Commons Sitting of 28 June 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES, Votes 9 to 14; NAVY ESTIMATES, Vote 15—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Companies Acts Amendment* [246].
Ordered—First Reading—Marine Policies (Collisions)* [245]; Detention in Hospitals [247]; Prison Service (Ireland)* [248].
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [211].
Considered as amended—Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations) [228].
Withdrawn—Public Buildings (Doors) [239].

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION ACTS—WILLIAM H. KENNARD.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board; Whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment in Portsmouth Gaol of William Henry Kennard, of Shoreham, Sussex, for the non-payment of a fine under the Vaccination Acts, he having already paid 35 s. on account of the same child, the sentence having been passed by the Steyning Bench of Magistrates, and the said W. H. Kennard having been compelled to pick oakum and to lie upon a plank bed; and, whether any circular has been issued by the present Government, addressed to Magistrates or Guardians, in deprecation of repeated prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will answer this Question. The Local Government Board have made inquiry, and find that, after repeated warnings, proceedings were instituted against William H. Kennard, in May, 1882, for not complying with au order of the Justices for the vaccination of his child. The fine imposed with costs after warrants of distress and commitment amounted to 35 s., and this sum was paid. Proceedings were again instituted in May of the present year. Kennard pleaded guilty, and was fined 20 s. and costs, and, in default of distress, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. The return to the warrant of distress was "No goods." Kennard was supposed to leave Shoreham for Brighton, and gave at the police-station an address at Brighton which was found to be false, and he was subsequently apprehended at Shoreham. The warrant of commitment did not impose hard labour, and it is untrue, as stated in the Question, that Kennard had to sleep on a plank bed. The superintendent of police states that Kennard, on the day he came out of gaol, informed him that he had been treated by everyone in the prison with a great deal of kindness. No Circular has been issued by the Local Government Board. The views of the Board on the subject are set forth in a letter which has been published as a Parliamentary Paper, and are generally well known. It has been the practice of the Board to send a copy of that Parliamentary Paper to the Board of Guardians whenever it appeared to be desirable to do.

  THE TRUCK ACT—MEDICAL ATTENDANCE IN MINING DISTRICTS.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an article in The North Eastern Daily Gazette of the 7th instant, in which it is stated that certain firms of ironstone mine owners in the Cleveland district have for several years past made deductions from the wages of the miners in their employment for medicine and medical attendance without the sanction of the workmen, the medical men being selected by the employers, and being in some cases very objectionable to the miners; whether, if the statements made in this

  1691
  article be correct, the mine owners are not committing a breach of the Truck Act, and rendering themselves liable to heavy penalties; and, whether he can take any steps to put a stop to the practice complained of?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said he had received a long Correspondence from the Inspector of Mines in this district, which stated the communications which that official had had with the miners on the subject. It would not be possible, within the limits of a reply to a Question, to state all the points, and the hon. Member would probably like to look at the Correspondence. In that case it was very likely that an arrangement of the points in dispute might be arrived at which would be satisfactory to all parties concerned.

  MADAGASCAR—ENGLAND AND FRANCE — IDENTITY OF POLICY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in accordance with the declaration of Her Majesty's Government recognizing "the Queen of Madagascar as absolute Monarch of the whole Island," and with the understanding between Great Britain and France "that the two Governments should maintain an identic attitude of policy in Madagascar, and act in concert in the matter," Her Majesty's Government has made representations to the French Government concerning the action and the claims of France in Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; no communication has been made to the Government of France since my reply to the hon. Member on Thursday last.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I shall repeat the Question on this day week.

  MOROCCO—SLAVERY AND SLAVE DEALING AT TANGIER.
  MR. A. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any further information respecting the slave trade now being carried on on Morocco; and, whether their information confirms the report of the sale and mutilation of slaves which appeared in The Evening Standard of 19th June.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEFurther Reports giving much information as to the Slave Trade in Morocco have been received, and will be shortly laid before Parliament. Speaking generally, they show that a very unsatisfactory state of affairs exist in Morocco. The subject continues to occupy the attention of the Foreign Office.

