Commons Sitting of 1 June 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 31] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Hildersham) * [209]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) (Didcot, &c.)*[210].
First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order8 (No. 2) * [211]; Pluralities Acts Amendment* [212].
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [168]; Gas and Water Provisional Orders* [165]; Water Provisional Orders* [166].
Third Reading—Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions) [171], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—PORTSMOUTH BOROUGH.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Lord Chancellor, in the selection of new magistrates for the borough of Portsmouth, has declined to appoint an ex-mayor and alderman of the borough, notwithstanding that he has been recommended for appointment by the Town Council; and, whether the Lord Chancellor will give instructions for the Council to be furnished with the reasons for which their recommendation has been disregarded?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the Lord Chancellor was solely responsible for the nomination of magistrates, and that it was the business of the noble and learned Lord to obtain information before making a selection, in order to satisfy himself that none but fit and proper persons were nominated to the office. Among the sources to which the Lord Chancellor went for information were Corporations and Town Councils; but he was not, and ought not to be, bound by their recommendations. If he wore so bound, the responsibility would be shifted from the Lord Chancellor to the Corporations. It was the fact that a gentleman recommended by the Town Council of Portsmouth had not been nominated by the Lord Chancellor; but that official was not bound to state why he had not nominated any particular gentleman so recommended.

  1479
  In his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion, if that were understood to be the duty of the Lord Chancellor, it would entirely destroy the principle of nomination by the Crown.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says the Lord Chancellor applied to the Corporation. If so, that appears to me to be inconsistent with the latter part of the Answer.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Lord Chancellor received information from all persons in the locality; and, among other sources of that information, of course the Town Council is included.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that in this case, instead of the person recommended for appointment by the Town Council, the noble and learned Lord had selected a gentleman who did not reside in Portsmouth, and who was only known as a gentleman who had taken part in a Liberal demonstration.

  THE FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) AND THE POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH) DEPARTMENT—EXTENSION OF THE TELEGRAPH TO OUTLYING FISHING STATIONS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, What steps the Fishery Board are taking to aid the extension of telegraphic communication to outlying fishing stations in the North of Scotland; whether it is the case that the Post Office authorities asked, in April, what stations the Board proposed to support; and, if so, whether the Board has yet supplied the information desired?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, this matter has been engaging the earnest attention of the Fishery Board for a considerable time past. In January last, they forwarded to the Surveyor General of the Post Office a list of stations with which it was considered of the most importance to establish telegraphic communication, and obtained from him information as to the amount of annual guarantee that would be required for each station for seven years. The sum which Parliament has authorized the Board to expend this year upon telegraphic extension, out of the surplus brand fees, is £1,000. The sums required by the Post Office for guarantees far exceeded
  1480
  this sum; and the Board have been endeavouring to ascertain what amount of local assistance may be expected for the various stations. They resolved, in the first instance, to select the station of Castle Bay, in the Island of Barra, as being the most important for the fishing interest; the guarantee required is £1,244 per annum, a sum beyond the means at the disposal of the Board. A certain amount of assistance was promised by the proprietrix of the Island, if the amount of the guarantee was somewhat reduced. The Board accordingly made a representation on the subject; but it has not been found possible to get the amount of the guarantee reduced.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—LURGAN WORKHOUSE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Irish Local Government Board received, some months ago, certain letters complaining of irregular and grossly immoral conduct on the part of some of the officials of Lurgan Workhouse; if it has been charged that the pauper diet has been greatly curtailed; if it has also been charged that female pauper lunatic inmates have given birth to illegitimate children, the putative fathers being men employed in the Workhouse; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to institute a searching inquiry with a view to the punishment of the guilty parties?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, no charges of the kind referred to have been received, except such as were contained in two anonymous letters from the same individual, who signs himself "A Heavy Ratepayer," and, therefore, professes to be a person of position. If the charges are true, he ought to come forward and make them publicly. If they are not true, all I can say is that his letters are as foul and atrocious libels as I ever read. If the hon. Member has any authenticated statements on the subject, and will furnish them to me with the authority, I will have inquiry made.
  MR. KENNY: The ratepayer referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's Answer is a most respectable man; and I shall communicate with him, in order to endeavour, if possible, to induce him to come forward personally and substantiate his charges.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— CHARGE AGAINST SUB-INSPECTOR SMITH (MOVILLE).
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, at a sworn inquiry held at Moville, county Donegal, on May 11th 1883, certain grave charges were proved against Sub-Inspector Smith, of Moville, and, amongst others, that Mr. Smith made a false and damaging report against Constable Magill, a man who did not serve under him, and if the said report is filed at county head quarters, Letter-kenny, to the prejudice of Constable Magill; if it is a fact that, at an inquiry at Moville, it was alleged that Sub-Inspector Smith endeavoured to induce a member of the police force serving under him to foully insult the Rev. Mr. M'Gluichy, the Roman Catholic curate of the parish; if it is true that evidence sufficient has from time to time been given to establish that the general conduct of Sub-Inspector Smith is disgraceful; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will be at once dismissed the force?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there was no charge made at the sworn inquiry at Moville against Sub-Inspector Smith in connection with the case of Constable Magill. I have already stated, in reply to a former Question, that the charges which were preferred against the Sub-Inspector and investigated at that inquiry were anonymous, but were inquired into at his request. The judgment of the Court was that they were wholly untrue, or gross distortions of matters which, to their minds, were most satisfactorily explained. I should hope the hon. Member will see the impropriety of giving the publicity afforded by the Notice Paper of the House of Commons to charges against public servants for which there is no primâ facie case whatever. Here is the name of an excellent and trustworthy servant of the Crown coupled with the epithets of foul and disgraceful on no authority whatever, except that of some anonymous letters.
  MR. KENNY: I would ask the Chief Secretary whether this investigation into the charges made against Sub-Inspector Smith was a public one; and whether it is not a fact that the gentleman who presided at it was Mr. Smith's own
  1482
  County Inspector, assisted by a district Sub-Inspector, who was a friend of the accused official? As the charges against Sub-Inspector Smith involve matters of the utmost gravity, amounting to scandalous and disgraceful conduct, I will move for a Return of the evidence produced at the investigation, in order that it may be laid on the Table of the House.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE —MURDER OF MR. W. M. BOURKE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to an announcement in the Dublin Gazette of a recent issue, that £1,500 has been awarded to Isadore M'William Bourke in respect of the murder of Walter M. Bourke near Castle Taylor, county Galway, £500 thereof to be paid by Isadore M'William Bourke to the trustees of the marriage settlement of Mrs. Dorinda Coghlan, sister of the late Walter M. Bourke; if he is aware that Isadore M'William Bourke inherits about £2,000 a-year through the death of his brother, and Dorinda Coghlan inherits some personal property; if it is a fact that Isadore M'William Bourke swore, at the investigation at Galway, that his brother's property was to him a damnosa hereditas, as the charges were in excess of rental, and suppressed the fact that the most valuable portion of the property was on his own hands; if it is upon the evidence of Isadore M'William Bourke that the investigator made report on which award was founded; if it is the intention of the Irish Government to reconsider this decision; and, if they intend to proceed against Isadore M'William Bourke for wilful and corrupt perjury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Lord Lieutenant went himself into this case with the greatest care, having before him the Investigator's Report, and the evidence taken at the inquiry; and His Excellency decided on awarding as compensation the amount published in The Gazette. His Excellency informs me that he sees no reason for reconsidering his award. Dr. Bourke was cross-examined by able counsel, and his evidence as to the value of his inheritance was in no way impeached or gainsaid, nor was any evidence to the contrary adduced,

  1483
  I must say that, under these circumstances, it is a strong thing that a gentleman should be described by implication as a wilful and corrupt perjurer in the House of Commons.
  MR. KENNY: Sir, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether Dr. Bourke did not swear that this inheritance was damnosa hereditas, by saying that the charges on the estate exceeded by £150 the rental, while he suppressed the fact that the greater portion of the land was in his own hands, and managed by an Englishman named Sandes, who is his agent?
  [No reply was given.]

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, MALLOW.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it has come to his knowledge that Mr. H. D. Spratt, Chairman of the Mallow Board of Guardians, declined to receive a notice of motion in the following terms, proposed to be handed in by Mr. Thomas Barry, on the ground that it was not within the competence of a Poor Law Board:—?
  "I will move, on this day fortnight, that it is most desirable that a measure establishing vote by ballot and abolishing proxy votes at the election of Poor Law Guardians, and substituting triennial for annual elections, should be passed by the Legislature this Session;"
  whether it is outside the legitimate province of a Poor Law Board to pronounce upon legislative proposals which have a bearing on the efficacy of the machinery for administering the Poor Laws; and, whether, as President of the Local Government Board, he will cause an instruction to be conveyed to the Chairmen of Poor Law Boards for their guidance in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have had the Report of this matter before me. The Local Government Board consider that the Chairman of the Mallow Guardians committed an error of judgment, and I think a serious error of judgment, in declining to receive such a resolution. The subject is one in which Boards of Guardians are certainly justified in expressing an opinion. The Local Government Board do not feel called upon to interfere in the matter, as no complaint was made to them. I will communicate with the Local Government Board again, in order to ascertain
  1484
  whether there is any reason to suppose that other Chairmen are under a like misapprehension on the subject.
  MR. CALLAN: Would the Chief Secretary state whether this Chairman is an ex-officio Guardian?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot state, Sir.
  MR. CALLAN: Well, I can.

  SCOTLAND—THE IRISH NATIONAL LEAGUE IN GLASGOW.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the meeting place at 8, Watson Street, Glasgow, of a branch of the Irish National League has been, for several weeks past, closely watched by detectives, the persons attending the meetings subjected to an offensive and intimidating scrutiny, and the books temporarily taken from the residence of the secretary, in his absence; and, if so, whether these proceedings have been ordered or approved by the authorities?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, a hall at No. 8, Watson Street, Glasgow, was hired, under an agreement which has now expired, for the purpose, as described in the missives, of an Irish Debating Society. The meetings of the Society which it appears from the Question is a branch of the Irish National League, were held on Sundays; and, in consequence of information which they received, the police authorities, during the last month or two, have on several occasions directed three or four detective officers to be stationed near the door of the hall, in order to see the persons who attended the meetings. These officers were never within the hall, and did not speak to, or interfere in any way with, the persons attending the meetings; and no complaint of any interference has been made to the police authorities. The persons attending the meetings were not subjected to an offensive and intimidating scrutiny, nor were the books taken from the residence of the secretary by the police or any public authority. I see no reason to disapprove of the action of the police authorities.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, with a view

  1485
  to place all Her Majesty's subjects upon a footing of equality in cases where their lives and liberties are concerned, he will, during the present Session, move for leave to introduce a Bill constituting a Court of Criminal Appeal for Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I do not propose, during the present Session, to move for leave to introduce a Bill constituting a Court of Criminal Appeal for Scotland. There is every reason to believe that the time of the Grand Committee on Law and Legal Procedure will be fully occupied during the present Session with the Bill now before it. The question whether a Criminal Appeal Bill for Scotland should be introduced during the next Session of Parliament will be carefully considered.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER: I beg to give Notice, in consequence of the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that, on the consideration of the English Criminal Appeal Bill, as amended, I shall move that the Bill be re-committed, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee to extend its provisions to Scotland.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE "BLUE RIBBON" IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. S. MORLEYasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been called to the fact that a girl named Moore, aged nine, has been required by the master of the Board School of Wiveliscombe to leave the school unless she submitted to have the blue ribbon removed from her dress; that, her father objecting, the child has been without schooling during more than three months; and that the managers have sanctioned the conduct of the master; and, whether, considering such cases have occurred before, more stringent measures could be adopted to prevent their recurrence?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Education Department has always been unwilling to interfere with managers in respect to regulations which they may deem necessary to secure the discipline of their schools. At the outset of this Blue Ribbon movement there were complaints that the wearing of the badge in school hours was a cause of disturbance among the children; and the managers, in some instances, allowed the masters to forbid it. I have, however, satisfied
  1486
  myself, from personal observation and inquiry, that it is now so commonly worn, both by teachers and children, without injury to discipline, that there is no longer any pretext for objecting to it; and, as it is most desirable that temperance should be inculcated among the rising generation, we have caused the managers of the Wiveliscombe school to be informed that a child must not be excluded from the school on this account.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE REPUTED "RAPHAEL.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any truth in the statement in the "Times" of Thursday, that a picture by Raphael, which has just been placed in the Salon Carré of the Louvre at Paris, and is said to be one of the purest and loveliest of his works, was purchased in a London auction room for something over £100; whether it is true that the attention of the Keeper of the National Gallery was directed to the sale of the picture; and, whether any attempt was made to secure it for the National Gallery, and why it was not purchased for that collection?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this picture, the authenticity of which has been in dispute for a generation, was sold as a Mantegna at Christie's for something like the price named in 1850. It has been ascribed to Francia, Lorenzo Costa, Pinturicchio, Perugino, and Timoteo Delia Vite. I am told that for 25 years it has been in Rome, the owner having vainly offered it at several National Museums in Europe; and I believe it has now been bought by the authorities of the Louvre. When it was sold at Christie's there was no such officer as a Keeper of the National Gallery; and I need scarcely add that the present Director and Keeper have both been appointed to their several posts long since the sale in question. I believe the picture is of great merit, whoever painted it; but it will be obvious that the paragraph in The Times was misleading in treating what is really a matter of past history as an incident of today.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE TAPESTRIES AT HAMPTON COURT.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether,

  1487
  considering the deplorable condition of the tapestries in the withdrawing room at Hampton Court Palace, the Lord Chamberlain's Department could be instructed to report to the Treasury the probable cost of having the tapestries cleaned and mended, commencing, if possible, with that one which hangs upon the north side of the withdrawing room?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am informed, Sir, by the Lord Chamberlain's Department that the state of the tapestry at Hampton Court is now under their consideration, and that such measures as are possible will be taken for their restoration. I may add that several very interesting old pieces of tapestry, not hitherto exhibited, have been recently hung at Hampton Court.

  FRANCE AND CHINA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the serious injury to British commerce which a war between France and China would involve, Her Majesty's Government will interpose their good offices between those Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to this subject, both in the general interests of peace, which we think to be of high importance to the country, and likewise in the interests of friendship with Foreign Powers, Her Majesty's Government are always on the look-out for opportunities, when any friendly Power is involved in differences with another State, for offering their good offices, if they can do so with advantage. I am not prepared to say that the circumstances of the present case afford any sufficient expectation of advantage; but the subject is one which will remain under the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Prime Minister, What would be the order of Business on Monday; and what Business he proposed to take at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to Monday, what we propose is, that the first Business shall be the second reading of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Immediately after that, we should propose to take the Scottish Agricultural Holdings Bill. I do not entirely abandon the hope that possibly they may be dis-
  1488
  posed of on Monday next; if not, we shall take them at the next time that offers, or take either of them that remains. We propose to ask for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: For what purpose?
  MR. GLADSTONE: For disposing of these two subjects.

  PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS—MR. ERRINGTON.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It may be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) yesterday put a Question to me with regard to supposed communications between the Irish Government and Mr. Errington. I said that I would make inquiries. Naturally, I have not been able to make inquiries in the interval; but I have no doubt I shall be able, in a short time, to answer the Question. It will probably be convenient to the hon. Member, and also to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), that all questions relating to this matter should be discussed together. Therefore, I would suggest that we should go on with Supply generally, but reserving the Report upon the particular Vote relating to the Foreign Office. That, if convenient, we shall take on Monday night; at any rate, we shall take care that it is brought on so as to cause no disadvantage to the noble Lord.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he should be happy to agree to this arrangement.

PRIVILEGE.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. M'COAN AND MR. O'KELLY.
  Mr. O'KELLY, being in his place, according to the Order of the House,
  MR. SPEAKERaddressed him as follows:—
  MR. O'Kelly, you have been ordered by the House to attend in your place, this day, in consequence of a complaint of Mr. M'Coan, that he had received a Challenge from you, which appeared to have arisen from causes connected with proceedings in this House.
  I have now to acquaint you that Mr. M'Coan, having assured the House that he would not be a party to any hostile

  1489
  measures, the House will expect a similar assurance from yourself; and is prepared to receive from you any explanations which you may desire to offer, and such submission to the pleasure of the House, as the occasion demands.
  MR. O'KELLY: I have to say, Sir, in the first place, that this matter was brought before the House without my receiving any notice from the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). The hon. Member has stated very fairly the cause of dispute between himself and me; and, therefore, I do not consider it necessary for me to enter into the merits of the case. I, however, think the House is travelling outside its proper jurisdiction when it interferes with a matter of this kind, which did not take its rise in anything that occurred in this House. The matter between the junior Member for Wicklow and myself is a purely personal one, and touching my own dignity and my own honour. If I may judge from the vote of this House, this House is prepared to take a view of this question which I am not prepared to take. I do not care much about the opinion of this House, or the opinion of the people of this country; but I do think a great deal of the opinion of men of honour who live outside this country, with many of whom I have, during the better part of my life, had very intimate relations. I believe that men of honour outside this country will justify me in the position that I have taken; but, so far as the junior Member for Wicklow is concerned, I see no reason why he should have thought well to bring this matter before the House, because, before doing so, he had already placed himself beyond any risk that might have arisen through my action by his letter declining to meet me. Now, Sir, my opinion of a man who deliberately offers an insult to another, and then refuses either to apologize or to afford reparation, is that that man, by that act, falls out of the category of honourable men, and is, therefore, no longer worthy of attention from any man.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not my intention, Sir, on this occasion, to reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but I think I may be permitted to say, in the general interests of good order and of that good feeling and mutual respect which ought to prevail among Members of this House, that I have listened to it
  1490
  with much regret, and that I very deeply lament the part which it appears to me the hon. Member, as at present minded, has alone left to me. For my own part, I should have listened to his speech with the disposition which it would have been my duty to entertain, to construe it, if it had been on any point ambiguous, in as favourable a sense as the words could bear; but I cannot say that I think the speech is ambiguous. The hon. Member has referred to matters of relations between himself and the junior Member for Wicklow. On those matters it is, perhaps, not properly my part to touch. What it is my part to touch upon, acting on behalf of the House, and subject to the judgment of the House, is the relations established between the hon. Gentleman and the House in regard to this rather painful matter. The hon. Gentleman says lie cares very little for the opinion of this House. Well, Sir, on that I think I need only say that the question whether the hon. Gentleman cares little or cares much for the opinion of this House is not, perhaps, a question on which the character and dignity of this House will, in the main, ultimately depend. Nor is it the question which is now before us. The question now before us is, What is the duty of the House in such a case as has now arisen? Sir, in addressing the House last night, I said very little upon this subject; but I proceeded upon a conclusion ratified in my own mind, and agreeable, as I understood, to the views entertained by the best authorities, who had had such opportunity as the suddenness of the case afforded of considering the circumstances that were before us. I think now, as the hon. Member has given his opinion—an opinion which he was perfectly competent to give—that this matter lies beyond the proper jurisdiction of the House, it is quite necessary that I should say a few words, and they need not be many, on that subject. Then, Sir, my words will be these. One most important chapter of consideration which the House never disregards in approaching any question of its procedure is that of precedents. Now, it is very difficult indeed to find precedents that are exactly on all fours with the case that is now before us. But I may say confidently, with respect to precedents, that while they do not minutely agree with the circumstances that have now arisen,

