it was a fact that only these buglers and drummers went to the front, and remained at the front to give signals. The rest of the band kept to the rear, and were employed, or were supposed to be employed, in carrying off the field those who were wounded. They consisted of about 20 performers. Each battalion was allowed to take these 20 men from the ordinary soldiers of the line. He would take the number of battalions at 120; that would give 2,400 men in the Army who were absolutely neutralized. He did not think it was pretended they were necessary, or that they did anything that was needful beyond playing music. The music, no doubt, was very pleasant for the officers and others to hear; but the bands were not necessary from a military point of view. If they took the expenditure upon them at £40 per man they would find the cost, beyond the drummers, £96,000. In addition to this, he found that £10,000 was also put down in the Estimates as some sort of allowance to the bands, and this would make a total of £106,000. Now, it was clear that where they had a number of regiments together in a garrison town, like Portsmouth or Alder shot for instance, there was no use, for any practical purpose, of having half-a-dozen bands playing of an evening. The question of the desirability of having these bands had been discussed in the French Army; and it had been maintained by many eminent French generals that great economy might be effected by doing away with them and keeping only the drummers and buglers. But if, in England, the War Office insisted on spending this large amount of money on bands in excess of that necessary for drummers and buglers, he would suggest that when a number of regiments or battalions were quartered together the bands should be sent to the different manufacturing towns and be allowed to play for the benefit and pleasure of those who paid for them. In the town he represented—Northampton—the people were very fond of music, and they did not object to pay their fair share of this £106,000, provided they benefited by it in some way. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear!" but surely it would be more reasonable that these bands, instead of being locked up at Alder shot, should be allowed to play in the evening in the market places of our manufacturing towns. He did not wish to press the matter any further. The noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) had complained that no Radical had spoken on the subject in the direction of economy. He could assure the noble Lord that the Radicals would be glad to go on discussing this matter to any hour in the morning, if they thought that by doing so they could obtain any reduction in the Expenditure. They did not complain of large amounts being spent on the Army in order that the country might be efficiently defended. They wished to have an Army, not for aggressive, but for defensive purposes; but they did hope, now that they had a Liberal Ministry in power, that that Ministry would take the greatest care not only to make the Army efficient, but to make it economical and cut off all these useless excrescences.