  EGYPT—MAJOR BARING, HER MAJESTY'S CONSUL GENERAL.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether application has been or will be made by Her Majesty's Government to the Sultan for an exequatur to enable Major Baring to enter on his duties as Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt; and, whether any understanding had been arrived at with Foreign Powers on the proposals contained in Lord Granville's Circular Despatch of January 3rd, 1883, with respect to the Suez Canal?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEYes, Sir; the usual course of applying for the bérat or exequatur will be followed. In answer to the next Question, I have to say that certain observations, of an entirely friendly character, have been received from different Foreign Powers on the proposals in question; but no final understanding in regard to them has yet been arrived at.

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to an extract in The Morning Post of Friday, 15th June, from The Egyptian Gazette, giving an account of the trial of Suleiman Sami; and, if so, whether he can ascertain whether it is the case, as stated in that account, that Suleiman Sand pleaded "not guilty;" that his advocate, Jacobbi, requested permission to open the proceedings by lodging certain evidence taken in another case which bore specially upon the one before the Court; whether the Court refused such permission, and at once called upon the Public Prosecutor; whether the Public Prosecutor in his speech used the following expression:—

  1693
  "By its sentence the Court would afford some consolation to those who had suffered from the cruelties perpetrated on the fatal day of the 11th of June;"
  whether, at the conclusion of the speech of the Public Prosecutor, Mr. Jacobbi objected to the course taken in having heard the Public Prosecutor before the witnesses had given their evidence; whether Mr. Jacobbi applied that the depositions and other documents taken in the trial of Arabi should be brought before the Court, as they bore special reference to the trial of Suleiman Sami; whether the Court refused the application, and thereupon the advocate, Jacobbi, threw up his brief, after a long and elaborate protest, which he handed to the Court; whether that protest can be obtained and laid upon the Table of the House; what part, if any, Major Macdonald took in the discussions; and, whether he has made any report of the proceedings to Sir Edward Malet, and whether such Report can be laid upon the Table; and, in the event of no such Report having been made, whether Her Majesty's Government will call for one, and lay it upon the Table? The noble Lord added that he had the following Question on the Paper addressed to the Prime Minister, which he would put to the Under Secretary—namely, Why the despatch of Lord Dufferin, and the telegrams to Sir Edward Malet, together with some germane Papers, referred to by him on June 11th, with reference to the trial of Suleiman Sami, and which he promised to lay upon the Table as soon as possible, have not yet been produced, seeing that more than a fortnight has elapsed since these Papers were referred to and promised, and when they will be in the hands of Members?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the noble Lord's Question, addressed to me, as well as to that addressed to the Prime Minister, I may state that I have to-day laid on the Table of the House Papers which contain full information on the points referred to by the noble Lord. The reason why they have not been laid before is, that Reports from Egypt were expected of which the last only reached the Foreign Office on Tuesday last.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The noble Lord does not say whether the protest of the advocate of Suleiman Semi has been received by Her Majesty's
  1694
  Government, and whether it will be laid on the Table of the House. I will be greatly obliged to the noble Lord, and I will put my Question to-morrow if he will answer it seriatim.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe Report of Major ssMacdonald gives full information on all these points. I think I may fairly appeal to the noble Lord to examine these Papers before he asks further Questions.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—COMMISSARIAT SUPPLIES (HAY).
  DR. CAMERONasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, How much of the hay sent out for the use of the Egyptian Expedition was, on being landed, found caked and mildewed; and, whether the Commissary General at Head Quarters was consulted as to its purchase, or the mode in which it should be packed; and, if not, who purchased it and who was responsible for the method in which it was packed?
  MR. BRAND: A portion of the supplies first sent to Egypt arrived in a caked or mildewed condition, and had to be used for bedding purposes. It is impossible to say what was the amount of hay so damaged. This was part of the supply which, in consequence of the rapid departure of the Expedition, had to be pressed in perpetual pressing machines without respect to the weather, and frequently throughout the night. Of the supplies subsequently despatched, which were pressed under the ordinary precautions, I have no reason to believe that any portion was found unfit for use, and the general officer and veterinary surgeon reported favourably on the other consignments of hay. In reply to the second Question, I have to say that the Commissary General at head quarters was not consulted as to the purchase of the hay, or as to the mode in which it should be pressed. It was purchased in the usual manner, under contracts, in various parts of England and Ireland, and it was pressed under the inspection of the local Commissariat officers.

  COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON AGRICULTURE—THE PROPOSED STAFF.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will be good enough to state the ar-

  1695
  rangements which have been made, or are proposed to be made, with regard to the numbers, emoluments, and duties of the Staff of the "Committee of Council for the consideration of all matters relating to Agriculture," over which he presides; and, if he will inform the House in which of the public offices information is now to be sought on statistical, veterinary, or other matters connected with agriculture?
  MR. DODSON: As soon as the Order in Council had been passed, appointing the Committee on Agriculture—which was not until the end of April—we communicated with the Departments which have hitherto been charged with the preparation of the Agricultural Statistics, with a view of ascertaining the probable requirements of the Office and the work which will devolve upon it. Arrangements are under consideration; and as soon as it is ascertained what the full extent of the duties are, we shall be in a position to say what additions will be made to the Staff. Till then I cannot mention the number or the duties or the emoluments. When these are settled an Estimate will be submitted. Meanwhile, any application for information on such matters as those mentioned should be made to the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council. I will only add, in explanation, that the Lord President of the Council is ex officio President of the Committee, and I preside in his absence.
  MR. R. H. PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how soon he will be able to lay on the Table Estimates for the Services?
  MR. DODSON: I am unable to state at present when an Estimate will be presented. There will be no unnecessary loss of time; but the transfer of so complicated a matter as the Agricultural Statistics to a new Department involves a great deal of care and consideration.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the trouble and less of time caused to persons applying to have fair rents fixed under the Land Act; whether cases have been brought under his notice in which tenants, after going a long day's journey at considerable expense, found that no Court was held; and,
  1696
  whether the Government will require the Commissioners to give more consideration to the convenience of suitors, especially in the matter of holding their Courts in the towns nearest to the land to be adjudicated on?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have communicated with the Land Commissioners with regard to this Question, and have received from them a Report, in which they state that, when arranging the Circuit lists, they have done, and will continue to do, everything in their power for the convenience of suitors. It is impossible for them to select more than two or three principal places for the advertised sittings of a Sub-Commission in counties where there are but few cases. To adopt any other course would most seriously retard the progress of business. Sub-Commissioners, however, have power to adjourn to other places than those advertised, and they are always ready to receive applications, from parties interested, to sit at other places than those specified in the Circuit list.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—DISQUALIFICATION OF JURORS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the official rules for the guidance of Crown Solicitors in directing jurors at trials in Ireland to stand by contain a direction in the following terms:—
  "And shall also, in the exercise of a due discretion, direct to stand by all such persons as he shall have reason to believe are likely to be hindered from giving an impartial verdict, by favour towards the accused, fear of the consequences to their persons, property, or trade, or other improper motive, although same may not announce to a legal ground of challenge, or may not admit of legal proof;"
  and, if this rule be still in force, by what statute Crown Solicitors are empowered to impose this disqualification upon jurors?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he had been asked to answer the Question. The Official Rules for the guidance of Crown Solicitors did contain, amongst other provisions, the Rule referred to in the Question. The right to call on jurors to stand by was not created by any particular Statute, but it had been distinctly recognized by several Statutes, notably

  1697
  the Jurors (Ireland) Act, 1871. The regulation in question appeared to him to be a most proper guide for Crown Solicitors in the discharge of their duties.