  1491
  they unquestionably indicate that the practice of the House has been to carry its rule of interference further than the interference which was proposed yesterday, and which I shall venture to ask the House still to carry forward. I will not go back on particulars. The work of Sir Erskine May gives the opportunity for reference; and I doubt very much whether those who have examined the references there given will contest what I have said, so far as precedents are concerned. But, Sir, I must say that while I might shrink from going the length to which the House has proceeded on some former occasions, there are certain considerations which tend to give an enhanced stringency to the obligations that this House has on previous occasions required. The most important of these considerations is the great change, and I hope, on the whole, beneficial change, that has taken place in the sentiments and habits of society with regard to private encounters between hon. Members. Formerly, as the hon. Gentleman says, the canon to which he adhered was supposed socially to prevail; and a gentleman was supposed to place himself beyond the limits to which the privilege of his rank extended by declining to give what is called "satisfaction" in a matter of this kind. But, Sir, it is a matter of notoriety that the last 30 years have seen a very great change in this respect. A very long time has elapsed—I am aware that the case of high words used has happened within a shorter interval, but it is a very long time—perhaps, speaking roughly, not less than the number of years I have mentioned—since the mere challenge to a personal encounter has passed in this House with reference to any proceedings among its Members. ["Oh!" from Irish Members.] I am speaking of what has happened in public, and in the proceedings of this House, and I rather believe I am accurate in what I say. I could easily recall, were it to the purpose, cases which would bear testimony to the great change which has taken place in the habits of society; but, Sir, if that be so, and if the general view of society is, as undoubtedly it is in this country at this moment, as fixed by general practice, adverse to these encounters, then I say, whatever duty there was on the part of the House to interfere before, exists—I do not say over wider
  1492
  limits—that is another matter—but certainly exists with an increased stringency as it now comes before us, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), who 30 or 40 years ago might have been withdrawing himself from the general opinion and practice of society, is, in the course which he has taken, now conforming to the practice; and it is not in dissenting from the prevailing practice, but in conforming to it, that he has invoked the assistance, and, if I may say so, the protection of this House. Well, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) says we have perfect security against a breach of the peace, and with that we ought to be satisfied. I am not able to accede to that. I do not think that in this ease we should take a one-sided engagement from one party. In the first place, it is not accurate to say that a one-sided engagement invariably affords security against breach of the peace. On the contrary, a one-sided engagement is very often introductory to breach of the peace, although not to that particular form of breach of the peace which had been originally contemplated. Therefore, Sir, I think the question really is whether this matter lies within those limits within which it has been the practice, and is the duty, of the House to interfere. We are of opinion, after the best consultations that I have been able to hold, that it does so lie; and, for this reason, it is clearly not a mere personal misunderstanding on a personal matter, but is manifestly a public matter. It is not only a public matter—a political matter—but it grows out of—though the circumstance did not take place within it—what did take place within the limits of the House. It can be looked at, I conceive, from two points of view. The hon. Member for Wicklow says—"I went to Ireland to perform a Constitutional duty, and to explain to my constituents my proceedings in the House, for which they had a right to call me to account. When I was engaged in that duty I was drawn—and perhaps I may say required—to enter into a particular case in which I thought fit to withdraw from the House and not to vote; and my action in this House led me to make explanations of my conduct, which brought the challenge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon." Therefore, Sir, from this point of view.

  1493
  it is manifest that this proceeding had its origin in a matter that took place within the walls of this House. If I endeavour to look at it from the point of view of the hon. Member for Roscommon, it is susceptible, perhaps, of being differently stated; but I think we will arrive at exactly the same conclusion. The hon. Member for Roscommon is at liberty to say—"I did not call for any explanation of the conduct of the hon. Member for Wicklow; but what did happen was this. The hon. Member for Wicklow thought fit to make observations upon me for what I had said or done within the walls of this House, and these observations led me to send him the challenge." Well, if that be so, even from the point of view of the hon. Member for Roscommon, as from the opposite point of view of the hon. Member for Wicklow, in either or both cases, the matter has arisen from what has taken place within the limits and in the course of the proceedings of this House. Now, Sir, what I wish the House to bear in mind are these two propositions. In the first place, there is no case known to me, and I cannot learn if there is any case in which a Member of this House has brought forward his receipt of a challenge from another Member of this House, and has invoked the intervention of this House, when the House has refused that intervention. That, if true, is an important proposition bearing on the case; and, assuming that intervention to be invoked, I at once put aside the contention of the hon. Member for Roscommon, that the House in general should be satisfied with a one-sided intervention such as he suggests. The other proposition is that if we were to refuse intervention in this case—and I own I should regard a one-sided intervention as almost worse than a refusal of intervention—we should proceed upon this principle—that no amount, not only of dispute, collision, and argument, but of collision in language beyond the ordinary limits, and leading to the consequence of such language—nay, even if threatening to produce fatal consequences, and growing directly out of proceedings in this House, might induce the House to go forward between hon. Members of the House; that the House might become cognizant of what had taken place, and what was likely to take
  1494
  place, and yet would be bound to shut its eyes and say—"That can be no affair of ours." Those who will calmly contemplate that proposition—though there may be a natural disinclination to mix in personal affairs of this kind, and the duty cannot be agreeable to any of us—will admit, I think, upon the whole, that we have no choice, and that our duty is to impress, and it may be to enforce, upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon that he shall take the same course as that taken by the hon. Member for Wicklow, in promising us upon his word that he will proceed no further in the matter. I am not vain enough to suppose that anything I have said can have weighed in the slightest degree with the hon. Member for Roscommon. I would not have interjected those words but for the fact that I am very loth to make the Motion with which, if matters stand as they now stand, it would certainly be my duty to conclude. If I could perceive from the hon. Member the slightest indication that he had more to say, I would very gladly resume my seat, and trust to the future course of proceedings. But I am afraid I am compelled—[cries of "No, no!"]—as I——
  MR. O'KELLY: Sir, I have, perhaps, failed to convey my meaning as clearly as was necessary in the remarks which I have addressed to the House. I intended to say that after the receipt of the last letter of the junior Member for Wicklow, I had no longer any intention to proceed any further in the matter. I thought I had explained with sufficient clearness to the House that after the receipt of that letter I considered the matter practically at an end.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is my duty, Sir, to endeavour to remind the House of what I take to be the exact limits of its province in this matter. Undoubtedly the House would desire, with a disposition to settle the business in a manner satisfactory to all parties, to receive an assurance that no bad blood and no recollection of an angry and hostile character should remain in connection with this matter. That is what I should desire with respect to the form; but I cannot say that the words of the hon. Gentleman give me that assurance. As far, however, as I can perceive my duty on the spur of the moment, I think, though the House would be glad to see

  1495
  this matter come to a completely friendly issue, yet it is not possible for us to force that issue. That is not part of our duty. Our duty is to avert certain consequences. I now understand the hon. Gentleman to say what I did not understand before—that the matter is at an end so far as he is concerned. We have now a double engagement from the two hon. Members; and, under these circumstances, it is not necessary for me to take any further step in the matter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I hope, with the right hon. Gentleman, that we may consider what has fallen from the hon. Member for Roscommon as amounting to an assurance given to the House that he will not proceed any further in the matter which has been brought under our attention. If that is the meaning and intention of the hon. Member, of course the House will only be too glad to accept that assurance. There is always in cases of this sort a good deal of delicacy, and there cannot fail to be some pain, in what has to be said. But the question is not so much the relation of the hon. Members who are parties to the matter that is to be considered as their relation to the House. It is the duty of the House, when a circumstance which has arisen in the conduct of its Business has culminated in a challenge, to require from the Members concerned that they shall give to the House the assurance that they will proceed no further in the matter. That assurance was given by the hon. Member for Wicklow yesterday. It has been given, as I hope we may understand, by the hon. Member for Roscommon to-day. If that is so, the matter may be allowed to terminate. The hon. Member for Roscommon will perceive, and the House will perceive, that there was a course open to him, as to any other Member, in similar circumstances who thought he had been offensively spoken of—that is to say, he might have brought such offensive language to the notice of the House. He has not taken that course, but has opened communications of a hostile character with the hon. Member for Wicklow, who, he thought, gave that offence. The question is now in such a position that if an assurance is given to the House that the hon. Members will proceed no further we may allow the matter to drop. If that assurance be not given, it will be necessary, of course,
  1496
  to take such steps as may be necessary to maintain the character and dignity of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  INLAND REVENUE (CIRCULAR).

    RESOLUTION.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in rising to move—
    "That the General Order of the 3rd January, issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, is an unwarrantable interference on the part of a Public Department in the relations between Members of Parliament and their constituents, and an invasion of the privileges of this House,"
    said, the House might judge of the feeling created amongst the officials in the Inland Revenue Department by the issue of this Order by the fact that 298 Petitions had been presented to the House on the subject, signed by 2,559 officers, amounting, he believed, to nearly 95 per cent of the whole Service. The General Order complained of practically prohibited any intercourse or communications whatever between Excise officials, whether individually or collectively, and Gentlemen in that House. He would like to draw attention to the wording of the Order in question, and would quote from documents laid upon the Table by the Treasury. The Order said—
    "The Board regret to find that the spirit, if not the letter, of the existing regulations which forbid officers of the Revenue Service to seek promotion or removal or any alteration of their position by means of external influence has of late been frequently disregarded, more especially by deputations which waited upon Members of Parliament and others with a view to procure their influence to obtain an increase in their salaries and other alterations in their position."
    In the first place, that sentence was wholly inaccurate. No deputation had waited upon Members of Parliament, at any rate during this Session, from these Excise officials, for the purpose of soliciting an increase of salary, or obtaining any alteration of position. But there was a movement among Excise officials to bring about a Parliamentary inquiry into their whole status as compared with

    1497
    other Civil servants. That was the only object which the Excise officials had in approaching that House. The first Order on which the Treasury relied was that of the 26th of February, 1866, and the second was that issued on the 2nd of May in 1867.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had never stated that these were all the Orders on the subject.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that it was quite possible, and, from what they knew of Her Majesty's Government, it was very probable that there might be some secret regulations controlling these relations with the Excise officers; but if the right hon. Gentleman was going to rely on other documents it was not treating the House fairly to keep them from its knowledge. The whole gist of the matter lay in this—that in the year 1868 the position of the Excise officials was entirely altered by the extension to them of the Parliamentary franchise. When that was conferred on them they were placed in the same position as any other voter in the country. One of the most valuable rights that the holder of the franchise possessed was that he was able to approach the Member who represented his constituency; and there was nothing the House was more jealous of than that any obstacle should be interposed between a voter and a Member of Parliament. In 1872 Lord Coleridge, who then was the Law Officer of the present Prime Minister, said that "the Inland Revenue officer's political status is free from any political restriction." It should be remembered that, after the passing of the Act which conferred the franchise on these officers, doubts arose as to its true construction. Thereupon, another Statute was passed, which allowed them to canvass and to belong to political organizations. He would not say whether that action on the part of the Legislature was right or wrong; but, having made that change, they must now either reduce the status, or else not allow any interference by Departments with the privileges of that status. He quite thought that a distinction ought to be drawn between an officer of the Excise who approached Members of Parliament for the purpose of soliciting, for his own private ends, pecuniary advantage, or promotion in his office, and a collective and representa-
    1498
    tive body who approached Members in order to ask for a Parliamentary inquiry. The former would be a grossly improper act on the part of any official, which the Government would have a right to resent, and which no Member would encourage; but the latter was as meritorious and as much entitled to encouragement as the former was the reverse. The terms of the General Order which had been issued were much too wide and sweeping, and were, in fact, inconsistent with the law and the spirit of the law of the land. The Board might pronounce a most unjust, iniquitous, and improper decision in a case or cases affecting the officers of the Excise Department; and yet, according to the second rule, any member of the Excise who ventured to bring the matter before Parliament would be liable to instant dismissal. It must be recollected that these men were public servants upon whom full and entire electoral freedom had been conferred; and yet, by this General Order, they must not ask, through their Members, for any change beneficial to their body in rates, salaries, and allowances, under pain of arbitrary dismissal. Was the House of Commons prepared to sanction that? He would show the impolicy and absurdity of that Order. These Excise officials did him the honour to consult him on the matter; and he had advised them that the best way to challenge the legality of the Order was by petitioning the House of Commons. The result had been that 95 per cent of the officials had signed such Petitions, and nobody had dared to insist on the enforcement of the Order. This Order had denounced public organizations formed for the purpose of sending deputations to wait on Members of Parliament. He was perfectly certain that in the old days—in the days when the Inland Revenue Board was wisely administered by Sir Charles Herries, Mr. A. Montgomerie, and others—there was no need for any organizations such as these, and they had none of these quarrels. Then, again, the Board said that they felt the less reluctance in issuing the Order because it was well known to all the officers that they might at all times approach the Board. But that was exactly what the officers had done; and it was only when the Board refused, as they thought, to give a just and a fair consideration to

    1499
    their case, that, in the exercise of their lawful and Constitutional rights, they solicited the aid and protection of Parliament in the matter. They had, in fact, acted on the advice of the present Prime Minister, who, in 1867, had told the officials, who were agitating for a beneficial alteration in their status, first of all to exhaust all their chances with the Board, and then to approach the House of Commons by way of deliberate appeal from the Board. That was exactly the course the officials had adopted. They had approached the Board; they waited upon it by deputation; and, in fact, in the words of the Prime Minister, they exhausted all their chances with the Board, and were about to approach Parliament, when the Board—with, he presumed, the knowledge and consent of the Lords of the Treasury—stopped them by the issuing of this General Order. He wished to tell the House that he was not advocating any claim on the part of the officials for higher salaries, or for any change whatever in their status. He confined himself to endeavouring to got the House to censure this General Order, and to give a distinct recognition, not only to the Constitutional rights of the officials of the Board of Inland Revenue, but also of the Privileges of Members of Parliament. Ail he advocated was that three or four superior clerks should not be able at will to deprive thousands of public servants of their Constitutional rights. Curiously enough, he found that the Marquess of Salisbury, when a Member of that House, had had to encounter the present Lord Sherbrooke, then Mr. Robert Lowe, on this subject; and he had used these words:—
    "The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) has spoken in bitter terms of the subordinates in the Public Offices.… I do not believe that in the service of the Crown any loyalty is due to the heads of Departments as against the House of Commons. The heads of Departments and the Departments themselves are alike subject to our jurisdiction; and if the employés have any complaints to make they do no wrong in laying them before the Representatives of the people."
    After all, Parliament was the employer of these people, although the Inland Revenue Board seemed to be under the impression that they were their employers. He would also advocate the great importance of keeping the Civil servants in a temper of cheerfulness
    1500
    and loyalty; and nothing had done more to destroy that temper of cheerfulness and loyalty than the action of the Board in issuing this General Order. He was simply seeking to restore it. All the immense Revenue of the country depended on these officials, and their work required at their hands the greatest tact and delicacy; and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supposing by these organizations, which the failure of the proceedings of the Board had forced the officials to adopt, they were led on to a general strike, would not the Board be put to the greatest inconvenience? Considering the amount of education to the work required by these officers, they could not easily be replaced, and this discontent might bring on a general strike. This General Order, he was informed on the best authority, was the work of Mr. Algernon West, who, curiously enough, had made his career for himself by pursuing those very practices which he forbade his subordinates to pursue—by belonging to political Clubs, hanging on to Members of Parliament, taking a leading part in election matters, and, no doubt, by continually soliciting, in one way or another, personal advancement. He was, in fact, a unique specimen of Whig jobbery. He did not know that the Prime Minister was quite as good a specimen of a Whig as he was; but, undoubtedly, Mr. Algernon West's origin might be traced to the predilection of Whigs for jobs and favourites. He was first discovered by Lord Halifax and then taken up by Lord Northbrook, two Whig Lords, and was finally handed over to the Prime Minister, who made him his Private Secretary, and afterwards gave him one of the best posts in the Civil Service. One of the greatest hardships inflicted on the Civil servants, and one which they most bitterly resented, was the continual practice of Prime Ministers of placing their Private Secretaries in the best posts in the Service; and now, curiously enough, the Prime Minister had placed another Private Secretary on the Board. Such action as this deprived men who had served long and faithfully in different Departments of the prizes of their professions. Unfortunately, too, the Leader of the Opposition was not altogether guiltless in this respect, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman had nominated one of his Private Secretaries to a place

    1501
    on the Inland Revenue Board; but the present Prime Minister had crammed the Board with his Secretaries. He not only appointed Mr. Algernon West, but he had placed Mr. Godley upon it, and there was not the least doubt that be would place Mr. Hamilton there too. Thus they had the extraordinary spectacle of an Inland Revenue Board made up of Private Secretaries, gentlemen who were not acquainted with the routine of the Department or the feeling of the Service; and, as a result, they had the issue of this General Order giving rise to a widespread feeling of discontent. He asked the House to put an end to this last relic of official jobbery, and to let the best posts in the Civil Service be thrown open to the whole body of meritorious officers. It seemed to him quite monstrous that the Prime Minister's Private Secretaries, whose chief experience of official life was gained—he would not say quite among the backstairs' intrigues and dirty work of office—["Oh, oh!"]—well, it was very well known what Private Secretaries did—it was monstrous that they should be allowed to draw an immense salary from the public taxes, and tyrannize over and worry hard-working and ill-paid public servants. It was to such an unfortunate instance of Private Secretary jobbery, ignorance, and intolerance as Mr. Algernon West at the head of the Inland Revenue Department at £2,000 a-year that this Circular was due. He believed him to be the sole author of this most ill-advised, foolish, and illegal Circular, which he now asked the House severely to condemn.
    MR. MONK, in seconding the Resolution, said, he was anxious that there should be no mistake as to its scope. If the General Order of January 3, 1883, had been confined to the prohibition of Parliamentary influence for any personal advancement, or to any interference with the necessary and salutary discipline of the Board over its officers, no objection could have been taken to it. Such Orders had been in existence for many years, and had been readily acquiesced in by Civil Servants. The principle for which they contended was, that every elector, whether a Civil servant or not, should be entitled to approach his Parliamentary Representative, and to unburden himself of any grievance freely and unreservedly. He was under the impression
    1502
    that that principle had been embodied by legislation, and that it was distinctly settled, so far as the Inland Revenue Department was concerned, by 31 & 32 Vict., c. 73, when the Civil servants of the Crown in that Department were admitted to the franchise. That Bill had on its back the names of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), and his own; and he considered it right to the Civil Servants affected by that Bill that one of the Members who brought it in should rise in their defence. The disabilities under which, until lately, Civil servants laboured, originated in Acts passed as far back as the Reigns of William and Mary, and of Anne; and then, no doubt, Civil servants were not unwilling to be relieved of the privilege—if privilege it could be called—of a vote which they were compelled to give under the direction of the Government of the day. Circumstances, however, had now changed, and those disabilities had been removed. He was convinced that Parliament would not allow the Board of Inland Revenue, or any Government, to re-impose those disabilities to which Civil servants had been subjected by the Rockingham Administration in 1782, or by the earlier Acts to which he had referred, under very different circumstances. What, then, was the meaning of this Order of January, 1883? It appeared to be an attempt on the part of the Board to interfere between members of the Service and their Representatives; and, to his mind, it was more censurable than the brutum fulmen issued by the same Board in 1868, when it sought to affix a stigma upon its subordinates by raising objections to their enfranchisement, on the ground that they were not considered fit to exercise the electoral franchise. It was quite clear that the experience of the last 15 years had not taught the heads of the Department wisdom. He had no doubt that the whole Board was responsible for the Order; but it was an unwise Order, and had caused much discontent in the Department specially concerned. Nothing could be more unfair than to assume that the use of Parliamentary rights would be turned into an abuse. Believing that it was much better that discontent in a Public Department should be allowed to come to the light than