COLONEL STANLEY

I do not wish to interpose for more than two or three moments; but I desire to put a few questions to the right hon. Gentleman which cannot be put at any future stage of the proceedings or on any other Vote. I do not rise for the purpose of answering the hon. Member who has just spoken, as I presume what has fallen from him will be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. I only wish to ask, with regard to certain arrangements proposed for the Cavalry, whether we are to understand distinctly from my right hon. Friend that they are suspended for the moment—that he does not intend to take any further action until the matter has again been brought under the notice of Parliament. That, I think, does not quite clearly appear from the remarks he made the other evening, which I was not fortunate enough to hear. As to the question touched on by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), with regard to allowing a certain number of old soldiers to re-engage, as I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman, what he asked for was not that the Warrant should be altered in any degree, but merely that the Secretary of State should intimate, in whatever manner he thought fit, to the commanding officers that his view was that they must put a favourable interpretation on the terms of the Queen's Regulations, and that they were not to be tied and bound to the special classes which, at the present time, keep them from everything but a very partial selection. The hardship is considerable where men have no opportunity to go to the Reserve; and if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself able favourably to consider the matter he will confer a great benefit on a deserving and useful class of men. As to the officers' quarters, the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understood, that he hoped very largely to reduce the expense, both to the public and the officers themselves, by furnishing quarters for them. I would venture to point out, however, that it is not, perhaps, quite as simple a matter as it looks. The question has already been fully gone into, and it must be borne in mind that not only will you have to send officers to particular places where you will have furnished quarters for them, but that you will have to send them elsewhere where they will have to supply themselves with furniture. You will experience the danger of being called upon to incur great outlay without the officers receiving a corresponding benefit. It often happens, for instance, that at the last moment the destination of a portion of a regiment is changed; and it would be very small consolation to an officer ordered to Naas to find that a comfortable room had been furnished for him in Dublin. At present, officers take their furniture with them; and they are able, at fair expense, to shift for themselves. Then there is a question which I do not intend to go into at this time of night; but which, I think, is well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is in respect to the stoppage of promotion at the present time in the Brigade of Guards. It is well known that the organization of the Guards is somewhat peculiar—that the number of mounted officers, strictly speaking, the number of majors and lieutenant colonels in the Brigade of Guards, is not precisely similar to that of the battalions in the Line; and it is clear that, unless the systems are assimilated, promotion in the Brigade of Guards must be retarded. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that the whole reason of the original Promotion Warrants was to prevent officers being blocked in the lower ranks and being hopelessly dispirited by the impossibility of rising from the lower to the higher ranks. That feeling prevails in the Brigade of Guards, as well as in other regiments; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider, not whether the Brigade of Guards have received advantages—which I am not here to deny—but to see whether they have received such an organization and such terms of promotion as will place them at least in as favourable a position as the Brigades of the Line. There is another question which is of some importance—one connected with the extension of the ranges rendered necessary by the increased use of the Martini-Henry rifle. That question had arisen when I left Office. The zone of danger of the Martini - Henry rifle is so very much larger than that of the rifles in use by the Auxiliary Forces, that no doubt injunctions will be obtained against the use of that weapon at some of the existing inland ranges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to meet the difficulty. The first thing that suggests itself to one's mind is that ranges should be obtained close to the sea; but at these ranges you are not able to obtain that valuable practice—field firing. I can only express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to lay on the Table of the House some portions, at all events, of the Report of Sir Daniel Lysons' Committee, that Committee having been assembled to deliberate upon the field-firing of the Army. I regret he has not given us something to show in which direction the ideas of the Committee tended. Whatever else I may have to say upon Army matters I will postpone until a future occasion.