  SCOTLAND—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON CROFTERS.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to statements made publicly by Mr. Fraser Mackintosh, M.P. a Member of the Royal Commission on Crofters, in reference to the evidence taken before the Commission, and especially to the following remarks:—
  "Whatever Report the Commissioners may adopt, the mind of the Country, as to the condition, the usage, and the requirements of these people, will be made up, not from the Report, but from the detailed evidence itself, and therefore the appearance of this evidence will be matter of the utmost importance;"
  and, whether it is in accordance with recognised usage to allude publicly to the proceedings of a Royal Commission before the Commissioners have completed the evidence, much less reported?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When Gentlemen are appointed on a Royal Commission by the Crown, it is no part of my duty to criticize their conduct, or what they say to anybody, especially to their constituents, and therefore I can give no official opinion on the subject. If the hon. Member wishes for my private opinion, which is of very little value, I should say that the passage referred to in the Question is a singularly harmless passage. If there is any harm in it, it is in the excess of modesty on the part of the Commissioner attaching greater force to the evidence than to the Report.

  STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS)—WOOD PAVEMENTS.
  VISCOUNT NEWPORTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If it is not the fact that since the recent extension of wood pavement in the Metropolis serious affections of the eyes and of the lungs have been largely on the increase; and, whether it would not be possible to mitigate in some degree this growing evil by a more careful and thorough system of cleaning and washing the streets?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to inform my noble Friend that the
  1698
  streets of the Metropolis are not under the control of the Board over which I have the honour to preside, and I have no information of the evils he refers to. I cannot speak with any weight with regard to remedial measures, or their necessity; but perhaps mynoble Friend's Question will be the means of directing the attention of the local authorities to the subject. I may add that cleansing and sweeping by boys employed for the purpose appear to be efficient in the City of London and in some districts, and the same means are adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works with regard to the Thames Embankment, although it is not paved with wood.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND—THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as the establishment of the Royal University does away with the necessity of attendance at lectures in the Queen's Colleges, the class fees of several of the professors in the Galway College have fallen to one fifth of their former amount; whether this reduction amounts to thirty per cent on the income for the office when these professors originally accepted their appointments; and, whether there is no way by which this interference with the vested interests of an underpaid body of public servants can be remedied?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the diminution of class fees has been considerable — in some cases as large as stated by the hon. Member. It is probably too soon to judge of what the ultimate effect of the establishment of the Royal University may be; but, in any case, the matter is not one in which I am in a position at present to admit any claim on the part of those gentlemen, or to make any pledge.

  SOUTH AFRICA —THE TRANSVAAL—THE CHIEF MAPOCH.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of state for the Colonies, Whether any information has been furnished by the Resident in the Transvaal to Her Majesty's Government as to the terms on which the Transvaal Government will allow Mapoch to surrender; and, whether there is ground to believe that Ma-

  1699
  poch will receive worse terms in consideration of the services rendered by him to the British in the late war?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, the Resident in the Transvaal had not furnished the Government with any information as to the terms on which the Transvaal Government would allow Mapoch to surrender. There was no ground to believe that he would receive worse terms in consideration of the services rendered by him to the British in the late war. As a matter of fact, he did not render any services.

  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES—CHATHAM.
  MR. GORSTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether it is true that a piece of open ground on the Military Road, in the middle of the town of Chatham, has been offered by the Military authorities to public tender for the grazing of cattle and sheep; and, whether, in consideration of the nuisance which such a use of the ground will occasion to the inhabitants, Her Majesty's Government will direct this piece of land to be devoted to some other purpose?
  MR. BRAND: Public tenders have been called for; but I have given instructions that they shall be submitted to the War Office, and not be dealt with locally. The question of the appropriation of the land to other purposes will be considered.