    1503
    that it should be left to seethe below the surface and so cause demoralization, he begged to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the General Order of the 3rd January, issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, is an unwarrantable interference on the part of a Public Department in the relations between Members of Parliament and their constituents, and an invasion of the privileges of this House,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I request permission to offer a few observations to the House before the Government reply, because I have been personally and officially connected with several stages of the transactions of which the noble Lord has given so lively an account. Although I certainly found in his speech one of the characteristics which always distinguishes his speeches in this House, although I found that it was clever and amusing, I failed to find in it, what I have generally found in former speeches, evidence of a careful study of facts, and accuracy in the statement of facts. I do not think I ever heard a speech which, for its length, contained so many mis-statements and mistakes as the speech of the noble Lord; and I think it is right that the House should be made aware of one or two errors into which he has fallen. I will not discuss the meaning which the noble Lord attaches to the General Order. He said that it prohibits all communications between Civil servants and the Members representing them. Now, that is not the bearing or meaning of the General Order; but I will leave it to the Government to explain that that is not its meaning. The noble Lord went on to say that he cannot find what cause there has been for an Order of this sort, and that he cannot find that any deputation representing Civil servants has waited on a Member of Parliament this year for the purpose of getting salaries raised. But, as I understand the case, it was exactly because a deputation had waited upon a Member of Parliament, or a person who afterwards became a Member of Parliament, that the present
    1504
    Order of the Inland Revenue Department was issued.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? I am informed that all they asked for was a Parliamentary inquiry. They carefully limited themselves to that.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That may have been so. I cannot say.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh, it was so.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It practically comes to the same thing. At any rate, there is one fact I wish to mention. There is a newspaper called The Civilian, which has a large circulation among members of the Civil Service. In an article on the contest at Edinburgh, which appeared in that paper on November 11, 1882, I find the following statements under the heading, "The Inland Revenue Salary Movement "—
    "The contest for the representation of Edinburgh in Parliament was decided on Friday, the 3rd inst. There were two Liberals in the field, and Mr. Waddy was returned. Of course, it is not for us to discuss the claims of the rival candidates. What we have to record is that the situation was fully taken advantage of by officers of the Inland Revenue, who wished to have their claims brought before both gentlemen."
    The article goes on to say that—
    "Mr. Waddy lost no time in granting an interview."
    And that—
    "Amongst the remarks made by Mr. Waddy, he stated that, in his opinion, the deputation had made out a strong case with regard not only to the inequality, but to the inadequacy of the salaries received."
    Now, when the noble Lord says that there was no cause for the Circular, because no deputation had waited on a Member of Parliament to discuss the question of an increase of salary—
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The gentleman before whom the deputation went was not a Member of Parliament.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Well, he was an inchoate Member of Parliament; and it was with a view to obtain his assistance, as a Member of Parliament, that the deputation waited upon him, and, as The Civilian says, full advantage was taken of the opportunity in order to bring the claims of the officials before him. The next point on

    1505
    which the noble Lord made an observation was about the existing regulations. The noble Lord says the gist of his complaint is that in consequence of the Acts of 1868 and 1874 the whole position has been changed, and complete liberty is given to the servants of the various Government Departments to do that which the noble Lord admits it was not competent for them to do before those Acts were passed. The noble Lord went on to say that in the good old times, and until the present injudicious proceedings of the Board of Inland Revenue, there was no organization among Civil servants. Now, I should like to call attention to the circumstances in which the Act of 1868 was passed. I was then a Member of the Government, and I remember what took place. Speaking upon that Bill, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Ward Hunt) said that continual applications were made by Civil servants respecting their position and salaries, and that those applications had, of late years, taken a very peculiar form, not being made through the Heads of Departments, or by Memorials to the Treasury, but being made through the medium of resolutions passed at public meetings. Mr. Ward Hunt contended that the Government of the day would have far greater difficulty than before in ruling the various Public Offices if such measures were persisted in. That proves that at that time there was an organization which caused anxiety to the Government. Nevertheless, the Act of 1868 was passed, though Mr. Disraeli opposed it. It was, however, a very limited Act, which merely gave the power of voting, and did not give the right of taking part in public meetings, and otherwise interfering with elections. In 1874, the first year of the tenure of Office of the late Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) brought forward another Bill. Now, a very remarkable thing occurred in connection with that Bill. There were certain old Statutes which imposed heavy penalties upon persons in the Civil Service for taking part in election matters, and which placed them at the mercy of the common informer. The intention of the hon. Member for Gloucester was to relieve Civil servants from the disability to which these old Statutes referred; but his Bill, as originally drawn, went further, and there was a clause in it to the effect that no person
    1506
    should be subject to any penalty or punishment for taking part in political proceedings at an election. The Government did not oppose the passing of the Bill; but when the Committee stage was reached, I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, drew attention to the great width and breadth of the provision to which I have alluded, and I then made some observations to which, with the permission of the House, I will call attention.
    MR. MONKobserved, that that Bill only affected Civil servants in the Post Office and Customs Departments.
    SIB STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: At all events, I will read what took place. What I said was this—
    "Although he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the law should be altered, and that old, obsolete, and inconvenient restrictions should be removed, he thought the House should do nothing to restrain the Executive Government from taking such stops as they might find necessary for preventing any unseemly or inconvenient interference of their own officials in electioneering contests. Now, the 1st clause might cause some difficulty. It provided that no person engaged in the Revenue Departments should he liable to any pains or penalties by reason of his having solicited the vote of any elector, or addressed any assembly of electors in reference to the choice of any person to serve as a Member of Parliament. If they passed so broad an enactment as that, it seemed to him they would inconveniently impair the action of the Executive Government, and the Board of Inland Revenue, or of the Customs might be hold to have violated the Act, if they issued any order whatever with regard to the officers taking part in elections. Therefore, what he proposed was that the Bill should be amended by striking out that section; that they should limit themselves to a repeal of the enactments which now prevented officers from taking part in elections; and that they should explain in the Preamble that the reason for passing the Bill was, that the officers of the Revenue Department were still subject to severe penalties with reference to electioneering matters to which the officers in other branches of the Public Service were not subject, that it was desirable to abolish such penalties, and that then they should leave the matter to be dealt with at the discretion of the Government. He thought it very probable that the Board of Customs and of the Inland Revenue might think it necessary to issue some Orders on the subject."—(3 Hansard, [219] 799.)
    To that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) replied that he cordially agreed with almost every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These Orders were issued shortly afterwards, and there have been other Orders. There was an Order on December 2,

    1507
    1878, sent out by the Board of Inland Revenue, much to the same effect as the present Order. It was subsequent to the alteration of 1868 and 1874, and it was ordered to remain in force until a new edition of the old Order was put forth. That entirely upsets the case of noble Lord. When he tells us that the old positions of these officers have been altered, and that what was right before became wrong after, I say that he does not take into account what were the circumstances of the alteration made in 1868 and 1874. The noble Lord has told us that the position of the Inland Revenue officers is free from any political restriction, and has endeavoured to raise a distinction between an individual wishing to get his salary raised, and that of a number of persons having a common object in view.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The case of any grievance.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Of any grievance not connected with salary. I believe there ought to be nothing to prevent Civil servants bringing under the notice of Parliament a general statement of grievance. But it is a different thing for them to attempt to get their salaries raised. I think Parliament would be doing a most dangerous thing if it permitted Civil servants to appeal from the decisions of their own immediate superiors to Parliament in order to get improvements in their salaries. The House cannot do this unless it is prepared to take upon itself the responsibility for the administration of the Civil Service. If it should do this it would be a most dangerous thing, not only to the interests of the Service, but to the character of the House of Commons and Parliament. I can assure the noble Lord from my experience, which is not inconsiderable, of the work of Public Departments, that there is no indisposition, and never has been, to carefully and fully consider all the claims put forward by Civil servants for improvements in their position. No one is so interested in the maintenance of contentment in the Civil Service as the Government at the head of it. The late Government were at the trouble to make a most careful inquiry—culminating in the arrangements of 1876—into the stations, salaries, position, and employment, the number, the classification, and the work of the Customs and Inland Revenue officials, and a large
    1508
    and liberal settlement was subsequently made. To permit the members of the Civil Service afterwards to come to the House would be a most dangerous thing. I trust nothing will be done which will in any way weaken the hands or reduce the responsibility of the Government in the matter. The Government must bear the responsibility. If the Inland Revenue authorities acted without the authority of the Executive Government, the Government would take them to task for what they had done. The House itself has nothing to do with the position of the Civil Service; it can only look to the Government and hold them responsible. I maintain that the House of Commons must resolutely refrain from interfering with administration of this kind. When we consider that there are about 100,000 members of the Civil Service in various positions in different parts of the country, it is clear that anything relating to them is a matter of great delicacy and importance. It is almost impossible to benefit one member without doing an injustice to another. If the House were to take upon itself to interfere in this matter, elections would take place in which Civil servants would obtain pledges from candidates on the representation that they were not receiving so much as they ought, having regard to other employments. Encouragement would thus be given to corruption of all kinds, which would utterly destroy the character of the House. It would lead not only to cases of individual corruption, but the House would have placed itself in a position which would very much affect and weaken its character, and might lead us to consequences we have reason to dread. Our warmest thanks are due to the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) for the great service he did in going into the whole subject and introducing an improved system of organization. We have to guard against the evils I have mentioned, and the Circular seems to be directed against them. Therefore I hope Her Majesty's Government will absolutely decline to accept the Motion made by the noble Lord. It is impossible that such a Motion can be accepted, and placed on the Books of the House, without greatly weakening the hands of those who have the administration of the Public Service; and were the House to accept such a proposal it would not be

    1509
    very long before it would have reason to regret it.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he had listened with very great pain to the almost offensive attack made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstook (Lord Randolph Churchill) upon Mr. Algernon West, the Head of the Inland Revenue Department. In his opinion, it was both ungenerous and uncalled for. The noble Lord had spoken of Mr. West as some Private Secretary brought in from the outside, and thrust over other servants until he got to the head of a Department. He (Mr. Whitbread) remembered Mr. West's first introduction into the Civil Service. He first served as a young clerk in the Inland Revenue Department; he afterwards went to the Admiralty, and then to the Treasury, and thence to the Inland Revenue Board. He had also been Private Secretary to different Ministers. He did not think the noble Lord had had experience in that rank of life. Private Secretaries were not generally called upon to do the dirty work of their superiors; and the first duty a Private Secretary learnt was to be accurate and moderate in his statements. It was the fact that Ministers who had once employed Mr. West as their Private Secretary subsequently endeavoured again to obtain his services, and often recommended him to their Successors. The noble Lord had said that Mr. West owed his position to two jobbing Whigs, Lord Nortkbrook and Lord Halifax; but he believed Mr. West really owed at least one step of his promotion to the Party opposite, and in particular to Lord Beaconsfield. His talents and industry which were recognized on the one side of the House were recognized also on the other, and he had steadily worked his way up after 33 years' service. The duties which the Civil servants of the Crown had to perform were of a very important and delicate character, and were spread over every part of the United Kingdom, and therefore nothing could be more foolish than the advice tendered to them by the noble Lord when he suggested to them to strike.
    LORD RANDOLPH OHURCHILL: I never recommended them to strike.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could only compare the noble Lord to the gentleman who said to the people in stormy election times—"There are stones, and there are windows; do not say that I
    1510
    recommended you to break them." He must tell the noble Lord that words such as he had used caused pain. If Her Majesty's Government resisted the; Motion of the noble Lord they should have his hearty support, for he was convinced that it was absolutely necessary to stand up against organized demands for increase of salaries. No one valued more than himself the services of the j Civil servants; but he felt bound to say that bringing Parliamentary pressure I to bear on their part ought to be discouraged. If the House were to follow that course, as recommended by the noble Lord, it would be one of the worst steps in the interests of the Civil servants themselves, because there would arise a reaction against such pressure, and the Civil servants, instead of standing well, would lose their position very considerably.
    TUE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, that although much of what he had intended to say had been already anticipated by the admirable speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite and by his hon. Friend behind him, still he felt it his duty to state, on the part of the Government, the view that they took of the Motion of the noble Lord; and in doing so he would state his regret that the Motion came on as an Amendment to Supply, so that it could only be met by what was virtually the Previous Question, instead of by a direct negative. There was one personal matter which the noble Lord had introduced into his statement. The noble Lord had asked him whether he held himself responsible for this General Order. He would reply most distinctly that he was responsible.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was absent from London at the time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that was so; but he should be sorry to rely on his absence from London as releasing him from responsibility. On the contrary, he considered himself responsible for the General Order. It was an excellent General Order, and he was prepared to stand by it. Without some such Order it would be practically impossible for any Government to carry on the discipline of the Civil Service or any part of the Civil Service with efficiency and economy. The noble Lord's Motion im-

    1511
    plied, and in his speech he had stated in effect, that Civil servants had a right to apply to Members of Parliament collectively or individually, in order to obtain increase of salaries, promotion, and other advantages, this being what was prohibited in the General Order.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that all he stated was that they had a right to ask for a Parliamentary Inquiry into their grievances.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDRES)said, the noble Lord's speech and the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) most distinctly covered the ground he had stated.
    MR. MONK: I entirely and most distinctly repudiate any such intention.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrose to Order, and asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in continuing to impute expressions to his noble Friend which his noble Friend disavowed?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord has disavowed the expression attributed to him, that disavowal ought to be accepted.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, if the language the noble Lord used was not intended to convey what the words meant, he would accept the disavowal. In the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester he took the words down. The hon. Member said that every elector, whether in the Civil Service or not, might approach his Parliamentary Representative and unburden his grievances, whatever they might be. But the foundation for the Motion was that, whatever might have been the case formerly, Civil servants, being now electors, had the right to approach Members of Parliament; and in this connection, another argument of the noble Lord was that the rights in this respect of members of the Civil Service were derived from the circumstance that Parliament was their employer. That doctrine seemed to him fraught with the gravest consequences. It was not Parliament which employed Civil servants, but the Crown, acting through the Ministers, who were responsible to Parliament. The noble Lord's proposition was, therefore, based upon a fallacy, and ought not to be assented to by the House. But, putting aside this argument as really beside the question, what he wished to
    1512
    point out was that the doctrine put before them by the noble Lord did not only concern Revenue officers, but every branch of the Service—soldiers, sailors, and the whole body of civilians, whether employed under the Admiralty and War Office, or in the Civil Service proper. The noble Lord's contention was that something had been done with respect to Revenue officers, some privilege had been conferred on them which did not apply to other officers. But he would remind the House that soldiers and sailors and members of the ordinary Civil Service had always enjoyed the franchise. As to soldiers, George III. once blamed Lord North and Lord Barrington for not bringing up the Guardsmen to vote at an election. The present state of the law was remarkable as to soldiers. It was quite true that in Great Britain regiments were not allowed to be in a constituency at the time of polling for an election; but from that was expressly excepted the right of soldiers having votes to exercise the elective franchise, and even to go to their polling places without asking leave. So that the House would see that this Motion not only affected the Inland Revenue officials, but the whole of the Army, Navy, and Civil servants; in fact, every person who was paid by the Crown, with some limited exceptions. The effect of the Enfranchisement Act of 1868 was simply to put the Revenue officers on a footing with all the other officers of the Crown in regard to these privileges. Therefore, the whole foundation on which the noble Lord and his hon. Friend built their superstructure fell to the ground. He had taken some pains to place the facts as to the Public Service in this respect before the House; and the Treasury and Admiralty Minutes which were circulated utterly disposed of this supposed right to approach Members on questions of pay and promotion. All the different classes of the Service were governed by the same rules and subjected to the same restrictions. He would point out one absurdity which would follow from the noble Lord's proposition. It would follow that those public servants who were electors might approach Members of Parliament on those questions, while those who were not so would be debarred from that privilege. Indeed, it would almost follow that they could only approach their own Members. This would make it necessary for

    1513
    Heads of Departments to keep registers, so as to be able to tell which of their subordinates were voters and which were not, and to what constituency each voter belonged. But he would also point out what was far more serious, and that was, that if public servants were to canvass Members for this purpose, offering their support to those who would help them, they would naturally select those who had the greatest influence with the Government—that was to say, supporters of the Government. The effect of that would be that, in the long run, the whole body of public servants would be on the side of the Minister in power. In other words, whoever was the Minister in power would be able to wield the whole influence of the Public Service. The result would be that they would gradually arrive at the state of things which prevailed in the United States; and, as the inevitable result, at every change of Government a large number of Civil servants would be deprived of their offices. He would turn for a moment to what had been said in the debate with regard to Mr. Algernon West. He wished to say, in regard to that gentleman, that he knew no public servant who discharged his duty with so much fidelity, and he believed he should be borne out in that statement by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, in his attack on the Circular for which Mr. West was responsible, the noble Lord was guilty of a strange omission. He read through two of its sentences, but he carefully omitted the words relating to salary, the express subject of the Circular.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I especially avoided dwelling upon the question of salaries.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, it was true that the noble Lord had guarded himself against advocating any increase of salaries; but he omitted from the Circular the words about salary, which were its essence. They had heard a great deal about the right of Petition; but neither the Treasury nor the Inland Revenue had ever questioned the right to address a proper Petition to that House. He certainly had refused to discuss this question of the right of Petition except in debate and when they had the exact words of the Petition before them. The whole of this controversy was a question of salary and promotion. He had laid On the Table of the House the Corre-
    1514
    spondence between the Board and the Treasury, and between the Board and its officers; and, from beginning to end, anyone who perused it would see that it was entirely a question of salaries. Those salaries had been settled in 1876, on fair and just terms, and the whole of this agitation was aimed at re-opening the settlement through the assistance of Members of Parliament. He would say again that it would be impossible, in his opinion, to exercise due control in the direction of economy, over the expensive Public Services of the country if the principle advocated by the noble Lord in his Motion were for a moment admitted. Already the salaries of the Civil servants in this country—although he did not think them excessive—were probably about twice as high as they were in France, and still higher than in any other country in Europe. There was always going on a constant struggle between the Treasury and the different Departments of the Public Service to maintain the economy which, in the opinion of the Government, was absolutely necessary to be maintained. But whether prices were high or low, the Treasury poor or wealthy, the country prosperous or otherwise, the agitation for more salary went on in the Public Departments. Under these circumstances, therefore, and considering how difficult it was for the Government to secure support from the House in dealing with questions of this class, however the House might endorse economy in the abstract, he was bound to say that if they added to the weight against the Treasury—that was, against the taxpayer—this facility for every public servant to go to a Member of Parliament and to get his assistance in redressing his so-called grievances, it would be impossible to act upon the Resolution lately moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with reference to the Public Expenditure, a Resolution which had received the support of both sides of the House. Such a Motion as that of the noble Lord was simply in the teeth of that economy to which the Government were pledged, and he did hope the House would not accept it.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had accused his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph

    1515
    Churchill) of mis-statements and mistakes. It was most remarkable that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Baronet had entirely ignored one circumstance, How were these Papers laid on the Table? His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had asked for the Circular itself, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered, not only to lay it upon the Table, but also some Papers which he volunteered as necessary to this subject. And the whole of this discussion turned upon Papers volunteered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, his noble Friend had been perfectly justified in adverting to those Papers. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Members of Parliament ought not to press on the Government for an increase of salary for public servants. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) perfectly agreed with him, and so did they all. All they had a right to do was to bring particular cases before the Government, and ask for a discussion upon them. But in the very Treasury Minute the right hon. Gentleman had laid on the Table the question of an increase of salary was included as one within the rights of Members of Parliament to press the Government upon. That Minute, however, had been issued by a much wiser Treasury than they had at present. He would ask the House to consider one question. The Treasury Minute of 1866 had been published by the Treasury as a great Public Department. If Ministers of State chose to bring forward on their responsibility any regulations they were at liberty to do so, facing, of course, any opposition. But he maintained that it was a different case where permanent servants made regulations. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Treasury Minute of 1866, which prohibited Civil servants from appealing to Members of Parliament on questions of salary, applied to members of the Inland Revenue Board, or whether a Commissioner might approach his own father, if a Member of Parliament, on this subject, and whether the General Order under discussion applied to the Commissioners? In the year 1867, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister advised certain Civil servants who applied to him in the matter in these terms—"Exhaust your chances with your Board first, and then come to the House of Commons." Did the right hon. Gentle-
    1516
    man recognize those words as his own? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No."] He inquired whether they represented the substance of what was said, and had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say something on the subject when he addressed the House? How were Civil servants to present Petitions to Parliament unless they were permitted to have access to their Members? He only wished to say one more word about the constitution of the Board of Inland Revenue. He was not going to attack the members of that Body; but he maintained, as a principle, that they had no right to issue the Circular; it could only be issued by a responsible Minister of the Crown, directed to every rank of officer under his control. With regard to the question of the appointment of Private Secretaries to those posts, he would maintain that, whatever might be the merits or the virtues of this gentleman, the Inland Revenue Commissioners had no right to issue this Circular without distinct instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I need not detain the House very long on this subject; but it is impossible for me, both on account of the reference which has been made to myself, and also considering my position in the Government and the view I take of the importance of the question, to pass it over altogether in silence. I am extremely sorry that personal matter of this character should have been introduced into the debate, and I cannot conceive why it should have been introduced. The hon. Member for Portsmouth? (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) has said that the right hon. Gentleman the Baronet opposite has been influenced by family affection in procuring an appointment for his son, and that expression going forth to the world might make it appear that the right hon. Gentleman has deviated from the path of perfect justice by placing his son upon the Board of Inland Revenue. That being so, I wish to take this opportunity of doing that which justice absolutely demands. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman did or did not have anything to do with the appointment of his son by the late Prime Minister on that Board, but whoever made the appointment deserves great credit and honour for it. No better appointment could have been made, and all I can say is that I wish there may always be forthcoming a

    1517
    series of men as well fitted to discharge the important duties of that Office as is the son of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But why did the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) attack Mr. Algernon West in this extraordinary manner, and why did he profess to know that it was by Mr. West's authority that this Circular was issued? From the noble Lord's account Mr. West would appear to be a gentleman bad beyond reclamation; and not only so, there are two other gentleman as bad as Mr. West—Lord Halifax and Lord Northbrook—through one of whom Mr. West was in part promoted. But there is another individual who, it seems to me, is worse than either of them, and that is the Prime Minister himself, for if he employs his Secretaries in back stairs intrigue and dirty work, which appears to be the staple commodity in which Private Secretaries, according to the noble Lord, are engaged to deal, it appears to me, according to the principle, that the briber is worse than he who takes the bribe, that if Mr. West has been employed in this guilty occupation, the man who employed him is still more deserving of reprobation than that gentleman himself. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, with his capabilities for applying himself to Public Business, should, I might almost say, debase, certainly disparage, his own abilities by the introduction of such worthless trash. That expression may seem a strong one, but it is really justified by the facts of this case. Mr. West is a gentleman who has risen step by step to a high position in the Public Service, and every one of these steps has been achieved by honourable and able exertion, and by no other means. The duties of a Private Secretary are most arduous, and those of a Private Secretary to the Prime Minister are certainly arduous far beyond all others, and it was Mr. West's merit and nothing else which led to his appointment, an appointment subsequently recognized by our political opponents, so that he stands in the position of a gentleman whose ability has been acknowledged by both sides of the House. We know from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that the expression of the noble Lord will give pain; but on the whole I am really inclined to think that it will not give pain, and that the testimony borne to
    1518
    that gentleman's character and services is such that he may safely dismiss from his mind all that has fallen from the noble Lord. I wish to say one word as to the statement I am reported to have made in 1867 in connection with a Memorial or document prepared by Civil servants of that day. That quotation cannot be verified by reference to any document or authority.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It appears in the Report of the Committee of the Civil Servants drawn up at that time, when the negotiations were in progress. That, I admit, is the only record of the statement.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; it appears in the Report which I hold in my hand, though I was entirely unaware until quite lately that that passage was in circulation, and was being used to give my authority to a certain course of proceeding. I was unable to obtain a copy of the letter to which my communication was an answer; but on referring to my journal, which I keep of all the letters I write, I find that that letter is mentioned in my journal, and there are words corresponding to the words quoted in the Memorial, but they do not amount to a recommendation to try the Board first, and then Parliament. There is, however, this expression in the letter—
    "I should have expected that any representations proceeding from members of the Civil Service in such a matter would have come through the Heads of the Departments, or else by way of deliberate appeal from them."
    Unfortunately, as I have said, these officers have not been able to produce their letter to which this was a reply; in that case, however, the question was that of the amalgamation of certain Departments of the Service, and I said they might be justified in appealing to Parliament on that subject—in my opinion, they would be perfectly entitled to appeal freely against any grievance—and, under such circumstances, a grievance might arise. I have no assistance in the matter from recollection, or from any other documents; but I can see a great distinction between the right of Civil servants to petition freely against grievances and the pretended right to come to Parliament to use their influence with their constituents, for the purpose of altering their contract which they had entered into with the public to the dis-

    1519
    advantage of the public, when that contract has always been liberally fulfilled on the side of the public. I think the proposed access to Members of Parliament is a most dangerous claim, and I am glad to find the hon. Member who has just sat down does not think it advisable, at any rate where their salary is concerned.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I admit that too.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am glad to hear, Sir, that that admission has now been made by the noble Lord also. If it be admitted, with regard to salary, that the attempt to influence Parliament is intolerable, I cannot help saying that the effect of the debate has been considerably to narrow the difference between us; for it is now recorded, I hope, as the unanimous sentiment of the House, that applications to Parliament for increase of salary, or, à fortiori, for promotion in the Service, ought not to be made by the Civil servants of the Crown. I think the House understands pretty well the grounds on which we say it is impossible to attach any blame whatever to the issue of this Circular to anyone apart from the Government. The whole responsibility rests upon the Government, and the House of Commons ought not to arraign permanent officers of the State who are not here to defend themselves, and the whole responsibility for whose acts passes over to the Government of the day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are responsible for this Circular; the Secretary to the Treasury will not be disinclined to take his share of the responsibility; and we ask the House to support us in maintaining the principle declared in that Circular. We do not propose to shut out a multitude of cases that are conceivably, it may be, cases of grievance. There may be demands of intolerable labour or circumstances of intolerable inconvenience in the performance of labour. It is not necessary to sketch the contingencies in which real causes of grievance may exist; but any approach to the House for the purpose of altering the contract into which these gentlemen have entered with the State will, I trust, remain upon record after this debate as unequivocally opposed to the wishes of the House. The noble Lord says he has heard me bear testimony to the efficiency of Civil servants in these Departments.
    1520
    It is true I have done so again and again, and it was only common justice that I should do it. While I have commended gentlemen with whom I have had confidential intercourse, my action never stopped there. It is my belief that efficiency, skill, and zeal go down through all the ranks of the Departments. Therefore, I hope it will not be supposed I intend to pronounce any severe censure on those whose action I think the House should discourage. It is no wonder that they are tempted by the facilities which I am afraid Members of Parliament sometimes offer—facilities the extension of which would inevitably lead to reaction—and it is far better that the intention of the House should clearly beascertained and declared. The question is not confined to the Revenue Department; the privilege might be extended to soldiers and sailors; and it is for Members to consider what the effects of such extension would be. When the hon. Gentleman proposes to censure the appointments of Private Secretaries, I shall contend that such appointments, although in some cases they may be extremely bad, have in many cases been the best that could be made. From the days of Mr. Huskisson there have been many men eminent in the Public Service who have first entered it as Private Secretaries. There is no possible relation in political life which gives such knowledge of the qualities and capacities of a man's mind as knowing him in the character of a Private Secretary. I shall not hesitate to affirm, especially in regard to such offices as have been held by my own principal Private Secretaries, that they have required qualifications that would often suffice for the very respectable and creditable discharge of many political offices. It is suggested that on the occurrence of vacancies Private Secretaries are first thought of; but my first question always is whether the office can be abolished. In three instances I have abolished offices altogether; in two I have appointed Private Secretaries. One of them was Mr. West, whose capacity has been attested by those who differed from him in politics. The other was Mr. Godley, with regard to whom I may say it was my good fortune to introduce his father into the Public Service in 1853, and not less my good fortune to obtain the son as Private Secretary; and no two men have

    1521
    more worthily distinguished themselves in the Civil Service. We have not neglected the consideration of the claims of those who have risen in the Service itself. I have had the pleasure and satisfaction of appointing to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue Mr. Young, who had risen from the ranks, and had passed a long life in the service of the country—an able and honourable a man as is to be found in the Civil Service or out of it. I hope the House will come to the vote with the full understanding that this is a question of the greatest importance and of wide application, and one with respect to which they will discharge their duty best to the Civil servants as well as to the State by unequivocally discountenancing attempts to procure increase of salary or interference with promotion through action and influence brought to bear upon Members of Parliament.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), had proposed to disfranchise the Civil servants of the Inland Revenue Department, he was not sure that he should not have voted for that Motion; but as the noble Lord had proposed that the franchise of these Civil servants should be respected and held inviolable from any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers with the free exercise of it, he should vote for the Motion before the House, in case the noble Lord should decide to divide the House. These Civil servants were competent to judge for themselves of the limits imposed upon their actions by their position, and if they were not, they were unfit both for the franchise and for employment under the Crown. He (Mr. Newdegate) clearly understood the difficulty which had arisen. According to the Constitution of the United States, the whole of the Civil servants vacated their situations on every change in the Presidency, and were re-appointed or discarded by the new Administration. That was one method of preventing the difficulty which had now arisen in this country; he (Mr. Newdegate) did not say that this American system would exactly suit England, but it solved this difficulty in the United States. Of one circumstance there could be no doubt, and this was that an imperfect franchise
    1522
    invariably engendered political corruption. Nothing would induce him to vote for the continuance of an imperfect franchise. He should therefore vote with the noble Lord, if he went to a division, on the ground that these men ought to be wholly disfranchised, or else that they ought to be entitled to the free use of the whole political influence which attached to the franchise.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 37: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 115.)
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ARMY (RECRUITING)—"WASTE" OF THE ARMY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTrose to call attention to the present position of recruiting for the Army, the waste and crime of the Army, and their effects upon the efficiency of the Army and of the Reserves.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the "Count out" which had been attempted was not an ominous sign of the present condition of the Army. But there could be no more important question at the present moment than that which he wished to bring under the consideration of the House. He would admit that this was rather an unfortunate time to bring forward an important question of this kind. But in that House they were not their own masters, and they must take any and every opportunity they could get when they thought that an important public duty demanded that they should ask the consideration of the House to a most important subject. He would venture to invite the attention of Members to this question, and also the attention of those organs of the Press which conveyed to those outside all the important discussions in that House. On Army questions, especially, the technicality of the details was such that many did not care to weary themselves by going through them; but, at the same time, it was of very great importance that a true and accurate statement of the facts should be fairly given to the country. No one

  1523
  would deny that the public Press had now taken a different view of the subject. The Times had recently had two remarkable articles on the crime and present condition of the Army, and had, in fact, admitted that there were two sides to the question. Matters in the Army had come to such a pass that it was necessary to look them in the face, and the country should know its real position, for then it would not be backward in finding the means required for placing the Army in an efficient condition. He could assure the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War that he did not wish to treat this as in any way a Party question, and he hoped that the question of the Army might never be made a Party question; but he would ask the noble Lord, first, with regard to the Indian Army, whether the 50 battalions of Infantry had been made up to their full complement, or whether they were not, looking to their present numbers, five battalions short; and whether the nine Cavalry regiments in India were only equal to eight regiments in numbers? The Artillery and Engineers were also short of their full complement. With regard to the Cavalry, Artillery, and Engineers, the short-service system had come for the first time into actual play, with the result of a serious falling off in numbers. He had been informed that the Artillery wore between 1,500 and 2,000 men short; and there was also a great falling off in the Engineers. The short-service system had a serious effect upon the Cavalry. Cavalry could not be made in a day, and they certainly were never anxious that short service should be introduced into their ranks. It was most unwise to cut down the length of service of a Cavalry soldier, because it took a long time to make him efficient. If long service was necessary for the Cavalry, it was still more necessary for the Artillery, especially having regard to the progress of science in that branch of the Service. If short service were to prevail, what sort of Artillery would they be likely to have, considering how long it took to make a man an efficient gunner? If, then, in India they had five Infantry battalions short, and one Cavalry regiment short, what was the condition of things at home? It was said that recruiting was now proceeding more briskly; but that did not alter the case at all. At home they had no less
  1524
  than 9,000 men short; and certainly neither the men nor the regiments were efficient. It was difficult, owing to the manner in which the Returns were made up, to ascertain the real condition and state of efficiency of the several regiments; and he would ask the noble Lord in future to make the Returns in such a manner as to show the absolute strength of the regiments each year, and the percentage of crime in each regiment. He held in his hand a Return for a district, not far from London, from which it appeared that four Infantry regiments had a total of 511 men short. He had also been informed, on good authority, that there were two regiments which had only 30 men between them fit for duty. He had further been informed by an officer of the Guards, who was at Alder-shot at the time, that a regiment there was so absolutely inefficient that, whilst it found the non-commissioned officers, it had to borrow men from another regiment to do the necessary guards—the non-commissioned officers being in green, and the men in red. It was difficult to believe that such a thing could exist in an Army at home of 100,000 men. Then, going to the Western part of the country, there was a regimental depôt, or depôt centre of two regiments, of which one was at home and the other was in India. In the regiment at home 1,400 recruits had passed through its ranks in a little over two years What sort of discipline could be expected under such circumstances? But these 1,400 men did not come from the Western county, but 30 per month were sent from London, and 30 from Ireland, simply because recruits could not be obtained in the neighbourhood. That was the result of the territorial system, which, in some instances, had turned out such a complete failure. Then these men, after having been three weeks or a month in a regimental district, were transferred to their regiment. What happened then? The regiment was anxious to perform its duties; accordingly the men were forced on point by point, and then put into the ranks before they had been properly drilled. They were placed under young non-commissioned officers, with the result that the discipline of the present day was exceedingly lax as compared with that of the old days, for men were hurried into the ranks before they knew their

  1525
  duties. A General Officer, whom they all respected—but he could not mention names—had said that the greatest evil they had to contend with was the young and inexperienced non-commissioned officer. Cases of insubordination occurred from want of tact. Sergeants who had re-engaged, if offered a good situation elsewhere, absented themselves in order to get tried by court martial and reduced, which involved being discharged. The fact was, that the question of non-commissioned officers was a most serious one, which deserved the fullest consideration from the noble Lord. If they went a little further as regarded crime, they would find the offences of a very curious character. They consisted chiefly of violence to superiors and insubordination. In the olden days he was sure that that sort of offence did not exist to the same extent. In 1872 there were 1,153 cases; in 1877, 1,377; in 1881, 1,862; and in 1882, 1810. Those were at home. The increase was 57 per cent over 1872. Abroad, in 1872, 898; in 1877, 900; in 1881, 1,502, or 67 per cent increase. The reductions of noncommissioned officers were—in 1872, 1,001; in 1877, 1,171; in 1881, 1,830; and in 1882, 1,337, or 34 per cent over 1872. Abroad, in 1872, 1131; in 1877, 915; in 1881, 1,582, an increase of 40 per cent over 1872. The reductions with imprisonment were, in 1872, 81; in 1877, 169; in 1881, 293; and in 1882, 219, or 170per cent over 1872. Abroad, in 1872, 98; in 1877, 125; in 1881, 293, or 199 per cent increase. He took an average of 100,000 men. He would then refer to the short-service system. In the first eight years of that system 184,110 were enlisted. Of these 123 per 1,000 disappeared before the end of the year; 240 per 1,000 before the end of the second year; and 290 before the end of the third year. He thought those facts very serious. The Return showed that 13 per 1,000 died; 39 were invalided; and 50 per 1,000 purchased their discharge. Those figures showed, he believed, that the Service was for some reason or other unpopular. The noble Lord said the other day that things were looking more hopeful, but he did not think that these figures showed that to be the case. The fact was, they had destroyed the old regimental system, which was, by the whole of Europe, considered the most perfect, efficient, and
  1526
  effective in the world. Under that system the officers knew every man under them. The men liked their officers, and matters worked satisfactorily. But now the old regimental system was gone, and the esprit de corps which it was so necessary to maintain had been seriously impaired. Of the long-service men enlisted only 28,800 were serving in January, 1882, and at present only 7,811 were still serving. He regarded that as a most serious matter. As to the strength of the Reserves, on the 1st of January, 1882, there were 24,085. The transfers to the Reserves in that year were 6,910, making a total of 30,995. The number that joined the Army from the Reserves during 1882 was 10,840, less those who rejoined the Reserves on demobilization—namely, 1,460. The actual strength of the Reserves on the 1st of January, 1883, was 16,479, the loss during the year being 5,136. He should like to ask what had become of these men, and whether they were still serving? If they were to have a Reserve they ought to have a sufficient and contented Reserve, and the men ought to know what they had to expect. That brought him to the question of the enlistment of the men, and the great fault of that was that the men did not know, or said they did not know, for what period they were enlisted. It might be for seven, eight, or nine years; seven years with the Colours, eight if going abroad, and nine if there was a war. But there was something more than that; for sometimes they only served for five years, which was considered by them the greatest hardship of all. It happened in this way—at the end of five years' service their regiment might be ordered abroad, and because they had only two years more to serve they were sent into the Reserve, whether they liked it or not. If it was found, that by giving all these different times they did not get either the class or the number of recruits they desired, then they must look and see how they could manage the enlistment better; and that brought him to another point. Each time-expired man in India was offered 50 rupees to go on with his service, and to re-engage for the rest of his 12 years; and the number that had responded to that call was only 411, showing that, even with the bounty proposed to be given, they were not willing to carry on their service. Everyone knew that the Guards