MR. CHILDERS

I think it will now be the wish of the Committee that I should reply to the various questions addressed to me from both sides of the House; and I may, in a word, say I am obliged to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for the spirit in which those questions have been asked. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) has asked me if the Pay Department is working well. The organization of the Pay Department is one of the good deeds for which we are indebted to the late Government. It is the fact that the Department is working well; and we have every reason to believe it will continue to do so. With respect to the Medical Department I may say the same thing. There is no lack of officers, a matter which, in years past, we so much deplored in both Services. We have not found it even necessary to take advantage of the permission granted in the Warrant to go to the Medical Schools for a portion of the medical officers of the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend has spoken of the First Army Corps, and has asked me if I could give the Committee some information about it? He prefaced his remarks by the suggestion—which, however, he did not say he was prepared to propose—that the number of men of the Line at home might, with advantage, be raised by 10,000. I do not deny the advantage from one point of view; and if Parliament desires greatly to pay another £750,000 towards the Army it could be well laid out in that way. I, however, on my own responsibility, am not prepared to make such a proposal to Parliament. I have obtained precise information as to the condition of the First Army Corps at the present time, not only with respect to the Infantry, which I specially alluded to in moving the Estimates, and which I showed the Committee had reached their full strength within a mere trifle, but as to the rest of the Corps. In moving the Estimates I stated that what we wanted was not merely a satisfactory Infantry Establishment; but such a condition of the whole of the First Army Corps as would enable us within a Jew days, on an emergency, to send an efficient Army abroad. I am now in a position to say that whereas the Peace Establishment of the First Army Corps—Cavalry, Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Guards, and Commissariat—is 27,285 men, the actual strength at this moment is 27,838, so that we have brought, though not without considerable labour on the part of those who are responsible for this part of the War Office business, the First Army Corps to above the Peace Establishment. We shall want another 5,000 men to bring the Corps up to a war footing; but, of course, they can be easily obtained from the First Class Army Reserve. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks we are attaching too much importance to public works at Alder-shot, and says we would do well to spend more upon the depots in the territorial districts, and less upon the accommodation of troops at Aldershot, and he spoke of housing the different regiments in barracks in their own dis- tricts. I may point out, it was never intended that territorial regiments should always be quartered in their own districts. They must, in turn, move from one to another station, so that it would be impossibe to carry out our military system if battalions were always to be in their own territorial districts. I admit that, in past years, these moves have been excessive; but, out of the 16 years in which a battalion is to remain at home, there must be several necessary. What we are doing at Alder shot does not appear to have been quite understood. Many of the huts have become so dilapidated that some of them are hardly fit to put men in them; and what we are doing is, rebuilding the huts with more permanent material, without attempting to add to the accommodation. The rebuilding of the huts was not commenced by us, but by my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Stanley), and all we are doing is carrying on the work a little more rapidly. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) referred to the recruiting Report in detail, and I am glad he spoke too much in praise of the work done by the Department and General Bulwer. He said—though not quite consistently with the opinion expressed by my noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil)—he hoped we should not be too fast in raising the standard of age from 19 to 20. I should be glad if we could bring the minimum of age to 20; but I do not think it would be wise to run any risk in doing so prematurely. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), and other hon. Members, have spoken to me about the reduction in the standard of height. The reduction of the standard of height does not at all mean that no men above 5 feet 4 inches enlist. As a matter of fact, the proportion who enlist at 5 feet 4 inches or 5 feet 5 inches is very small. But hon. Members are quite mistaken in thinking we have adopted a standard lower than formerly. For years past the standard of height has varied; it has been altered as recruiting has improved or fallen off. What we have thought is, that it is better to fix a certain standard and not to alter it; and we have fixed it at 5 feet 4 inches, which is above the standard of any other European Army. If it should become necessary to check recruiting, we think it would be well to do so in some other way than by changing the standard. That is the deliberate conclusion we arrived at, after consultation with our Military Advisers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) has spoken about Cavalry organization, and recommended a reversion to the squadron formation which had been approved some years ago, but which shortly afterwards was changed back again to the troop formation. I think it too late to-night to enter into a discussion of so purely technical a question, although it is one on which there is considerable difference of opinion amongst military officers. There was weighty evidence in favour of reverting to troop formation; and I can only answer that at this moment we are not prepared to revert to the squadron formation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also suggested that the principal officers under the Secretary of State should furnish independent Reports every year as to the work of their several Departments, and that the Secretary of State should lay those Reports with his own opinion before Parliament. I do not think that would conduce to harmonious working, but that, on the contrary, it would greatly interfere with the responsibility of the Minister and the confidential advice of his subordinates. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken of the prospects of subaltern officers in the Brigade of Guards; and I am bound to say that I am not prepared to close the door absolutely to some modification of the present system. What I will say is this—and I think those who offer their criticisms, or who know the story of the constitution of the Guards Regiment, will confirm me—that whatever disadvantages the officers of the Guards may be under at the present time is certainly not due to anything we did last year, but quite the reverse. By the Warrant of June, 1881, we improved the position of officers of the Guards more than we did that of officers of the Line. There is, I admit, a considerable disadvantage in respect to promotion in the Guards as compared with promotion with other regiments. I believe the real secret is this—that a large proportion of officers who go into the Guards do not take that step with the intention of remaining in the Ser- vice all their lives, but only with the intention of spending a short time there, and then following other careers. The hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Alexander) said that at Pontefract I entirely attributed the large recruiting we have witnessed to the improved position of the non-commissioned officers. I never used the word "entirely;" I never attributed the improvement in recruiting solely to any particular cause; neither does the Inspector General, in his Report, attribute it solely to the reduction in the standard of height or to localization. I have read the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and he expressly says the better prospects of soldiers are bringing in more men and better men. The hon. and gallant Colonel asked me a question about the invitation to the First Class Reserve to enter military service in South Africa, and he said we were recklessly dispersing what we had got together with so much success. Quite recently the charge against us was that we were not getting them together; but now we are charged with dispersing them. I think that 200 Reserve men have accepted military service in South Africa; and surely that, out of 25,000 or 27,000, is not a very great dispersion of the Army Reserve. The hon. and gallant Gentleman used language as to the steps we are taking to obtain a better class of recruits which I regret. He said that the less we say about the character of the recruits the better. I deny this emphatically. We want to get out of the public mind the idea that the men who go into the Army are men who have been in some scrape or other. We wish to get men whose character will bear investigation; and I am very happy to say that during the last year we have been getting a better class of men—men whose character will stand inquiry, and who go into the Army, not to get out of scrapes, but because they think the Army is a good Profession, and that, with reference to their permanent prospects, they might as well enter it as folio w any other employment. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman said the territorial system had failed, because so few men were recruited territorially. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to the Inspector General's Report, he would see that 51 per cent of the recruits already come from the territorial districts of their battalions; and I think that is a very satisfactory result, considering the short time the system has been in force. Then I have been asked again whether I am prepared to allow privates, who have not become non-commissioned officers in their first term of service, to re-engage? To this I must again reply in the negative. If a man has not become a non-commissioned officer it is 10 to 1 that he is not worth re-engaging; and it must be remembered that the additional cost to the State of re-engaging a man who, at the end of his second term, will have a pension, is equivalent to a present payment of between £200 to £300. But, carrying out what I said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member the other day, if there is any misunderstanding in the minds of commanding officers as to the circumstances under which they may recommend men for re-engagement it shall be set right. I said, some days ago, that I thought already some 200 men had been re-engaged, and that if a special cause was assigned, and it was shown that a man was worth retaining, he would be re-engaged. I am told that there have been not more than one or two cases in which men have been refused. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) went into a question which it would be impossible at this time of night to answer; he repeated a comparison he made in 1881, not between the Estimates for this year and for former years, but between the Estimates of previous years and the Estimates of last year. Last year I went over each figure that the noble Lord has given to-night, and explained them, as I thought, to his satisfaction. Now, he has given some figures in the nature of a comparison between this year and two years ago, and says we have this year 2,671 men less than in 1880–1, and spent £500,000 more. I have looked over the Estimates, and I cannot find that diminution; on the contrary, we have 1,000 more men. The noble Lord must remember that two years ago the Estimates showed a reduction of 3,000; and, therefore, as between three years ago and the present time, there is, no doubt, a reduction—