  IRELAND—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS—MR. BONNAR.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of the late Mr. John Bonnar, who died on the 22nd of March of this year, aged 64 years, after having taught in the Rooskey National Schools, county Donegal, and Strabane district for forty-two years, having been appointed in 1841, and being in the first class; whether Mr. Bonnar was within a few months of being able to retire on full pension for first class; and, had he not died suddenly, would have applied for the retiring allowance of about £300; whether he is aware that his widow and two young sons are left altogether unprovided for; and, whether the fact of his having served forty-two years, being in the first class, and entitled to the fore-
  1700
  going amount of retiring allowance, together with the fact of his widow and his two little children being without means, would entitle him to recommend the Commissioners to grant some assistance to Mr. Bonnar's family?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have made inquiry into this case, and find that Mr. Bonnar died in March last, having completed his 63rd year. Had he lived, and voluntarily retired from the Service at that age, he would have been entitled to a pension of £49 per annum; but the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that he could have claimed a bulk sum, either of £300 or any lesser amount, as the Act gives no power to grant a gratuity to a teacher over 54 years of age, or to commute a pension. Nor does the Act give any power to make grants to the families of deceased teachers, and nothing except an alteration of the Act will enable me to recommend the Commissioners to deal with this case.

  IRELAND—PAUPER EMIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Emigration Commission of the United States Government to detain all past inmates of Irish Workhouses who were proved to have been assisted by funds furnished by Great Britain, and to stop the landing of all steerage passengers until after an investigation of the circumstances of their departure from their homes; and, whether this is likely, and to what extent, to prejudice the success of any Government scheme for Emigration?
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked, If the right hon. Gentleman could state to the House what truth there was in the statement made in America that Irish paupers were being sent to that country by the Government, or with its approval and aid?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer both Questions together. I am obliged to my hon. Friends for having given me an opportunity of referring to the subject. Sir, there has been a great exaggeration in the matter referred to in these Questions. I will give a single specimen. In a London evening paper of Tuesday it is stated that "the ship Anchoria put into Now York with a selection of paupers on board." I am in-

  1701
  formed that the Anchoria did not carry a single person who had been a workhouse inmate, and that the whole party consisted of 53 persons. Considering the nature of the question, or controversy, or whatever you may call it, I think that gentlemen in and out of the Press should receive with very great caution the telegrams that come from America. With regard to the ship Furnessie, as long ago as the 17th of June I received the following Report from the member of our Emigration Committee, who was in charge of the embarkation:—
  "The published reports of our emigrants having been landed in America without money are without foundation, I, myself, saw all the tickets, and the head of each family held an ocean ticket, rail ticket, and cheques on Messrs. Henderson Brothers for the full amount of their landing allowance, which is £1 for each adult, and 10 s. for each child. There was a large number of emigrants on board who did not belong to us; perhaps these were the ones referred to."
  Since the telegrams came from America an inquiry has been made, and it has been ascertained that the Furnessia which took out 421 emigrants, contained among them five families, who had been workhouse inmates. The following particulars have been obtained respecting these five families:—The first family consisted of a woman and two children, who had £1 10 s. given as landing allowance, and the woman had produced a letter from a cousin in New York, offering employment in her own house. The second family consisted of a woman and one child, who had a landing allewance of £1, and who had produced a letter from her sister in Wilhamantie, promising her a home. The third family consisted of a woman and two children, who had a landing allowance of £3 10 s., and who produced a letter from her son in New York, promising her a home, and to meet her on arrival. The fourth family consisted of five children, from 16 years of age downwards, who were sent out to their mother, who was in Williamantie, was anxious to receive them, and waited their arrival. Landing allowance of £3 was given to them, and they were sent out in charge of a man in whom the Guardians placed confidence. The fifth family consisted of a woman and three children. She had a landing allowance of £3, and had produced a letter from her daughter, promising her a home, and offering to pro-
  1702
  cure her employment. Before embarkation outfits were procured for these persons, at a cost of £50 2s. I have been asked to say, with respect to the emigrants, that these were of the class formerly embarked by the Boards of Guardians; and with respect to the emigrants selected by the manager of Mr. Tuke's Fund, I have received a letter stating that these emigrants had not been paupers or persons from the workhouse. All those sent to the United States, except about 300, have arrived, and on arrival have been placed by friends, or by the agents of the Fund. None of Mr. Tuke's emigrants landed at New York, where the complaints came from, and no complaints have been received regarding Mr. Tuke's emigrants. I think it extremely important in a matter of this sort, which may be a matter of controversy between England and America, that I should only state the facts which I have absolutely ascertained.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: In connection with the same, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, having regard to the difficulties which appear to beset the question so far as the United States is concerned, the Government intend any longer to hesitate to avail themselves of the very liberal offer made by the Dominion Government of Canada about three years ago; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any application to Parliament during the present Session to enable them to do so?
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I should like to ask whether the American Government has stopped any of the emigrants, and threatened to send them back?
  MR. PULESTON: Would the Government say whether any official communication has been received, by telegraph or otherwise, from the American Government; and, if so, whether they have sent in reply information such as has just been read to the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I should like to ask, before any reply is given to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), is it correct that there is now any offer from the Dominion Government of Canada?
  MR. O'BRIEN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House is to understand that in the case of persons emigrated by Boards of Guardians