  1527
  were one battalion short, and he was told that the Government were prepared to give £2 10 s. per man to those men now coming home from India if they would go into the Guards. He would like to know if that was the case, and whether that did not show the unpopularity of the Service, that they should have to offer bribes to the men? No doubt, the great amount of sentry duty now required of the Guards in London might have something to do with the question; but he believed that at the present moment they could not get the men for what they were offered. He had seen a letter written to The Times by a Major General, giving an account of time-expired men, whose only object, it said, was to go on in the Service. It was quite clear that the soldier was a man out of whom they would take everything they could get, and whom they would then throw over, simply that he might not come to the State for a pension. When one considered that the Army had to be in every clime, it was high time that they should consider under certain conditions whether, when they had men adapted for the Service and willing to continue, they should not give them the right to continue for five years longer. He thought they might serve 10 years with the Colours and five in the Reserve, and after a service of 15 years, he said, a man was entitled to have some pension. But, as they were at present, the soldier, though he fought our battles abroad, was treated with less consideration than the police at home in the matter of pension. Looking at all these considerations, he thought the noble Lord would do well if he would consider these cases, because they all knew that the great object ought to be to have an efficient and effective Army. It was a startling fact that, in order to send out an Army of 18,882 men to Egypt, it was necessary to call out 11,649 Reserve men, of whom 10,593 were taken on the strength of corps, 4,363 going to Egypt with their corps. That, surely, condemned the whole system from beginning to end. They all recollected the Crimea, and the condemnation of everything then; but the country had been at peace then for many years; and surely the country ought at this time to have been able to send out a sufficient Force, without calling out the Reserve. They had also had to take 7,558 men from the
  1528
  Mediterranean garrisons, and had also to take 5,863 men from India; and that showed the position the country would have been in if it had had a strong and resolute enemy to deal with. That was a very serious question, and deserved the attention of the House. But yet they were told it was a triumph of the short service. The average age of the men at Tel-el-Kebir was 25 years and four months, and the average service five years and eight months. In more than one regiment they were obliged to leave behind as many as 500 men as being absolutely unfit to fight against even Arabi and his Army. He knew one regiment in the First Army Corps which could not sail till nearly the last, because it had been denuded of all its men in the Zulu War, and their places, of course, had to be filled up with large drafts. He should like to read an extract showing the opinion of Sir Frederick Roberts on the question. Sir Frederick Roberts protested against the system of having regiments of which the men were unknown to each other and to their officers. The following contained that gallant Officer's opinion:—
  "The testimony of Sir Frederick Roberts has also been given to the world since Lord Airey's Committee reported. In speaking of the 2nd Battalion of the 8th Foot, which bears a name second to none, and has distinguished itself on many a hard-fought field, he says that it had been stationed in one of the healthiest cantonments in India during the two years it had been in the country, and had every opportunity given it of recovering from the effects of a system, which, two years previously, had collected together in the battalion a number of untrained boys, unknown to each other and to their officers. The result proved that two years were not sufficient to remedy the evils of the system; and he adds, 'that, except under very unusual circumstances, no regiment of Infantry with less than three years in India should be ordered to the field.' Before the regiment had marched 100 miles, his attention was drawn to the youthful appearance of the men, to a listlessness in the performance of their daily duty, and to their frequent admissions into hospital, so that, after repeated and careful examination, he was forced to represent to the Commander-in-Chief that he did not think the battalion was in a fit state for a campaign; without any forced marches or exceptional difficulties, the regiment had dwindled down to a weak half-battalion when it had only advanced 70 miles from our own territory. On the day when he advanced to attack the Peiwar Kotal, the whole battalion mustered only 366 men fit for duty. Fortunately, the other troops with him were older soldiers; but Sir Frederick Roberts asks—'What would have been the fate of the Kuram Field Force, if it had been called upon to storm and capture the

  1529
  Peiwar Kotal with the troops originally allotted to it?' His answer should be well pondered by everyone who has the interest of his country at heart. He replies—'I have no hesitation in stating my firm belief that the Force would hare been annihilated.'"
  In olden times, it was exactly the reverse—officers knew their men; and, as a matter of fighting power and esprit de corps, the new system would not bear comparison with the old. The age of recruits also demanded their most serious attention. It was useless to have men who had not filled out, and who, as regarded weight and chest measurement, were not men, but boys. In time of war they would only die, as Lord Raglan said, "like flies." Last year the Government got only 23,802 recruits, instead of 32,302; and he should like to ask how many recruits they wanted this year? It was useless to answer that recruits were joining the Army at a satisfactory rate, without, at the same time, describing the class of men the Government were getting—whether they were men who would make soldiers, and not men who never could. What was it that took place on the march to Ulundi, when a body of Engineers were constructing an outwork—they were supported by Infantry, under the command of a field officer? Why, a scare took place, and the men were ordered to fall back upon the laager. The Infantry did so; but before the Engineers could retire they were fired upon from the laager. They might again be placed in a similar position, and, unless they had an Army which would stand fire, they could not expect to carry on operations successfully. The number of men who were so small in frame as to be useless as soldiers was on the increase, he regretted to say; and last year there were 174 per 1,000 who only weighed 8 st. 8 lbs. What was 8 st. 8 lbs. for a soldier? It was the weight of a Derby jockey, and not of a man fit for a campaign. Some of the statements he had made he had taken from a letter of Sir Lintorn Simmons, which appeared in The Morning Post, and which deserved the attention of the Secretary of State for War. It was therein declared that more than one-third of the recruits were under 5 feet 6 inches; and the extraordinary result followed, contrary to what might have been expected, that with an increase of one year in age they got men of less breadth, weight, and size generally. Was this the class of
  1530
  men we wished to have in the Service? It would be all very well if we could afford to feed them well for three or four years, and then send them abroad; but we did not do that, and by passing such recruits quickly through the Army we destroyed its efficiency. We had about 30,000 non-commissioned officers, and it was the great ambition of many to serve on, and get a pension. We ought to allow such officers of good character to remain in the Army for 12, or even 21 years; and if a man who had been in for 14 or 15 years happened to offend, and be reduced to the ranks, he ought to be allowed an opportunity to recover his position, or to retire as a private at the end of his term on a reduced position. Such changes would go a long way towards securing the non-commissioned officers we required in lieu of those we had who were not fit to look after the interests of their men on the field of battle. Similarly, private soldiers ought to be allowed to go on for 21 years and pensions, or 15 years and pensions if they then entered the Reserve. Men who had served all over the world deserved no less, and if they were treated well they would respond to the calls made upon them. In this way they might hope to improve the condition of the Army, to make it more attractive to a better class of men, to render it worthy of the country, and to place it in a position to maintain the unbroken traditions of a glorious past. We could not have conscription, and we must bear the alternative burden if we would have an efficient Army to secure our food supply and protect our trade. But we could not expect efficiency if we simply kept men as long as it suited us and then turned them out upon the world, or if we ruined their prospects by harsh punishments for trifling offences. Treat the men well, give them such indulgences as were possible, and you would find they would faithfully perform those duties they had undertaken. He had made these remarks, because he was quite certain that the noble Lord would do his best to ameliorate the condition of the soldiers and to place the Army in that state of efficiency which they had a right to expect.
  MR. CAINE: Mr. Speaker, I desire to show that the waste and crime in the Army is generally attributable to intemperance. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B.

  1531
  Barttelot) has stated that some 250 per 1,000 of the men recruited deserted before the end of the first year's service. This is not to be wondered at when these lads of 19 are picked up by the recruiting sergeants in low gin-shops. The bulk of them are drunk when enlisted, and they come to their senses to find themselves crimped into a Service which they find irksome, and in some cases loathsome. Of course they desert. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex has told the House that 500 men were left behind from one regiment in the Egyptian Campaign. It would be an interesting Return to lay upon the Table of the House, giving the reasons why these 500 men were unfit for service, and why they were left behind. It would be found, I think, that the cause of their unfitness in regard to many instances was drunkenness and debauchery. Lord Wolseley said in a speech delivered after his return from Egypt that he had never seen a drunken soldier all the time he was in Egypt. But that statement does not agree with what the Judge Advocate General said last March, that there bad been 364 courts martial in Egypt in seven months, and that—
  "Trials for drunkenness have been unusually frequent, especially when the troops have not been actively employed. In fact, I find that the more the men have to do, and the less they have to drink, the better they, as a general rule, behave."—(3 Hansard, [277] 932.)
  Why, Sir, the Khedive was so shocked at the continual scandal of drunken British soldiers in Cairo, after the war, that he asked Mr. Thomas Cook to get the temperance people in England to send out someone to try and get the soldiers to become teetotallers and go to coffee-shops instead of low pot-houses. This has been done. The Rev. J. Gelson Gregson, Secretary to the Soldiers' Total Abstinence Society, went out at once to Egypt, and the result of his visit has been that over 3,000 soldiers have joined the society, and a large coffee palace has been established for their use. I will venture to trouble the House with a few remarks taken from the General Annual Return of the British Army for the year 1881, showing the terrible amount of drunkenness prevalent in the Army. Is it to be wondered at when such fatal inducements are held out to young soldiers as that of obtaining beer
  1532
  at a low rate at the regimental canteen, that privilege being classed in the opinion of the War Office in the recruiting circular issued through the Post Office as of the same advantage as the use of a library or a gymnasium and the opportunity of learning a trade? I do not want to go through the figures which have been brought out so ably by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex; but I should like to call the attention of the House to the amount of crime referred to in these statistics and resulting practically from drunkenness. I have taken the Returns for 1881, instead of 1882, because the latter Returns are not yet complete. I find that in the year 1881 there were 44,108 cases, in which 23,470 men were fined for drunkenness, and of these I find that 2,633 were fined four times or over. The courts martial at home were 13,324, and abroad 9,913, making a total of 23,307. I have no hesitation in saying that the great majority of these courts martial resulted directly from intemperance. Indeed, the Judge Advocate General, in reply to a Question which I put to him in this House, admitted that such was the fact. He said that he was unable to give the number of crimes which arose directly from drink, but that a very large proportion were attributable to the influence of drink. The Court Martial Returns show that cases of violence resulting from drink amounted to 1,650, and of insubordination attributed to the same cause 1,472, making a total of 3,022.
  THE JUDGE ADYOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Will my hon Friend state what the Return is which he is quoting?
  MR. CAINE: I am quoting from the General Annual Return of the British Army for 1881. As I have already stated, the Judge Advocate General informed me on the 9th of June, 1882, that a very large portion of these offences were committed under the influence of drink. The Returns for 1882 are not yet out. Therefore, I am taking those for 1881, and I have calculated that one-half of these cases were committed under the influence of drink. That would give a total of 1,600, which is a very largo number indeed. I find in another case that of all offences of an aggravated character committed by soldiers when in a state of drunken-

  1533
  ness, there were 2,661 of drunkenness on duty, 2,147 of drunkenness, and 660 of disgraceful conduct, making 5,468 altogether of aggravated drunkenness. There is another cause of punishment in' the Army—namely, absence without leave. Anybody who knows anything of the Army will be aware that those are cases which result almost entirely from drunkenness. I find that the total number in 1881 amounted to 3,293; and there, again, attributing one-half to drink, we have a total of 1,600; altogether, nearly 9,000 cases of crimes of violence, drunkenness on duty, and absence without leave, resulting directly from the drunken habits of the British soldier. The hon. and gallant Member for "West Sussex has called attention to the waste in the Army resulting from these punishments for drunkenness. That waste is very serious. The courts martial resulted in 104 soldiers being sent to penal servitude, and there is consequently, a loss to the Army of the services of those 104 men altogether, in addition to which the nation will have to maintain them in penal servitude. Then there were 3,820 cases of soldiers who were reduced to a lower grade or to the ranks; 42 were discharged with ignominy; and about 13,000 were imprisoned for various periods with or without hard labour. The total of these punishments in 1881 for drunkenness, taking the fines and courts martial together, was 52,776, inflicted upon over 30,000 men, &c. When we remember that our Army is only 180,000 strong, with a large and increasing number of teetotallers, amounting already to 25,000, this gives a terrible account of the drunkenness in the Army. It means that in 1881 there were no less than 340 punishments per 1,000, and that every sixth man in the Army gets drunk during the year. The percentage is even higher when it is borne in mind that there are so large a number of men who never drink at all. [Laughter.] The laugh of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) reminds me of a statement which he made when we were discussing the question two years ago—namely, that if they could only be found out, civilians were really quite as bad as soldiers in the matter of drunkenness. If that be really so, it is a terrible commentary upon the drinking habits of the country.
  COLONEL STANLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I think I said on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers that drunkenness in a soldier is much more likely to be challenged than in a civilian, and that many cases are put down as drunkenness punishable in the soldier which in a civilian would pass unnoticed.
  MR. CAINE: Now let the House suppose for a moment that the town of Bradford, which has a population of 180,000, had something like 52,000 cases of persons brought before the magistrates every year charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct; I am inclined to believe it would not be very long before the people of Bradford would insist upon an Act being passed to deal with such a frightful state of affairs as that in an intelligent Yorkshire town. Now, during the last two years I have brought this question before the House in various ways; but I have been able to get no satisfactory declaration from the Judge Advocate General that anything has been done, or will be done, to deal with this very great scandal in the Army. The War Office recently appointed a Committee to investigate the question of buttons and belts and colour. I do not know exactly what was the important point raised—whether these buttons were to be made of brass or bronze. All I know is, that a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject; but in regard to this terrible crime of drunkenness existing in the Army, I can hear nothing of any inquiry or any expectation being held out that anything will be done with it. The Judge Advocate General, in answer to a Question which I addressed to him, said it was not the canteens which were the cause of the drunkenness, and therefore I will say nothing upon that point to-night, though I reserve my opinion. But he said it was the low public-houses clustering around the barracks. He said—
  "That the real cause of drunkenness in the Army was not the beer sold in the canteens, which was of a wholesome quality, but the abominable stuff which the soldiers obtained under the name of spirits at the low public-houses in the neighbourhood of their barracks."
  Then, will the Home Office and the War Office lay their heads together and say what can be done with these low public-houses? The magistrates in garrison

  1535
  towns appear to neglect their duty most shamefully. Under a Return dated the 17th of August, 1882, we see that there are in the town of Chatham 20 public-houses known to the police as brothels and disorderly houses. They have been reported by the police to the magistrates, year after year, for 10, 12, 14, and in some cases 17 years in succession, as disorderly houses and brothels, and yet the licensing magistrates in Chatham go on licensing them year after year. In Shorncliffe, amongst others, "The Skylark" has been reported 14 years in succession, and is still a brothel. In Colchester, "The Lifeboat" was placed out of bounds by the commanding officer in 1876, and was reported by the police to the magistrates as a disorderly house in 1881, but its licence was duly renewed, and it is still a public-house. The "Gardeners' Arms," in the same town, has been five years in succession reported by the police to the magistrates as a common brothel. It was placed out of bounds for immorality by the commanding officer in October, 1881, but it is still a licensed house. "The Alma," at Colchester, was reported seven years in succession as a brothel by the police to the magistrates. In 1875 the licence was opposed at the licensing meeting, on the ground that the house had become a scandal to the neighbourhood, and an endeavour was made by the ratepayers living in the neighbourhood to see what could be done with Local Option through the magistrates, in whom Local Option is now unhappily vested, but in spite of this seven years' record, and the opposition of the neighbourhood, the licence was renewed, on condition that the house was not used as a brothel; but in June, 1881, the same house was again placed out of bounds by the commanding officer of the garrison, nevertheless, the Colchester magistrates renewed the licence without hesitation. At Maidstone, the "Turk's Head" public-house has been reported to the police as a brothel and disorderly house 12 years in succession, and 12 years in succession this den of infamy has had its licence renewed by the magistrates of Maidstone. I will not take up the time of the House with other instances, but I might report them ad nauseam. I must, however, call attention to the scandalous state of things existing at Aldershot, where Her Ma-
  1536
  jesty's Government may be supposed to have some influence. In 1881, according to the Judge Advocate General, there were 11,639 soldiers stationed at Aldershot, and besides 19 licensed canteens there were 49 public-houses and 51 beerhouses existing for the demoralization of the soldiers. In August, 1882, the Judge Advocate General told the House, in reply to a Question, that the punishments for drunkenness amongst the soldiers at Aldershot during the year had been up to the average of the whole of the Army.
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBOENE MORGAN): I stated a little below the average.
  MR. CAINE. I take the report of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks from Hansard, and I find that he stated that over 3,000 punishments had been inflicted on about 2,000 men, out of an average number of 11,500 troops. These cases occurred, according to the Judge Advocate General, not in the canteen, but in the public-house, and, therefore, the 100 licensed public-houses and beerhouses of Aldershot and Earn-borough manufactured 3,000 drunkards during the year. That is quite enough for my purpose. The Army Returns show that 2,000 men have been punished 3,000 times out of 52,000 cases of punishment. Where do these men get drunk? According to the Judge Advocate General, it is not in the licensed canteens, but in the public-houses of Aldershot. On another occasion, I had to trouble the Judge Advocate General with another Question, and I thank him for the pains he has taken to supply the House with information on the Question. He told me, and I trust the House will note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, that not one of these licensed houses had been brought before the magistrates charged with permitting drunkenness or supplying liquor to drunken people. The 35 & 36 Vict, says—
  "If any licensed person is convicted of permitting his premises to be a brothel, he shall be liable to a penalty of twenty pounds, shall forfeit his licence, and be disqualified for ever."
  It seems to me that a very little pressure on the part of the Home Office upon the magistrates of Aldershot would be sufficient to induce them to put the Act of 35 & 36 Vict, in force; if not, let the Home Secretary remove them from the