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

I took into account the whole force.

MR. CHILDERS

The noble Lord, speaking of the comparative expenditure, said we had 2,671 fewer men, but greater expenditure. Our expenditure depends not on the number of men in a year—

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

What I wished to show was that the number of Regular Forces in this country and in India was, in point of fact, greater in 1880 than it now is.

MR. CHILDERS

I have nothing to say for the Force in India. We do not pay for it, and to refer to it in comparing what we do pay in different years is utterly beside the question. But the simple fact is that between 1880–1 and 1882–3 there is an increase of £400,000, with an increase in men of above 1,000. Of this £400,000, £300,000 is due to Naval Ordnance, £30,000 to the Autumn Manœuvres, and the rest to the Volunteers and automatic increase in Non-Effective Charges. As to this last, the noble Lord is quite wrong. He said that in 1880–1 the charge was £2,743,000; while last year it was £3,019,000, or a difference of £276,000. I explained last year that that apparent increase was caused by the transfer of items from one Vote to another—for instance, retired officers who were colonels of regiments used to be charged to the Effective Votes, and are now charged to Non-Effective. Of course there is, and must for some years be, an increase in these Votes, until the effects of short service on the Pension List are felt. The noble Lord also asked, what does "Royal" mean in connection with the Artillery Militia? Just what it means when a Militia regiment becomes a battalion of a Royal Line regiment. The noble Lord and one or two other hon. Members asked, with alarm, what were the contemplated reductions in regimental officers? I contemplate no further reductions. Lastyear, in doubling the number of field officers, we reduced the aggregate regimental officers by 400 or 500. My noble Friend also spoke about the abolition of regimental subscriptions. I have explained that we are endeavouring to keep down mess expenditure; but I did not say we proposed to abolish all regimental subscriptions. The noble Lord also spoke about the Committee on the change of uniform. I have had to meet Motions brought forward by hon. and gallant Members on the other side of the House—to resist which I had no assistance from the noble Lord—on the subject of soldiers' uniform, particularly in the case of men on active service. I said we had appointed a Committee to inquire whether any changes were required in the colour or character of uniforms on active service; and I was careful to explain that, whatever advantage one colour might have over another in point of visibility, that was not the only question. My noble Friend asked whether it was true that we were going to take away the patronage of the present colonels of the Guards? I have no such intention; but in process of time there will be no longer paid colonels of the Guards. As vacancies occur in these colonelcies, their successors will be honorary only; and other arrangements will be necessary as to the patronage they now have in first appointments. The noble Lord asked when the Ordnance Committee, which has been sitting for three years, would present their Report? The Committee has only been sitting one year, and it has done a great deal of work, and presented a number of most useful Reports, the result of a great variety of experiments; and I think it has done its work remarkably well, and rapidly. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Henry Fletcher) raised two questions of grievance—one as to retired purchase captains, the other as to the supersession of certain Line officers. As to the first question, I am not prepared to increase the pay of officers who had finally retired under former Warrants. I could not venture to disturb the well-known arrangement in all Departments that, when an officer has retired under the Regulations then in force, his retired pay cannot be increased to the scale of subsequent Retirement Regulations. Any departure from this rule would raise thousands of claims, from not only Military, but Naval and Civil officers. Personally, I sympathize with some of these officers; but I cannot take any action in this direction. As to the question of supersession, the case is this. In the Line, promotion is regimental. It is extremely rapid in some regiments, but slow in others. That is one of the disadvantages of the regimental system; and in dealing with other corps, where promotion is by seniority, all we can possibly do is to see that, on the average, their promotion is equitable. By the great improvement made last year in the promotion of the Line—when we doubled their field officers—we greatly disturbed the relative position of other corps, especially the Artillery and Engineers; and this inequality we have partially redressed. We effected this by, among other changes, allowing majors of Artillery and Engineers promoted before 1877 the Army rank of colonel after seven years, a privilege enjoyed by the Line. This put a few of these officers over some 25 of the Line officers whose promotion was slowest, and in their interest the hon. and gallant Baronet has spoken. But it is impossible to do anything for them; and, in fact, 19 out of the 25 have had slow promotion by their own voluntary action, such as exchanges to other regiments. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. C. Seely) spoke of the insufficient proportion of Artillery to the rest of the Army. I have done nothing to disturb that proportion. The hon. and gallant Member for East Devon (Colonel Walrond) made some suggestions about the Volunteers which appear to me worth consideration. As I have said, we hope to be able to issue Martini-Henry rifles to Volunteers after the issue to the Militia is completed; and I have already expressed my hope that before long efficiency will be tested by some other rule than merely the expenditure of so many rounds. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) asked one or two questions, which I will answer. We have entirely suspended any decision as to changes in Cavalry organization, and no new plan will be adopted until Parliament has been informed. As to ranges, we are quite alive to the importance of their extension, and we are asking further provision for this purpose. Then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has made some suggestions, and I shall be happy to have his assistance in effecting economies. I shall always give a willing ear to the suggestions of any hon. Member who can suggest any direction in which I can effect economy. My hon. Friend proposes that we should abolish the Life Guards, and complains of the expense of the Foot Guards in London, and the military bands. As to the latter point, whatever some French unnamed Generals may have said, regimental bands are not abolished in Germany, France, Italy, or Austria, and I should hesitate very much to abolish them here. I do not think it would be wise to abolish the Household Cavalry, who form part of the small garrison of London, and who are probably the steadiest body of men in the Army. The expense of the Foot Guards is not so much in excess of the expense of Line regiments as my hon. Friend thinks. He has referred to the special pay and mess allowances to the Foot Guards; but the Foot Guards have not barracks as the Line officers have, and these extra allowances are intended to represent the difference, everything being considered, between the expenses of officers with quarters and others without quarters, but obliged to live in London.

SIR HENRY FLETCHER

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the case of the colour sergeants?

MR. CHILDERS

Yes; I took down the suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member on that subject, and I think there is some force in them.