  1703
  the only money they have to face the world with on lauding is the landing allowance of £1 to an adult and 10 s. to a child?
  MR. CALLAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, will he state whether he has any information as to the Emigration Commissioners of the United States Government having come to any decision to stop the landing of steerage passengers?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Questions relating to the American Government should not be addressed to me, but to the Foreign Office. My business is to ascertain that the administrative details of Irish emigration have been properly carried out. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), I am not quite sure whether I am empowered to answer it further than this—that in my day, and I think, also, in my Predecessor's, I know of no definite offer which has come from the Canadian Government. With regard to landing allowances, I think the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) will see by the sums I have read out that the landing allowance is proportioned to the distance) the people have to travel. Somewhat similar sums to those I have named are given to persons who have friends in New York.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall, on an early day, call attention to the Memorandum issued by the Privy Council of Canada, bearing date the 3rd of October, 1880, and to the action of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Might I ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any intimation has been received at his Department as to whether the Americans refused to receive assisted or pauper emigrants?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think a Question of this kind, relating to the action of a Foreign Government, deserves Notice?

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1S82—SPECIAL COMMISSIONS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Government intend to hold any sit-
  1704
  tings of the Special Commission under the Prevention of Crime Act in any place other than Dublin, with the view of relieving the jurors of the city and county of Dublin, who have so manfully discharged their duties, of the serious loss and inconvenience which repeated summonses to serve on special juries under the Act are imposing upon them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that no Special Commission had yet been held under the Prevention of Crime Act, either in Dublin or elsewhere; and it was not intended at present, unless unforeseen circumstances should arise, to hold any such Court. Recognizing the great services rendered by the Dublin jurors, it was not intended to cast any duties upon them at the next Commission except those peculiarly their own; and, accordingly, it was not his intention to have any but Dublin cases tried at the next Commission.

  IRELAND—REPORTED DISTRESS AT GWEEDORE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Letter of Mrs. Alice M. Hart in the "Daily Chronicle" of 8th June, stating that hundreds of the tenantry of Captain Hill, near Gweedore, against whom ejectments for non-payment of rent are pending, are being kept from starvation by doles of a pennyworth of meal a day; and, whether he has any information as to the extent of distress in that district, and of the moans of meeting it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the letter to which the hon. Member refers; but I must remind him that the Government do not depend for their information upon letters from private correspondents. The district of which Gweedore forms a part is one with regard to which they have taken special care to keep themselves informed. According to our information, legal proceedings have been taken by Captain Hill against only 24 out of about 600 tenants, and of these 24, 10 have since settled. These tenants have not been principally dependent on charity for their support, and no proceedings have been taken against any who were considered to be in distress.
  MR. O'BRIENasked whether, having regard to the conflicting information as to the real state of the district, the Government would not have an independent inquiry made?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had received a considerable number of letters on the subject. Mr. Macfarlane was the ordinary and permanent Inspector of the district; and, in addition, they had a special local agent, who was Inspector of the County Donegal, so that they were very well able to check the various accounts.