  1537
  Commission of the Peace, as unfit for the exercise of their duties. The same Act has a penalty for permitting drunkenness or serving liquor to drunken persons, or keeping a disorderly house—£10 for the first, £20 for a second offence, and afterwards the loss of the licence. The magistrates of garrison towns habitually ignore these provisions, and let these hells upon earth, for I can call them nothing else, ply their brutalizing influence on our soldiers unchecked. Really, the waste and crime in the Army is largely attributable to the drunkenness which prevails. I hope that a Committee, either of the House or of the War Office, will be appointed to inquire into the question of drunkenness and to see what can be done. We, outside of the War Office altogether, are of opinion that a very great deal can be done, and has been done, to improve the condition of the Army by means of temperance missionaries and by the establishment of temperance canteens outside the barracks. We therefore wish the War Office carefully to consider whether or not, in addition to chaplains to look after the spiritual welfare of the men, there should not be temperance missionaries to try and persuade the men to become teetotallers, and, above all, temperance canteens inside the barracks. Becoming teetotallers does not interfere with the efficiency of the Army. There is one fact which I should like to point out. In the recent Afghan Campaign the-issue of rum greatly increased the difficulties and cost of transport, and led to the constant infliction of flogging upon the men. I will not trouble the House by reading the opinions of eminent men that I have collected here. They are the opinions, however, of some of the most distinguished men who have served in the Army. I will only quote one of them—namely, that of a distinguished General whom the House has been recently delighted to honour by conferring upon him a Peerage and a pension. I refer to Lord Wolseley, who says that his experience in India bore out the fact that the men were better without drink than with it. Lord Wolseley recommends the Government to restrict the allowance of liquor and to increase the allowance of tea. It is well known that the most brilliant Infantry charge of modern times was made on cold tea, instead of the usual spirit ration. I am
  1538
  proud to say that there was only one man in the famous charge at Tel-el-Kebir who was under the influence of drink, and he was promptly chloroformed by the doctor to prevent his making a noise and so marring the effect of the charge. With that one exception all those engaged in that charge went through it upon a ration of cold tea and without spirits at all. General Roberts gives testimony to a similar effect; and I do not think there is any intelligent officer in the British Army—certainly no intelligent surgeon-major—who will not agree that the work a soldier is called upon to perform can be done better without the aid of intoxicating liquor than with it. If that is true, and if it is also true that drunkenness is the direct cause of crime in the Army, I would certainly urge upon the War Office and upon the Government the propriety of seeing whether something cannot be done to remove this stain from the British Army.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member who had just spoken into the drink question, for it seemed that the hon. Member had Local Option, Sunday Closing, and Contagious Diseases on the brain; but he would remind the hon. Member that between 1872 and 1882 drunkenness in the Army, both at home and abroad, had diminished 12 per cent.
  MR. CAINE: But the number of total abstainers in the Army has increased in the same period more than 12 per cent.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he was very glad to hear it. He would, however, not pursue that question further. Like his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he would disclaim all Party motives in the few remarks which he should make. He thought it was a somewhat retrogressive step that the age for recruiting had been reduced from 19 to 18. Then the noble Lord had given some intimation that he was going to deal with the system of bounties, which Lord Cardwell so much denounced. He hoped that whatever was done would not be merely of a temporary nature, but would prove a permanent solution of the question. He feared there might be something in the direction of a return to the bounty system, and to long service. There was one great difficulty in a return to long service, and that was that men were not

  1539
  willing to enlist for long terms; and in former days, when an option was given between long and short service, the greater number preferred the shorter period. He would say a few words as to the general character of the men who now joined the Army. At the present moment he believed we were in a worse position than we had been in for many years as regarded the number, quality, and conduct of our soldiers. There was no great difference of opinion between the Inspector General of Recruiting and those who had most experience of the men, although the Inspector General, in his Report, was naturally anxious to make things look as pleasant as possible. The Inspector General stated that in the year 1882 there was a diminution in the number of recruits for the Infantry alone of 3,896. If the Artillery were added that number would be increased. Sir Lintorn Simmons, who had recently written an interesting letter to The Times on the subject, said the decrease was something like 6,000 men, and that about 14,000 or 15,000 new recruits were required every year. Then, as regarded quality, the Inspector General reported that in 1880,407, in 1881, 432, and in 1882, 439 out of every 1,000 intending recruits were rejected as physically unfit. He supposed that the men no longer came to so large an extent from the country districts. Sir Lintorn Simmons said that the number of recruits who weighed no more than 8i stone had considerably increased. Then, in 1879, there were only 87 recruits who were no taller than 5 feet 5 inches, whereas, in 1881, there were 272. Then the height required for admission to the Guards had been reduced from 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 7 inches. He had been assured by an old Crimean officer that even during the pressure of that War the height had never been reduced below 5 feet 6½ inches. The troops had not only fallen off in physique, but also in numbers. In the State parade on the Queen's Birthday at Aldershot, in the First Scots there were four companies of 25 files each; ill the First Dorset, six companies of 21 files each; in the Shropshire Regiment, four companies of 17 files each; and in the First Surrey, four companies of 13 files each. Taking them altogether, that gave on the average, at the outside, about 240 to 300 men in a battalion; and he had
  1540
  heard the other day that one company at Aldershot paraded with only nine men. It was a matter of notoriety that so weak was the battalion guarding the convicts at Portland that they had to send to Portsmouth for reinforcements. These matters were of great importance, and all went to prove the same thing—namely, that the quantity and quality of the troops of the present day were nothing like what they ought to be or had been. Then, as to conduct, he had been able to get certain figures giving some idea of what crime had been compared with what it was in 1872. He chose that time for comparison because the great revolutionary changes in the Army had taken place then, and he had compared the old with the new system to show that there were then means of procuring an Army finer in physique and better in conduct than the Army of the present day appeared to be. In the crimes at home, he found that, in 1882, desertions had increased G per cent; violence and insubordination, 57 per cent; sleeping on posts, 59 per cent; drunkenness, 129 per cent. Disgraceful conduct had decreased 36 per cent, and absence without leave 33 per cent. Making away with necessaries had increased 2 per cent, and miscellaneous offences 42 per cent. But what he thought was most serious was that crime among non-commissioned officers appeared to have increased very much. What he really wished to call the attention of the House to was, that our Army now, in quantity and quality and in conduct, was inferior to the Army that existed 10 or 15 years ago. Then he came to the question of waste, which they knew, from disease, desertion, and discharge, was very great, and no less than 25 out of every 1,000 recruits vanished in two years, at a cost to the country of £500,000 a-year, which was worse than a scandal, for it was a serious calamity. He wished he could say the number of the Militia was any better; but there was no question that they had fallen off, as it was admitted by the Inspector General of Recruiting. The one answer for such a state of things was that the duties, both in the Regulars and the Militia, were far more severe than they used to be. There had been a great deal of police duty done, both in Ireland and England, and he could not understand why soldiers should be employed on such duties. He thought

  1541
  that if any assistance was required in the Police Force the Force itself ought to have been increased. As to what he might call the "dynamite scare," and the duty required of soldiers of guarding public buildings, all he could say was that, great as was the confidence he had in the British soldier, it seemed to him that one policeman on such a duty was worth at least three soldiers, who could not leave their posts even though the dynamite was being exploded at their backs. Now-a-days the soldier had not only harassing drill to attend to, but he had to go to school as well. By-and-bye, when the national system of education thoroughly permeated the country, they would probably be able to get recruits who could both read and write, who would not require to go to school; but, at present, the soldier was much harassed by the number of things he had to do. No wonder then that after a few months he got disgusted. When they considered the matter of pay, the wonder became, if possible, still greater. It had been computed that a soldier's pay, all told, was £39 a-year, or about 15 s. a-week, and when that rate of pay was compared with the price of wages all over the country, it was hardly to be expected that men would enter the Army in large numbers. These were points the authorities ought to put their fingers upon with a view to diminishing harassing duty; and if the executive of the Army turned their attention to them, a great deal might be done. The Army Estimates, as the House well knew, were higher than they ever had been since the Crimean War, and if they were to raise the pay of the soldier by, say, 6d. a-day, which would no doubt increase the strength of the Army, that would probably increase the Estimates by £1,500,000. In these circumstances, he could not help thinking that they would have to come sooner or later to the question of more or less diminishing the quantity of White soldiers in the Army and improving its quality. Something, he thought, would be gained by enlisting Coloured men at semi-tropical stations to replace a certain number of White soldiers. There were at the present time, in addition to the 94,000 men at home and the 10,000 or 12,000 in Egypt, no less than 22,000 men scattered over Colonial stations at Ceylon, Mauritius, Bermuda, Canada, the Mediterranean,
  1542
  Hongkong, and so on. He believed in many cases it was possible to substitute Coloured men for Whites with perfect safety. The Coloured soldier would cost only about half what a White soldier did, and especially in tropical and semi-tropical climates there would be an enormous gain. Since Canada had, as it were, started on its national life it had established a National Army, and now Canada almost entirely supplied the Army which in former days came from this country. Australia was doing the same. If the policy he recommended were carried out—not abruptly, but judiciously—there were certain Colonies where in time a very considerable local Force might be raised and paid for by the Colony, and to that extent at once relieve the Imperial Exchequer and meet the difficulty of raising White troops. For one thing, he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War would not have any more Committees or Commissions. They had had Committees and Commissions ad nauseam; but the misfortune was that, after they had sat for months, or even years, and spent vast labour upon their Reports, a War Minister would probably step in and upset the whole of their recommendations, as was done, for example, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to Lord Airy's Committee. They seemed, indeed, to be constantly going round in a vicious circle. He would ask the noble Lord to try an experiment with regard to one branch of the Service. Let him take the Foot Guards. They were 1,000 men below their strength. Let him try to raise them to their full strength on some system likely to be of a permanent nature. Illustrious and distinguished officers often told them that a great deal could be done if there was more money; but, without gainsaying that proposition, what the House and the nation ought to see was that they got their money's worth. Year after year they went on in this House calling for a reduction of the Estimates, saying the Army was not so efficient as it should be, and yet things seemed to go on without any change whatever. He could assure the Government, in conclusion, that no obstruction, veiled or unveiled, would be offered by that side of the House to any plan, if it was a good one, which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War might submit to deal with the

  1543
  question. They all wished for an effective solution of the difficulty, though at the same time to see the Estimates kept within bounds. A partial meddling with the question would not do; it must be dealt with fully and comprehensively, and he was certain that a merely temporary solution would prove a failure.
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, it was of great importance, in dealing with this question of crime in the Army, to arrive at the actual truth, "nothing extenuating or setting down aught in malice." He fully believed, as had been observed, that if they could get rid of drunkenness in the Army they would greatly diminish every other kind of crime; and he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) that there was no man in that House more anxious than he was to secure that result, because, unfortunately, there was no one who saw so much of the effects of drunkenness as he did. But the question was whether there had or had not been an improvement? With reference to the figures quoted by his hon. Friend, he regretted that he selected the statistics of 1881 rather than those of 1882. It was true that the figures for 1882 were incomplete, as they applied only to the Forces at home; but drunkenness was greater among soldiers at home than among those abroad, and therefore they might be fairly taken by him as an indication of the state of the Army generally on this point. There was, then, a very considerable improvement between the two years 1881 and 1882. Taking 100,000 men as the basis of calculation, the number of courts martial for drunkenness on duty in 1881 was 1,232, and in 1882 they fell to 1,076. The cases of simple drunkenness in 1881 was 1,059, and in 1882, 888. The number of men per 1,000 fined for drunkenness in 1881 was 129, and in 1882 it was only 115. Those figures showed a great and satisfactory decrease in the crime. The hon. Gentleman had said the great extent of this crime was due to outside influence. Of course it was; but as to the low public-houses in garrison towns, to which reference had been made, the military authorities could not interfere with them, injurious as their influence was on the Army. Hon. Members might easily imagine what an outcry would be raised if commanding officers had power to suspend
  1544
  the licences of public-houses within a mile of the barracks in a town like Manchester or Bradford, as proposed by his hon. Friend. That would be Local Option, or, rather, Personal Option, with a vengeance. At present, all they could do was to place such houses "out of bounds," a course which was adopted to a great extent in large towns. The comparison which the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) made between the years 1872 and 1882 was hardly fair, because the former was an extraordinarily good year—in fact, one of the best they had ever had as regarded crime in the Army. But, as a matter of fact, the condition of the Army in 1882, in this respect, would bear comparison with any previous year. In the five years previously the figures were nearly stationary. In 1881 the number of courts martial at home was 9,421, and in 1882 it fell to 8,319. The number of offences at home decreased from 13,324 in 1881 to 11,927 in 1882, while the sentences fell from 9,251 in 1881 to 8,196 in 1882. There was also a remarkable diminution in the percentage of offences by non-commissioned officers, something like 33 per cent. There had, in short, been a considerable reduction in every kind of offence, except one, in the Army serving in the United Kingdom. A great deal had been said on the subject in regard to the troops in Egypt, who were on active service, and he had been anxious to obtain for the information of the House the number of courts martial held in that country. He should state, however, that the records of general or district courts martial only came to his Office. He did not receive those of regimental courts martial. The total number of courts martial held among the troops in Egypt up to that day, and received by him, was 480, of which only 12 were general courts martial. Surely that was not an unsatisfactory state of things.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he quite admitted that it would be difficult now to induce men to enlist at once for 12 years; but we should recognize the fact that there was a difficulty in obtaining recruits, and we should give the recruit the advantage of a good bargain. He would, therefore, suggest that if a man enlisted for six years, and at the end of that time he elected to remain for another six years, and then for nine years longer, he should be allowed to do so,

  1545
  in order to become entitled to a pension, provided, of course, that he was a good shot, and so on. It was said that if we induced a man to remain 12 years with the Colours we got all that he was worth out of him. But if at the end of six years we offered a man no inducement to remain for 12, he would go out, because if he remained until he was 31 or 32, and then went out, his position was far worse. When it was found impossible to retain in India all but a very small proportion of men, that was all that need be said, because it was notorious to everyone who had served in that country that service there was the most popular of all, and that by giving £3 or £4 bounty half the regiment might be got to re-enlist. If the noble Lord would give what he would call Free Trade in the Army, if he would give the men a choice of going into the Reserve or going on with the Colours at their discretion, he might retain from 20 to 30 per cent of old soldiers in every regiment. And even the most fanatical advocates of short service, with the exception of Lord Wolseley, all said that it was desirable to have from 20 to 30 per cent of old soldiers, independent of non-commissioned officers, in each regiment. What we wanted to get rid of was uncertainty. Even non-commissioned officers below the rank of sergeant had no certainty. He hoped the noble Lord would take into consideration the suggestions that had been made.
  GENERAL FEILDENsaid, that the officers of the Army had been most unfairly charged with maladministration of justice, so much so as to be a cause of additional crime. But the greatest danger possible was likely to arise to the Army, unless the reins of discipline were drawn closer. Of this he was sure—that the best officers and those who had the best regiments were the men who were at once the most strict and the most kind. You could not command a regiment or an Army unless you had the iron hand in the velvet glove. Unless a change took place we should have an Army that would disgrace us. It had been said by officers of ability that if the Transvaal and the Egyptian Campaigns had lasted much longer it would have been necessary to have men shot. Complaints was made of the waste of the Army; but
  1546
  the fact was that those punishments most likely to be efficacious in preventing the waste had been abolished at the very time when they were most required. And with regard to the want of men in the ranks, we had simply sacrificed the First Line to the Reserve. If Lord Cardwell's original scheme of six years with the Colours, and 25 per cent of old soldiers to be retained in each regiment, had been fairly carried out, we should have seen the Army in a very different condition to-day from that in which we now found it. The country must be prepared to spend more money on the Army if they desired to have an efficient one; and, at the same time, Members of the House must take more interest in the question, and must teach their constituents to take more interest in one of the most important questions which could be brought to the attention of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I do not think the figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General, although some difference of opinion may have been expressed in regard to them, bear out the view that there is any serious defect in the discipline of the Army. On the contrary, I think, the House will be extremely gratified to know that Lord Dufferin, on leaving Egypt, wrote to the General commanding the Army of Occupation, expressing entire approval of the manner in which the troops had behaved both at Cairo and Alexandria, and adverting to the almost total absence of crime and the manner in which the men had conducted themselves in reference to the Native population with whom they were brought into contact. When soldiers are hard at work, and have not much time to themselves, it is not to be wondered at that crime is comparatively rare; but when they are at leisure and in idleness, as they were at Cairo, it appears to me to reflect great credit on the Army that there has been so great an absence of crime. I entirely concur with the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (General Feilden) in regretting that subjects of this kind do not appear more attractive to the House than is to be gathered from the present empty Benches; upon a question of so much importance as that which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Bartte-

  1547
  lot). It must be somewhat discouraging to officers and soldiers, and it certainly is discouraging to those who are charged with the administration of the Army, to find that matters so important have to be discussed before almost empty Benches. The hon. and gallant Baronet has brought forward a subject of great interest in a speech as usual of very great ability, but I think it would have been more convenient if the hon. and gallant Member had confined himself more closely to his text, and had addressed his observations to the subject of recruiting and the present condition of the Establishments of the Army. We are all perfectly aware that the hon. and gallant Member has never concealed his dislike to the changes introduced by Lord Cardwell and his Successor at the War Office, and I cannot help thinking that the aversion the hon. and gallant Member has always avowed has somewhat coloured the view which he takes of the present condition of the Army. He has referred throughout his speech to the difficulty of making men good Cavalry and Artillery soldiers in a short time, and of the prejudicial effect upon the discipline of the regimental system which passes a large number of men so rapidly through the ranks. He has deplored the loss of the regimental system, and he has expressed a hope that in some form or other it may still be found necessary to revert to the old system. All of these subjects appear to me to be wide of the immediate question, which, having regard to the Notice placed on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member, he "desires to bring under the consideration of the House. There was one allusion the hon. and gallant Member made which I regretted still more to hear; that was when he spoke of what he described as the disgraceful scare which took place among our troops in the South African Campaign. I believe there is no Army, however well-organized it may have been or can be under any system, which can always be entirely exempt from incidents of panic. But the South African Campaign, like our campaigns in India and in Egypt, has shown that young soldiers are capable of very gallant conduct; and I think it is to be regretted, and it cannot produce good effect, that attention should be pointedly drawn to an incident, possibly susceptible of explanation, of a
  1548
  character which in my opinion no Army has been or ever will be entirely exempt from. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the bad effect produced upon recruits by their being rapidly hurried to duty before they have entirely acquired their drill. That is an observation in which I heartily concur, and an order has been given for the issue of a Circular for the drilling of the recruits for three months at the depôt before entering upon the ordinary duties of the regiment. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the strength of the Reserve, and he complained that the present system is not only a failure in securing a sufficient number of men with the Colours, but that it has also failed in securing a Reserve. He quoted the number of the Reserves. He stated that on the 1st of January there were not more than 16,000 of the Reserves. But I have already pointed out that the Reserves cannot be in two places at once, and that men serving with the Colours cannot be with the Reserves. A large number at that date had been mobilized, and were on the 1st of January, although not actually present with the Colours, counted in the Returns as forming part of the Establishment of the Army. That fact I mentioned in the statement which I made in moving the Army Estimates. The course taken in demobilizing the Reserves was to allow the Reserve men six weeks' furlough, during which they received pay and rations, before they were discharged. The greater part of the men who had been called out were at that time taking their furlough which was preliminary to their discharge. They have now rejoined the Reserve, and the Return on the 12th of May was not 16,000, but 28,700. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the dissatisfaction and discontent which he says has been caused among the Reserves owing to the bad treatment which they have received. This is the first time I have heard of any complaint. I explained at some length, in moving the Army Estimates, the course taken in regard to them. I do not think it is necessary that I should recapitulate what I have already said on this subject. During the time they were on furlough they were receiving pay and ration allowance, and I think every man was able to leave the battalion and look out for fresh work or take up his old employment with £2 or £3 in his pocket,