GENERAL BURNABY

wished, in regard to the last explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that the House should know the officers of the Foot Guards did not draw any lodging allowance. There was another subject, but which had not been touched upon in the course of the evening. In 1877 the right hon. Gentleman was Chairman of a Select Committee which inquired into the best means of providing civil employment for soldiers, sailors, and marines. He (General Burnaby) had always been an advocate for the employment of a certain proportion of soldiers, sailors, and marines in the Public Offices; and he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that some satisfactory steps in that direction had been taken. He had no desire to take the bread out of the mouths of any persons at present employed in the Public Offices; but he was satisfied that it would be greatly to the advantage of the soldiers if a certain proportion of them were able to find public employment in the manner distinctly recommended by the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman. In the concluding paragraph of their Report, which had now been presented for some years, the Committee said— Your Committee desire to express an earnest hope that the recommendations we have made, and the evidence on which they have been made, may be taken into consideration by the Department concerned with as little delay as possible. That Report was dated 1877, five years ago; and. he (General Burnaby) really thought the time had now arrived when something should be done to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. There was one short passage in the Report of the Committee which he thought was a very telling one, and which was likely to have considerable effect upon the men who were induced to offer their services to the Army. The passage he referred to was this—that if there were to be any inducements in regard to a future provision for the men entering the Military and Naval Service of the country, they should be made known at the time the men entered the Service, so that they might be made fully aware of all the inducements that were offered to them and the prospects they had to look forward to. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere) proposed to reduce the expenditure upon the bands. The bands were an important element in the Army, and did much to stimulate the energies and revive the spirits of the men. The House should know that bandsmen were trained soldiers and regularly practised riflemen, and that the officers contributed large sums of money towards the support of the bands, and made no complaint. He would certainly protest against any proposition that was calculated to impair the existence or efficiency of the bands. The officers themselves had no wish to reduce the expenditure on the bands, and he did not think, in the absence of any representations from the officers, that any enforced reduction should be made; but, at the same time, he had no doubt it would be hailed as a boon if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, by making a grant from the State, do away with some of the contributions which the officers now found themselves compelled to make. He believed that such a relief would be highly acceptable to the officers. He did not presume the State would do this, and until it did the officers were perfectly willing to continue their subscriptions from their pay in order to provide that which they knew from experience to be so greatly appreciated by the men under their command. What, after a long and tedious march, when the men assembled round the camp fires, weary, wet, and footsore, was a greater enjoyment than to listen to the cheerful strains of the band? Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not on any account to take any step that might impair the efficiency of the bands, and do away with one of the institutions of the Service which was fully appreciated by the men and regarded by everyone with the highest satisfaction. There were one or two other points upon which he should like to say a few words. In the first place, in regard to the First Class Army Reserve, he was informed there were reports abroad that some men who were recently drafted into the First Class Army Reserve took ship and went to America; but he believed that it was confined to a few men of the Rifle Brigade now at Cork. Nevertheless, it was certainly whispered currently that many of the men who ought to be in the Reserve had left the country. Naturally the names of all the men who had evaded service in the Reserve would in due course be struck off the pay lists. Some remarks had been made in the course of the discussion in reference to the uniform of the regimental officers. Of course, the uniform was an expensive article; but he was not aware that the officers had made any complaint in any way, and, therefore, the matter should be allowed to rest until they did. The same might be said of the mess expenses. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the mess allowances should not be in any way reduced or increased from the sum at which they were at present fixed; but it was suggested that an officer's messing should be limited to 4s. per day. He believed that that proposal was creating a feeling of discontent in some of the regiments. The officers naturally said—"If a friend asks me to dinner, he does not tell me what that dinner costs, nor do I ask him." The officers in this case certainly did not like the interference to which they were subjected; and the proposition to which he referred was undoubtedly creating an unpleasant feeling among them, and, if enforced, would drive officers out of the mess to get their meals, to restaurants and clubs at greater cost, and the loss of what had been a great bond of union in the English Army. Now, he happened to know what the largest maxi- mum amount expended in mess expenses per month in connection with some regiments was. Take the case of the Rifle Brigade. He had been informed by one of the officers of that brigade, who happened to occupy the position of mess president of a Rifle Brigade battalion, that, after an experience of 17 years, it had been ascertained that the maximum cost was £13 a-month. The officer in question did not consider that that was an excessive sum, nor, he (General Burnaby) confessed, did he. Of course, the officers liked to be not only civil, but to be enabled to return hospitality towards those with whom they were brought into contact, and they invariably did all in their power to render the Army as popular as possible. The extraordinary expenditure of an officer serving in Ireland was put down at £50 a-year. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] He knew, as a positive fact, by experience, that the sum he mentioned was right. With regard to the Reserves, he should like to add to what he had said, that there was, at the present moment, much anxiety to know whether the 26,000 men now composing the Force would be called out for some period of service. When the men were called out under the old system two or three years ago, it was found that some of the men—and he was alluding to facts which came immediately under his own notice—were receiving pay, not only in one, but in two, and even three different districts. The very same man was drawing pay from various distinct localities. A great deal of good would be gained by calling out the Reserves, if it were only in enabling the War Office to ascertain whether the same practice were resorted to now. There would be a further advantage in showing the men that their services were really required. He did not think they ought to lull the men into a feeling that their services were useless, and that they were to rest and grow rusty, in the belief that they would never be called out at all. No doubt, many of the men who belonged to the Reserves had found employment in connection with the railways and in other directions. So far as the Railway Companies were concerned, he had taken some pains to ascertain how many men belonging to the Reserves were employed, believing that it might be desirable to class them sepa- rately, in regard to the time of the year when they were called out. There were times during the year when the Railway Companies could better spare them than at others. The largest number of these Reserve men were employed by the Midland Railway Company; but the Great Northern Company, although it possessed a personnel of about 17,500 employés, had probably the least—namely, 74. The feeling in the Army was that the experiment, so far as numbers were concerned, had failed. The original anticipation in regard to the Reserve Force was that by this time it would have amounted to some 50,000 men; whereas, according to the Army Estimates of the present year, it only amounted to 26,000. He had listened very carefully to the remarks which had been made in the course of the evening, not only in reference to a First Army Corps, but also to a Second Class Army Corps, and he had endeavoured to realize what the existence of this Force of 26,000 Reserve men meant. He was amazed how it was possible that the House could blind its eyes to the fact that at this moment the Continent was bristling with men under arms. Let it also think of the hammers at work in every dockyard and arsenal of Europe. He believed that altogether there were not less than 10,000,000 of armed men in Europe capable of being brought under arms at a very short notice; and without having more regard to Prince Bismarck's or Prince Gortschakoff's men, or those of any other Continental State, as compared to the intrinsic value of the men who composed our little Army, he asked the House to think of the ambitions, the plottings, the plannings in the minds of those who had those forces under control, and to say if it was not absurd to suppose that nothing was likely to happen in the turn of intrigues and the clash of those mighty hosts to involve English interests. Such a position, for a country like this, and such interests at stake, was, in his opinion, a very serious thing to contemplate; and he had been seriously thinking, while the Committee had been engaged in discussing all this minutiœ in regard to uniforms, rank, and the expenses of the mess and the bands, whether it would not have been much more advantageous to consider the propriety of practising the massing together a larger body of men, whose services might happen to be required at a moment's warning, and seeing that they were properly equipped?

MR. DILLWYN

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had intimated that he would be thankful for any suggestion that might improve the condition of the Army. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had certainly made one which would be beneficial to the Army—namely, that something should be done to reduce the excessive expenditure which was incurred in connection with the Life Guards and the Horse Guards. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton; but he (Mr. Dillwyn) thought that his hon. Friend had made out a good case. The Royal Horse Guards were not soldiers for military purposes, but were used only for State purposes; and he certainly thought that, for State purposes, one regiment would be sufficient instead of two. He also thought that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War should have gone into more detailed explanation in reference to the reason why so large a force was really required. It was very well known that these regiments were of no use, but that they were really employed for purposes of show; and he very much regretted that his right hon. Friend had not gone into more explanation than he had done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Secretary Childers,)—put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.