  EXCISE—ARREST OF MR. BOURGUIGNON.
  MR. ECROYDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 19th June, Mr. Henri Bourguignon, agent of Mr. Albert Keyl, a well known and highly respectable wine merchant of Bordeaux, was arrested at his rooms, No. 28, Langham Street, Portland Place, and in custody of two officers taken to Bow Street, where he was charged with dealing in Foreign wines without a licence, and lecked up in a common cell; that at 12 o'clock he was brought up in the Police Court, where an official from Somerset House stated, in support of the charge, that no licence had been granted in any part of the Kingdom to Mr. Albert Keyl during the past two years; that, upon Mr. Bourguignon asking for time to obtain the licence from Mr. Keyl's shipping agent in Liverpool, in whose keeping it was, the Magistrate adjourned the case for a week, and agreed to liberate Mr. Bourguignon on his obtaining two sureties in £100 each, which he succeeded in doing after remaining in custody until 2.30 p.m.; whether it is the fact that a licence to deal in wines and spirits was duly granted at Liverpool on the 6th July 1882 to Mr. Albert Keyl, and is still in force; whether a licence has not been regularly taken out by Mr. Keyl every year since 1860; and, whether such licence taken out by a principal does not cover the action of his traveller moving from town to town in this Country to transact business?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have carefully looked into this case, and I find that although, undoubtedly, a mistake was made in the statement that Mr.
  1706
  Keyl, of Bordeaux, did not hold a licence, the licence which he actually held was not a foreign one, but merely described him as of York Buildings at Liverpool; and in searching the list of licensees, which contains several thousand names, his was overlooked. The case was heard by the magistrate at Bow Street; and Mr. Vaughan stated that the action of the Inland Revenue Department, in instituting proceedings against M. Bourguignon, had been fully justified. I can only express my own regret, and that of the Board, that Mr. Keyl's representative should have been the subject of these proceedings.
  MR. ECROYDsaid, in consequence of the unsatisfactory character of the answer he had received he would bring the subject before the House on the consideration of the Estimates.

  HARBOUR OF REFUGE (DOVER).
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the further papers relating to the proposed Harbour of Refuge at Dover will be laid upon the Table; and if he will undertake that the Vote providing for the erection of a Convict Prison at Dover shall not be proceeded with until after the House has had an opportunity of considering the information to be given?
  MR. COURTNEY: The question of the exact character of the harbour which it is proposed to make at Dover is not yet sufficiently advanced for Papers to be presented respecting it; but the Convict Vote will not be taken until the House is in the possession of further information on the subject.

  EGYPT—REPORTED CHOLERA AT DAMIETTA.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any official information as to the character of the epidemic which is reported to have broken out at Damietta, and of the number of deaths that have already occured; and also to the appearance of the epidemic in other localities besides Damietta?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I regret to say that the reported outbreak of cholera at Damietta has been confirmed by intelligence received from Her Majesty's Consul at Alexandria, and up to yesterday about 180 deaths would appear to have taken place. Cases