  1549
  If there is any discontent I greatly regret it, but I think it is hard to say that the discontent has been caused by any action on our part. The hon. and gallant Member also spoke in strong terms of the extreme inefficiency of the system which rendered it necessary to call out a Reserve of 15,000 or 16,000 men for the purpose of despatching a small expedition like that to Egypt. But in moving the Army Estimates I also dealt with that subject. I showed that a very small portion of the Reserves called out were actually employed in Egypt at all. I stated that 10,582 actually joined the Colours, and that of the 9,700 Infantry only 1,500 joined the Home and Mediterranean battalions; that 2,200 were sent out to form depots; that 2,200 were absorbed in the formation of second depots, which were prepared but not sent out; and that there volunteered for the Army Hospital Corps and Transport Corps 460, leaving available for the establishment of a third Division, if it were necessary to send it out, 3,340 men. Therefore, it is very far indeed from the fact that the battalions actually sent out for service in Egypt were composed mainly, or to any considerable extent, of Reserve men.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I do not wish to interrupt the speech of the noble Lord, but I stated in my remarks that the number actually sent out was 4,363.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to state that in order to send out a very small expedition it was found necessary to call out 10,000 Reserve men. But the 10,000 men were mainly called out as a precaution, and it was not found necessary, nor was it the fact, that those men were actually sent to Egypt. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) explained in the early part of last year the steps which had been taken for making an efficient Army Corps, and that, as the scheme had only just been adopted, it had not its full nor anything like its full operation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) have referred to what they described as the deterioration in the quality as well as in the numbers of the troops, and the noble Lord went in great detail into an examination of tables from the Reports of the Inspector General of
  1550
  Recruiting to show that the size and weight of the troops had diminished. The noble Lord has taken a very extraordinary course, however, because what the Inspector General of Recruiting in his Report says is that in the past year a much greater number of men who presented themselves as recruits were rejected than heretofore. In the year under review he says the duty of examining recruits by the Army Medical Department, as a rule, had been strictly performed; and the Medical Returns showed that the number of rejected had risen from 407 in 1880 to 432 in 1881 and 439in 1882; whereas, in 1876, 1877, and 1878, the numbers were respectively 273, 293, and 298. Then, I do not understand by what process it is argued that because a larger number of recruits are rejected by the medical authorities, therefore the physical quality of the troops has deteriorated; on the contrary, it appears to me that the inference to be drawn from the fact is that the recruiting authorities are more strict than heretofore, and the probability is that the physical quality of the troops is improving rather than deteriorating. Appendix C, which was quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is one which gives the age, height, and weight of the recruits inspected; but it is not stated, and it is not the fact, that of those recruits the whole were taken. On the contrary, a large percentage of the whole number were rejected; and, therefore, it must not be supposed that the physical qualities of the troops have deteriorated. My right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General has, however, dealt with the subject, and I need not go into it again. In respect of crime in the Army, reference has been made to the state of crime in 1872; but hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought it right altogether to ignore the fact that during the last five years the statistics of crime of every description have been steadily improving. I now come to a subject which has been specially dealt with by the hon. and gallant Gentleman—namely, deficiency in recruiting; and in commenting upon the deficiency in recruiting in moving the Army Estimates a few weeks ago, I pointed out that the deficiency is one of entirely recent growth, and is in no way to be attributed to short service. One would have thought, from the observations that

  1551
  have been made, that deficiency in recruiting had hitherto been entirely unknown, and was due to the adoption of the system of short service; but the facts are entirely the reverse. Whatever objection may be urged to the system of short service, up to last year recruiting never failed to provide the necessary number of troops for the Army. On the contrary, under the old system of long service it was absolutely impossible to obtain the necessary number of recruits. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to a table given at page 10 of the Army Returns for the present year he will find an account of the effective strength of the Establishment on the 1st of January every year from 1862 to 1872, and he will see during those 11 years that the deficiency varied from 3,000 to 9,000 men, at which it stood in one year—I think the year 1871—while in every year, with two exceptions since 1872, during which period the short-service system has been in operation, the number of recruits on the 1st of January has been in excess by an amount varying from 1,000 to 2,500. Therefore, I think it is rather hard on short service that the first year any difficulty is found in obtaining the necessary number of recruits, the system should be immediately attacked, as if to it, and it alone, was due the difficulty of obtaining the necessary recruits for the Army, when it is clear that the difficulty existed to a still greater extent under the system of long service. I quoted from the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting what, in his opinion, were the causes of the deficiency in the number of recruits obtained last year. The employment of a considerable number of Reserve men in the Army had, of course, the effect of withdrawing them from other employment; and when increased means of employment were found, those who would otherwise have come forward as recruits were withdrawn. Another thing to which the deficiency of recruits last year was due was the step taken by my right hon. Friend last year in raising the limit of age from 18 to 19 years. In the year 1881 there were enlisted 3,901 recruits between the ages of 18 and 19; whereas, in 1882, only 197 recruits were so enlisted. We were exposed to an exceptional drain from two causes. Last year a very large number of men
  1552
  who had enlisted under the long-service system were entitled to take their discharge; and, at the same time that this exceptional number of long-service men were obtaining their discharge, the full force of the new system of men passing from the Colours into the Reserve was beginning to be felt. These two circumstances caused a considerable drain. The hon. and gallant Member has asked me what is the actual state of the Army at the present moment. I will state the numbers. On the 1st of May, in the British Establishment the Cavalry were 182 in excess of their strength, the Artillery were 1,450 below it, the Engineers 48, the Foot Guards 940, the Infantry 6,206, and the Departmental Corps somewhat in excess; giving a balance of deficiency in the Army in the British Establishment of 8,520 rank and file. In India the Cavalry were 111 below the strength of the Establishment, the Artillery 548 in excess, and the Infantry 758 below; making a total net deficiency of 8,841.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: That was at the beginning of the present year.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That was the actual state of the Army on the 1st of May. Of course, the position will be, on subsequent Returns, somewhat worse. About 5,000 reliefs from India would probably be on their passage home on the 1st of May, or about to take their discharge, and this would make the subsequent Returns show an increase of deficiency amounting to somewhere about 5,000 men. Of course, that deficiency would be repaired as recruiting proceeds, and it must be remembered also that the deficiency is, to a certain extent, an artificial one. It is a deficiency of the actual number below the Establishment. The Establishment, however, was raised for the purposes I described in moving the Army Estimates, on the 1st of April, by 2,700. Therefore, the deficiency has been increased by that increase of Establishment. Again, there always has been, and there always will be, to a great extent, in the future, what may be called a normal deficiency below the Establishment in the month in which we are at present. The Army has generally, during the month of May and June, been several thousands below its Establishment, and this will be more the case

  1553
  in the future as the number of short-service men increases. That this must be the case will be evident to the House upon a few moment's consideration. The Army is like a cistern filled evenly by a process which goes on during all the months of the year. The recruiting does not vary very greatly, and the supply is gradually obtained in every month of the year. But the greatest part of the drain takes place in two or three months only of the year, when the men are arriving from India. The men from India do not come home at the exact moment they complete their service, but they come home in large drafts, and as soon as they arrive at home they are discharged. The greater part of the annual drain, therefore, of the Army takes place in the months in which we now find ourselves, and there is, and always will be, a deficiency in the present month. The increase in the Establishment voted by Parliament and the usual deficiency which always takes place at this period of the year will probably account for 6,000 or 8,000 men. I am very far from saying that that is not a serious matter, and one which requires the earnest attention both of the Government and of the House; but I venture to think that it is wrong to attribute it entirely to the organization which has recently been adopted. The noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) called upon me not to adopt any temporary measure which might be advisable. Well, Sir, considering the peculiar circumstances of last year, we may fairly consider the deficiency temporary.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: The noble Lord has rather misunderstood me. I hoped he would do more in the shape of a permanent addition than of a temporary addition.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAETINGTON: If the evil is found to be a permanent one, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it would require a permanent remedy; but it is difficult to know precisely what is the extent of the deficiency, and I think we should be making a great mistake, if we were to rush suddenly into new changes or any considerable alteration of the system, until we are satisfied that the difficulties we have to face are not temporary, but permanent difficulties. The effect of the measures we
  1554
  propose to take has already been explained to a certain extent. We have decided, as I stated in March last, to relax the stringency of the rules in regard to recruiting. We have not reverted absolutely to the limit of age of 18, at which recruits may be taken; but we think that confidence may be placed in the recruiting officers, and we have, therefore, allowed them a discretion, and we do not compel them to reject men who, in their opinion, would make eligible soldiers simply because they have not arrived at the age of 19. A large discretion has, therefore, been given to the recruiting authorities, and, with the experience they have gained, I think they are capable of exercising it to the advantage of the Service. The chest measurement of the gunners of the Artillery has been reduced from 35 to 34 inches, and the standard of height of the Foot Guards has also been reduced. The hon. and gallant Member has heard that recruiting is now going on favourably; but the hon. and gallant Member warned me beforehand that he was not conciliated by the fact that recruiting for some weeks has been going on advantageously. I am informed that in the opinion of the recruiting authorities the quality of the recruits obtained has not in any degree fallen off. If the recruiting of the first four months of the year, and more especially of the last few weeks, be maintained—and we have been recruiting lately an average of 600 men per week, and last week we recruited 740 men—we shall obtain from 29,000 to 30,000 recruits in the year, which will certainly be sufficient and more than sufficient to meet the normal requirements of the Service, although, perhaps, not sufficient to supply the deficiency which I have stated to exist. Now, the question is, what steps are to be taken in order to supplement the supply of recruits, and to fill up the deficiency which now exists in the ranks of the Army? Of course, the first step to be taken is to endeavour in every way to check the ordinary waste of the Army—the waste by desertion, and the waste of all kinds. So far as our experience of the present year goes that object has been to a certain extent attained. For the last few years the annual average of desertion has been 4,843, and the number of desertions during the past months of the present year has been very little

  1555
  more than 1,000, so that if the rate of desertion does not increase in the present year the total desertions this year will only be 2,500 against an annual average of 4,843. The number of men discharged by purchase is also decreasing. We propose to take measures for the purpose of temporarily checking the flow of men from the ranks into the Reserves. I agree that nothing would be more to be deplored than that the formation of a Reserve should be checked or impeded permanently; but I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member has said on that subject, that if we are to have a deficiency anywhere, and if we cannot get the men, the deficiency of recruits upon the Establishment with the Colours is the first thing to be considered, and the Reserves, if necessary, must bear a temporary loss. With that object we propose, as has been stated, to give a larger bounty to men who are in India for the purpose of inducing them to extend their service. The matter is not decided yet, but it is under the consideration of the War Office and the India Office. The noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) has referred to the fact that I said to-day that only 400 men accepted the bounty offered last year. I believe that is greatly due to the fact that the offer was not made last year to the men in sufficient time. If the offer is made to the men in time to enable them to make their arrangements and to consider the subject before having arranged to return home, I believe a moderate bounty would probably secure an extension of service on the part of a number of these men. If, on the other hand, it is only offered after the men have made their arrangements for returning home, a comparatively small number only would accept it. It is also proposed to offer a small bounty to men at home who would be eligible for drafts to extend their service for five years. For the present, all men who would be entitled to take their discharge in six or seven years will be allowed to extend their service so as to complete 12 years, and at the expiration of 12 years they will be eligible for re-engagement in order to entitle them to a pension.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Is that to apply to all men?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It will be held out to all men who wish
  1556
  to extend their service. All men who wish to extend it for the period of six years will be allowed to extend their service up to 12 years. Of course, these steps will retard the formation of the Reserve; but as soon as they have effected their object of filling up the ranks of the Army, it will be perfectly possible to recoup the Reserve. It ma3' appear that in these proposals there is some risk of increasing the Pension Vote; but that, in my opinion, is not a very serious risk, because at the expiration of 12 years the men will be entitled to £36 as deferred pay. But they would not be entitled to that deferred pay until they leave the Army in the event of their re-enlisting, and the prospect of receiving £36 in ready money will weigh very strongly with them when they consider whether they should re-enlist or leave the Army. Of course, the length of time during which these measures will go on will depend on the state of recruiting, and on the number of men who appear inclined to avail themselves of our proposals. At all events, the change will furnish us with an answer to those who say that we are discouraging large numbers of soldiers who desire to continue their service with the Colours by insisting that they should leave the Army at a particular period. On the other hand, what we propose will, I think, have a beneficial effect, because we shall now ascertain exactly whether there is any considerable number of men who are disgusted by being forced to leave the Army after the lapse of a certain number of years. For the Guards, we propose to make a certain change in the manner of enlistment. We propose to enlist men for 12 years, three of which will be spent with the Colours, and nine with the Reserve. At the same time, we shall allow the men at any period of service to extend the period of three years with the Colours. We hope by this means to increase the number of recruits, and we shall be enlisting men for the shortest period that is at all desirable with a view of securing their thorough training. On the other hand, we propose to allow men who desire to extend their period of service to extend it either up to the six years or even to a. longer period. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the subject of the general waste of the Army, and he has referred also to the Report of Lord

  1557
  Airey's Committee. I do not think, at this time of night, that it is necessary for me to go into the general question of the waste of the Army. I entirely admit that it is a most serious and important question, and one which ought ever to be present to the minds of those who are responsible for the administration of the Army. But it seems to me almost useless at this particular moment to revert to the question of the waste of the Army and the recommendations of Lord Airey's Committee. The House has had those recommendations before it for two years, and proposals have been made on the Report of that Committee. It was the subject of discussion in this House two years ago. If the waste in the Army was increasing it might be necessary to refer seriously to the consideration of the question; but it is altogether erroneous to suppose that it is increasing. On the contrary, it is a diminishing quantity. In the speech to which I have been obliged to refer more than once I gave figures upon that subject, and I do not think I can place the matter before the House more shortly than I did then. I showed then that, in 1878, the waste of men recruited in that and the two previous years was 270 per 1,000; and that, in 1881, the waste of men recruited in that and two previous years was 208 per 1,000. The diminution continued in 1882, the latest year for which we had Returns, and if it were continued in 1884 it would be 146 per 1,000, an improvement in the whole period of 124 per 1,000, or nearly one-half the waste which prevailed in 1878 among the younger soldiers. We are, therefore, to a very considerable extent, achieving the object which Lord Airey's Committee had in view—namely, in checking the terrible waste among our younger soldiers which formerly prevailed. That waste is now gradually diminishing, and we may hope that it may cease altogether in the course of time. The adoption of short service in the Army has given us useful information on many subjects; and if we could find among soldiers recruited for an obligatory service with the Colours of three years a number of men willing to extend their period of service sufficient for the needs of India and the Colonies, I think we may yet arrive at a solution of the difficulty of the whole question.
  1558
  If we can adopt a plan for the whole Army, by which men agreeing to enlist for three years would consent to extend their service, then I think, to a great extent, our present difficulties would be got over, and in that way, I think, we should be able to check the waste of the Army. These are the measures which we propose to take. Some of them have a temporary and others have a permanent character. I do not think at present that it is desirable to make greater proposals. On the whole, I hope the House will be satisfied with the explanations I have given, and with the result of the discussion which has been raised on this subject by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  COLONEL STANLEY: I think, Sir, the House will agree with me that it is almost impossible to over-estimate the importance of the statement which has just been made by the noble Lord. The discussion, commenced by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, delivered, I fear, in rather a thin House, has been well worthy of the attention of the House. At any rate, it has had the effect of bringing forth a most important announcement from the noble Lord. I think he is to be congratulated upon having looked in the face the grave state of things that exists, and for having frankly and honestly proposed to the House such remedies as he deems necessary. The noble Lord, it is true, entered in some detail upon a criticism of something which had been said in regard to the shortcomings of the Army, and he has rightly enough pointed out that the deficiency in the Army which has taken place within the last few years is mainly due to the short-service system, which has now been in existence for 12 years. I am bound to say that the statement the noble Lord has made, so far as I am able to judge, can hardly be looked upon as anything less than going back to a permissive system of long service. As I understand it, his statement amounts to this, that, at all events at the present time, any soldier who enlists can claim the right to re-engage—that is, that he can go on for a pension after his 12 years of service.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The first operation is not re-engagement, but an extension during the period of his enlistment. He is enlisted for 12

  1559
  years, and what he is able to do is to extend his service with the Colours.
  COLONEL STANLEY: But, as I understand, with a distinct right to re-engage?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If he goes on for 12 years, and is a man of good character and fit for service, he is entitled to re-engage.
  COLONEL STANLEY: I will not express any opinion upon the question at this moment, but I want to get at the facts first. The matter is a very important one, and it is necessary to take it in detail. I understand that he enlists for 12 years, and he has a right to extend, as the noble Lord puts it, the Colour service to 12 years. After that time he may, of his own option, reengage for a further period of nine years, going on for a pension?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: With the leave of his commanding officer.
  COLONEL STANLEY: That is a very important qualification, and I think that on some future occasion the noble Lord will find it well to clear up the expression he used to the effect that this extension to long service might be temporary or otherwise, according to the necessities of the Service and according to what the Secretary of State may think necessary for the service of the time. I want to draw attention to that point at once, because I think whether we advocate short or long service makes no difference. People will agree almost on all sides that one of the great difficulties attending recruiting has been the uncertainty in which the men have found themselves. It is a great thing to be able to draw men into the Service—to be able to say that at the present time a man may engage for 21 years' service and a pension. But if the Secretary of State, whoever he may be a few years hence, is able to say to those men—"I do not want you now in the ranks, and you must leave the Service altogether," there will still be that uncertainty which really spoils recruiting. I quite agree with the noble Lord in the step he has taken. I do not think he expressed it in words, but his arguments led up to it, that the state of things to which we have come is one very little removed from the Service which existed formerly. We are to have the service extended by seven, eight, and, in some instances, nine years with the Colours. It is comparatively a small step, but I
  1560
  am far from saying that it is not a wise or an unnecessary one. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that exactly to this extent you are doing away with the chances of the Reserve, which was one of the main institutions of Lord Cardwell's scheme. It is quite true that the Secretary of State looks upon this as one of the advantages which may countervail to a certain extent the advantage of pension. On the other hand, the man who does not go on for a pension to 21 years would receive deferred pay at the end to the extent of his Colour service, whatever that may be. That to a certain extent will apply; but as I understand, on the other hand, there is no corresponding extension of service for 21 years in the Reserve. At the present time, the total service with the Colours and with the Reserve is 12 years. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to extend the period of Reserve service also, with a view of meeting the deficiency which would otherwise take place. There is no doubt whatever that difficulties may be experienced in regard to this matter, and that it is a very grave state of affairs. According to the statement of the noble Lord himself, there were 8,700 men below the strength on the 1st of last month, and 5,000 are now on their way home, or shortly will be from India, and a large proportion may not be disposed to re engage. Even deducting the 2,700 men by which the noble Lord increased the Estimates when he proposed them this year, even omitting those men, it is perfectly clear that the Army is practically at least 10,000 men below its strength. It must be borne in mind that the Reserve system was established not only to meet the necessity of filling up the battalions to take their place in the field, but was also instituted to remedy the deficiency of battalions when in the field. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will carefully consider whether, now that he has increased the amount of inducements to remain with the Colours and to take on for longer service, he will not also correspondingly take into consideration some system of extension at least to the amount by which he has reduced the Reserve at the present time. There is no doubt that, for some time past, people have been asking whether the price we have been paying in money and in men for the Reserve was fully compensated

  1561
  for by the advantages of the present system? Of course, the noble Lord's Predecessor was placed under great difficulties in trying in this country a similar system of short service by voluntary enlistment which in other countries is carried on under compulsion. In this matter in this country we must put our pride in our pockets, and we must confront the fact that, with the voluntary service, we must get the men upon their terms and not upon ours. Therefore, whatever advantages there may be in the system which has been proposed, I still think that the importance of the Reserve is one the magnitude of which it is almost impossible to exaggerate. Nevertheless, I think the noble Lord takes the right view of the situation, when he says that when it becomes a question between the Establishment with the Colours and that with the Reserves the Establishment with the Colours is most undoubtedly the first thing to be considered. Now, this is a great change, and I hope we shall not be thought unfair if we press for a good deal of further information. In the first place, the whole estimate as to the growth of the Reserve is interfered with; and I should very much like to know if the noble Lord has had any calculations worked out as to what the growth of the Reserve is likely to be under his system—whether he has had worked out any Papers, corresponding to those laid upon the Table of the House when the deferred pay system was introduced, showing what, after a term of years, would be the effect of the growth both of deferred pay, and what undoubtedly will now be the growth of the Pensions Vote accompanying it? It was felt that the amount would increase more after a certain time; but it was also said as an inducement to the House that, after a particular period, the decrease in the Pensions Vote would more than counterbalance the increase in the Deferred Pay Vote. Now, all these calculations are, of course, entirely set aside by the change which the noble Lord has intimated to the House, and I hope, therefore, that on the earliest possible occasion he will allow us to obtain from him such further information as I think the House has every right to expect. At this hour, and after the important announcement which has been made, I do not wish to go into some
  1562
  matters which have been treated by several other hon. Members in the course of the debate. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst)—namely, that you want in these matters freedom of trade. You want to get men who will come into the Army on the best terms you can afford to offer, and when you get good men you want to keep them, if they so prefer it, with the Colours, or in the Reserve, if they find that condition suits them best. In a voluntary system like ours, as I have said before, pride must be a secondary consideration; you have to consider how you can carry out your system of voluntary enlistment. It must be admitted that a great change is taking place day by day in respect of the Reserve; and, after the experience of the last few years' deficiency of recruits, I think the feeling of the House and the country will be that this grave evil must be promptly and efficiently grappled with, and I am far from saying that the noble Lord, in the changes he has made, will not have the support even of those who are unfavourable to the scheme.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he would not go at that moment into the question as to the great lack of recruits, although there was much which invited him to do so. There could be no doubt as to the deficiency that now existed; it was even greater than people supposed, and the difficulties in the way of getting recruits, so to speak, made his hair stand on end. He hoped the noble Lord would remember that there was no more certain way of getting recruits than by letting them know exactly what they might expect. We might enlist a certain number of men for a few years who had got into some scrape, or who joined the Army because they wanted to have a lark; but the men who wished to make the Army their profession were those to whom longer service was necessary. It was such men as these that they ought to try to keep in the ranks either as privates or non-commissioned officers. Therefore, he rejoiced that the noble Lord had taken the step he had announced, and, if it proved to be successful, he hoped it would be extended.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he congratulated the noble Lord on the decision he had announced that evening.

  1563
  He had frequently expressed his belief that they would never succeed in obtaining a suitable Army for India until they had an Army composed of long-service and short-service men. That would be the effect of the plan of the noble Lord. But he rose also for the purpose of saying that the change would not necessarily have the effect that had been attributed to it, of diminishing the Reserve. If men were allowed to enlist for a short period, with the certainty that they would not be sent to India, he believed that a large number of recruits would be attracted to the ranks. The system would be beneficial, not only in maintaining the Army abroad, but in maintaining at home the number of men necessary to defend the country.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the noble Lord, because he endeavoured to create an impression that everything was right in the Army, and that no reasons existed for alarm or anxiety. The noble Lord had failed to disprove what had been so amply shown by the figures of his hon. and gallant Friend, which constituted a tremendous indictment against the present system. His hon. and gallant Friend urged that in the last decade crime in the Army had gone on increasing; the noble Lord mot this by saying that it was not increasing this year. His hon. and gallant Friend had proved that the number of cases of desertion was never greater than it was at that moment. As to recruits, it was allowed by the noble Lord himself that we were 8,000 short of the proper number; and that fact alone was quite enough to make hon. Members who did not belong to the Army, and the people at large, feel that there was something wrong. Esprit de corps, if it had not disappeared from the Army, was seriously weakened; while as to the territorial system, it had broken down altogether. He asked any hon. Gentleman who lived in the neighbourhood of any of the local military centres to visit the barracks, and he would find there 30 or 40 men only in place of 400. It was a fact that 25,000 men out of an Army of 95,000 were unfit for service; one-third of the Army that went to Egypt was taken from the Reserve, because that proportion of the Regular troops were unable to go. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advo-
  1564
  cate General thought he could get over all these difficulties by issuing Circulars. That was his method of curing drunkenness in the Army, of which the hon. Member for Scarborough. (Mr. Caine) complained so justly. The real difficulty was that they had fallen into the habit of getting non-effective soldiers too young or too weak for service, and veiling the real state of the Army from the public. He observed that some of the expressions used by the noble Lord, and by his Predecessor in Office, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, on this subject were identical. The words of the late Secretary of State for War were—"Every week we are getting more men and better men, and we are able to allow a number of men of less than six years' service to go to the Reserve." That was pretty nearly what the noble Lord had said; but it was merely throwing dust in the eyes of the public. Lord Wolseley, in one of his despatches, had stated that "Her Majesty's recruits acted with as much valour and courage as Her Majesty's oldest soldiers." Such a statement from such an authority was absolutely misleading. The complaint was not that boys could not fight courageously, but that they could not endure the hardships of a campaign. He said that the system pursued by the Government in that House and throughout the country was to blind the public to the real state of things in the Army. The noble Lord had acknowledged in his speech that for years to come we should want 36,000 recruits annually, and that at the present moment we were only getting them at the rate of 26,000 a-year. And how were we getting them? By lowering the standard of physique. As the result of that system, the waste of the Army was at the rate of 6,000 men a-year. Was not that a statement which should cause grave anxiety to the country? Desertion alone had cost in the last few years £3,000,000 sterling to the country. These were facts which ought to be plainly stated to the House by the Minister responsible for the Army, who should not endeavour in any way to cloak or conceal from the country the actual state of affairs. The House and the country had a right to know precisely how they stood with regard to the Army in all its weakness and in all its strength. The truth in this case could do no harm; the real danger

  1565
  lay in misleading the House by concealment of the truth. Supposing that during the War in Egypt the Italians, or or some other European Power, had thrown themselves into the battle against us, where would that Army have been which was strong enough to fight those who ran away, but melted away before the ravages of disease and climate? He said it was nothing less than gambling with the National Assurance not to state in that House, in its full extent, the failure of the present system of recruiting, and its injurious effect upon the Army, for we might be perfectly certain that there was not a Foreign Office in the whole of Europe that did not well know its actual state.
  EARL PERCYsaid, the House must be aware that the statement they had heard from the noble Lord that evening was one of a most important character. Amongst other things they were, to a great extent, to go back to the long-service system, the abandonment of which had cost the country so large a sum of money. That change would not only reverse what had been done, but it would assuredly bring heavy charges upon the country in the future by way of pensions to the men. He should be glad to know if any calculation had been made as to what those future charges would be? Another point to be considered was the effect which this change would have upon the Reserve. But on that subject they had heard nothing. He rose principally for the purpose of asking the noble Lord what opportunity the House would have of discussing these great changes? He hoped that that opportunity would be afforded at no distant date. It was impossible that the changes could be discussed at that Sitting; and, moreover, they were of such a character as to require much consideration before they were debated. He hoped to hear that the Army Estimates would be brought forward early, or else that some other opportunity would be afforded by the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the noble Lord if he could lay upon the Table an Estimate of the cost of the changes he intended to make, because he understood that the Government not only intended to return to the old system, but that they proposed to institute a more expensive form of long service? He believed that under the old system
  1566
  the soldier had only the right to a pension, but he would hereafter have a right to deferred pay also. Therefore, it was evident that the Non-Effective Vote would be gradually increased, and that the House, before discussing the matter, should he in possession of the probable coat of the alteration.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, it would be necessary to take the Army Estimates during the present month of June, since additional money would be required for Military services during the last week. He had already explained to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire, who understood the proposal, what was the case with regard to deferred pay; but he would again state publicly that the soldier would earn deferred pay to the amount of £3 a-year during his first period of service. At the end of 12 years, he would, therefore, be entitled to £36 on that account. If the soldier re-engaged, he would be entitled to a pension, but would not earn £3 of deferred pay during his second period of service. His deferred pay would not be paid—the £36 previously mentioned—until the close of the second period, whenever the soldier was finally discharged.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn. Committee inferred till Monday next.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to state, as he had promised to do, what Business would be proceeded with on Tuesday, in the event of the two Annuity Bills not continuing after a certain time?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the Corrupt Practices Bill would come first, and the Scotch Tenants' Compensation Bill second, after which it was proposed to take the Police Bill.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [31st May] reported.
  Resolutions 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Resolution 7.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had to apologise that he was not in the House when this Vote was taken yesterday. He wished to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) which he had

  1567
  previously made to the noble Lord his lamented Predecessor (Lord Frederick Cavendish); and he was glad to be able to make this appeal in the presence of the Speaker and of the Prime Minister, who, he was sure, were better informed upon this question than any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman could be. He (Mr. E. N. Fowler) wished to appeal to the Government to consider whether they could not, in another year, increase this Vote. He was perfectly aware of the fact that it was held to be an unpopular thing to attempt to increase a Vote; but he thought, considering the very important services that the officers of the House of Commons rendered the country at large, a suggestion for increase was a matter which the Government might very properly consider. He knew it had sometimes been argued, on the other hand, in Committee of Supply, that the proper course, in order to put the salaries paid to the officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords on an equal footing, that the salaries of the former should be reduced rather than that of the latter should be increased. He believed, however, that that course would be impraticable, for the reason that the House of Lords had given up certain funds they had at their disposal on condition that their officers should be adequately remunerated. That was an honourable understanding with the other House of Parliament; but, on the other hand, it was perfectly true that the officers of the House of Lords were much better remunerated than those of the House of Commons. He thought, under the circumstances, the course for Parliament to take was not to decrease the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, but to raise the remuneration of the officers of the House of Commons to the same level. That had already been done in the case of one very distinguished Officer of the House of Commons—namely, the Chairman of Ways and Means. He was aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester (Sir Arthur Otway), who now occupied the position of Chairman of Ways and Means, had accepted the position at a very great personal sacrifice; still it was necessary for him to allude to the circumstance he had mentioned, because the fact that such a course had been taken in the case of a distinguished Officer of the House was a rea-
  1568
  son for its being pursued in the case of the other officers. This was hardly a Cabinet question; but, as he believed the decision of the point he was raising rested with the great Officers of State and with Mr. Speaker, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself. He put it to him as strongly as he could, not only as his own opinion, but that of hon. Members generally, that the officers of the House of Commons were inadequately remunerated, and that the subject was one well deserving the attention of those who could exercise control in the matter. He put the matter before the Government as he had done on former occasions, and he was rather glad that he had not been able to draw attention to it yesterday, because he was now able to bring this matter before right hon. Gentlemen more fitted to deal with it than he would have been if he had mentioned it in Committee of Supply.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 8 to 12 agreed to.
  Resolution 13.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was sorry not to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place just now, and he would therefore appeal to the Government to consent to the postponement of this Vote until Monday. There were two or three questions he wished to ask as to the legal charges connected with the Board of Trade. He saw an increase from £18,300 to £22,550, and, no doubt, hon. Members would sympathize with him in his desire to call attention to it. If the Government would be good enough to postpone the Vote until Monday, the House might be able to have some explanation on this subject.
  Resolution postponed until Thursday.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (PAY AND PENSIONS) BILL.
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (PAY AND PENSIONS) BILL.

    [BILL 171.] THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had put down a Notice of Amendment on this stage; but, as it was one pro-

    1569
    posing an increased grant of money, as a private Member he had been informed that the course was irregular, and he apologized for it. He would state, however, that his Amendment, if it could have been put, would only have involved a very small extra outlay. It related to a very deserving class of men; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consider the subject, and see whether he could not himself bring forward the proposal. The case his Amendment had been prepared to meet was one which had very seldom occurred; but it had occurred, and might take place again. A young constable might catch a cold whilst on duty, and die of a malady resulting from it, or he might die from the effects of injuries received whilst in the execution of his duty. Such a young man might, out of his pay, have been in the habit of sending home a certain proportion for the support of his aged parents. He (Colonel King-Harman) had known cases where a young constable, who had met with his, death in this way, had left behind him relatives who had not only had to suffer the great grief of his loss, but had also, in consequence thereof, suddenly found themselves without a penny in the world. Ample provision was made in the Bill for the pension of widows and children of constables dying in this way; and he now pleaded for power to be given to the Lord Lieutenant to grant similar pensions in aid of distressed parents, whose only stay was in the person of a young constable who might have been taken away by some blow, accidentally administered, or sudden calamity to a constable whilst in the execution of his duty.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he found it very difficult to resist the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member; but he was very much afraid that he had no choice in the matter. This Bill was a very peculiar one, and it was a very important measure in this respect—that it was almost drawn upon the lines of certain other important Acts which governed the condition of various large forces, and that it likewise followed the lines which were adopted in another measure which was at present in an inchoate state; and any proposal which was adopted in this Bill ought, they might say, to have been adopted in the Bills which had given a Police Force to England, and would have
    1570
    to be adopted in those Bills which would follow in the future. Likewise, the principle which the hon. and gallant Member proposed to insert in this Bill would have to be adopted in other services in the Irish Police if it were adopted here. He hardly felt justified, in a Bill dealing with the Irish Constabulary, to establish this important principle.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I do not ask this as a right for the relatives of the Constabulary; I only ask that the Lord Lieutenant may have power to make grants of this kind if he thinks it desirable.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he felt the full strength of the hon. and gallant Member's contention, and also the force of the safeguards by which he proposed to protect it; but so small was the probability of an inroad being made into the public Exchequer by the very modest proposal put before them that he thought, when a case of this kind occurred, as it very rarely had occurred, and very rarely would occur again, it might be met by other means. He remembered very well that other means were found in the case of sailors who had been lost at sea; and in the very rare case to which the hon. and gallant Member referred he thought that a similar course would be adopted. If the hon. and gallant Member would refer the special cases which, in his knowledge, had occurred to him (Mr. Trevelyan), he would endeavour to see whether something could not he done in regard to them. If, unfortunately, it should ever happen that any large number of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or the Dublin Police, should be injured or killed whilst in the discharge of their duty, then he concluded that special means would be taken to provide for those they left behind, who had been dependent upon their wages—such means as were taken by the Admiralty after the loss of the Eurydice and the Atalanta, He was extremely sorry that he did not feel himself able to accede to the wish of the hon. and gallant Member.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accede to the desire of the hon. and gallant Member, for if he had done so the Irish Members would have had to press upon the Government for some provision for the widows and children of persons who, from time to time, had

    1571
    been shot by the police, who were a very much more numerous class than the aged parents that had been dependent upon Members of the Constabulary Force killed or injured whilst in the discharge of their duty.
    SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could see his way to the adoption of the Amendment he had put upon the Paper, which dealt with the case of much graver hardship? He did not ask for a decided promise; but only for an undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that upon this subject he had spoken at some length yesterday; and though there was by no means unanimity in the House, he must say that he had never spoken with more complete conviction as to the course it behoved him to take than he did on that occasion. He, like other Members of the House, had had to submit to the ruling of the Chairman of Committees; and, while that ruling was unquestioned in its justice, he, like other Members of the House, regarded it, although he would very much have liked the matter to go to a division, and to have been decided by a division. But it was quite one thing to wish that a matter should go to a division, and another to urge that a clause should be moved for the purpose of sending it to a division, when one's self was anxious that it should go to a division for the purpose of having it defeated. He so much objected to the principle of the clause which the hon. Member asked him to move, that though he imagined there might be some grievance under the present system, and though he had a good deal of sympathy with the men who believed they had a grievance, he felt that he should not be justified in moving the clause—in fact, that it would be highly irregular for him to do so.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Sir Charles Dilke, Secretary Sir William Bar-court, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General.)
  BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 5.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that before Mr. Speaker put the Question he would appeal to the right hon. Member who had charge of the Bill to know what course the Government intended to take with regard to it? If he was not mistaken, on Monday night it was proposed to take the Corrupt Practices Bill; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not rather inconvenient to hon. Members to put down the Ballot Bill, as it had been put down, night after night, bringing people down to the House to discuss it, when there was not the remotest chance of its coming on? Under the circumstances, he would appeal to the right hon. Member who had charge of the Bill as to whether he could not defer the Committee stage until they had got through the Corrupt Practices Bill, or, at any rate, until they had disposed of the second stage of that measure? There was a great deal of analogy between these two Bills; and it appeared to him that it would be a great convenience to the House if the Government, instead of putting the Bill down for Monday, would say when they really intended to bring it on. Did they intend to bring it on as a Government measure immediately after the passing of the Corrupt Practices Bill, or did they intend that some other measure should intervene between the Committee stage of the Corrupt Practices Bill and the Ballot Bill? As the right hon. Gentleman to whom he put the question might know, he had taken a great deal of interest in the Ballot Bill; and he had been down in his place a great many nights expecting it to come on, in common with numbers of other hon. Members who sat on the Opposition side of the House. As he had said, it would be a convenience if the Bill were deferred until the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Corrupt Practices Bill had been disposed of; and if some Member of the Government would give them a distinct pledge that that course would be adopted they would be glad.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the proposal before the House was not, as the hon. Member supposed for Monday, but for Tuesday, at a Morning Sitting. He could only say he hoped this Bill would come on speedily; and he should be extremely loth to postpone the Committee stage of the Bill until the Corrupt Practices Bill was through, as that

    1573
    might occupy a considerable time. He feared he could not give the promise for which the hon. Member asked; but he would promise to make every effort to bring the Bill before the House at the earliest possible time; and he was not without hope that that might be on Tuesday.
    MR. ONSLOWasked if it would be the first Order of the Day on Tuesday?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he feared it would be the second Order; but he hoped it might be reached.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought it was a proper course to put this off to Tuesday, and he hoped it would be brought on; but he feared that was not very likely. He wished to urge that, whenever the Bill was brought on, it would be at a time when there could be some discussion upon it.
    Committee deferred till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  MOTIONS.

    INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (HILDERSHAM) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of the Common Fields and Pastures situate in the Parish of Hildersham, in the County of Cambridge, in pursuance of a report of the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 209.]

    LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) (DIDCOT, &C.) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," relating to Didcot Improvements situate in the several Parishes of Didcot, East Hagbourne, and Long Wittenham, and in the Chapelry of Appleford, in the Parish of Sutton Courtney, in the County of Berks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 210.]
    House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.