  1707
  have also been reported at Mansourah and Port Said.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Are there any cases reported among British troops?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BOARD SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION FOR INFANTS.
  MR. HASTINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether a School Board is legally bound to provide school accommodation for the children between three and five years of age?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Act of 1870 requires that provision should be made for all children resident in the school district; and inasmuch as there are about 400,000 children under five years of age attending schools in England and Wales, and that for the last 30 years Parliament has made annual grants for such children, every parish in England has been required to provide suitable accommodation for them, and nothing can be more important to our educational system than efficient training in infant schools.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the time has not now arrived when he will consider the advisibility of asking the House to give the Government Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, in order that progress may be made with Government measures, without unduly limiting the necessary discussions on the Estimates, or unnecessarily prolonging the Session without any public advantage?
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked whether the Prime Minister would remember that on Wednesday next he had a Motion on the Paper touching the administration of the Income Tax, a subject which years since ought to have obtained the consideration of the House?
    MR. T. FRYwished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that on Tuesday next the Committee stage was down on the Paper on a Bill which had been read a second time by a large majority. He referred to the Bill for closing public-
    1708
    houses on Sunday in the county of Durham. [Ironical cheer from Mr. WARTON, and cries of "Oh, oh!"] Although to some hon. Gentlemen that measure might appear rather a small one, it was one which largely affected not only the county, but one in which other parts of the country were much interested.
    MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the observations just made, it is convenient I should refer to the matter, and I would do it in this way—that, undoubtedly, the Bill of which the hon. Member speaks is one which has very great interest, indeed, with respect to a particular portion of the community, as well as to the inhabitants of a particular county; but the position of an opposed Order of the Day on a Tuesday night is not a favourable position, and not worth much; because it often happens that if a House is made on a Tuesday night for the discussion of Motions, these Motions are invariably continued beyond half-past 12 o'clock, and an opposed Order cannot be taken. That is only by-the-bye, because I should be sorry that my hon. Friend should think we differ from him on this subject, and I sincerely hope that he will be able to find an opportunity, either on that or some other night, for bringing it under the consideration of the House. In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage), I have to say that we have only considered this matter to a limited extent; but we have arrived at the conclusion that it would be agreeable to the general desire of the House that we should ask to have the 9 o'clock as well as the 2 o'clock Sitting for Government measures on Tuesdays. That is not an immoderate demand, as I hope, and I ought to say, in making that request to the House, that we propose not to interfere with a Motion which stands for Tuesday week in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), on the subject of the importation of foreign cattle suffering from infectious diseases, and which, undoubtedly, would command the attention of the House for discussion. With regard to the remainder of the Question of my right hon. Friend, I do not wish wholly to pass it by, because I think the position of the House is rather peculiar at the present moment. My hon. Friend points to the objects he has in view—first of all, that the discussions on the Esti-

    1709
    mates may not be unlimited; and, secondly, that the Session may not be unnecessarily prolonged without public advantage. What we wish to do is this. We wish to accept very thankfully all the time, to the full extent that my hon. Friend has pointed out, that the House is disposed to give us, provided it be done with the general assent and good-will of the Members; but we do not think that the Government would act wisely in endeavouring to overbear, by the mere force of an ordinary majority, the opinions of the great body of the House. But, having said that, I think I might point out to the House what is the actual position. The House is now aware of all the important measures in the hands of the Government on which the Government desire to take its decision during the present Session. I think I may say, and without fear of contradiction, these two things. First of all, that these are measures of very considerable public interest and importance; and, secondly, that as it happens, to the great satisfaction of many—perhaps to the less satisfaction of some—they are matters in which Party interests and Party sectional feelings are very little, if at all, involved. Moreover, under these circumstances, these measures which are in the hands of the Government, and form the staple employment for them to propose to the House, I feel stand somewhat in a different position than that which they would be placed in if they were only the measures of this side of the House as contrasted with that side of the House. Under these circumstances, I think it is certainly matter for the House to consider whether they would be disposed, with a view to the effectual handling of these measures, and with a view to the general convenience of the House and the proper discussion of the Estimates, to give us the remaining time, or a portion of the remaining time, at an earlier period than has commonly been the case. But I am persuaded that I shall act more wisely, having said this much, by leaving the matter for some days in the hands of the House, and endeavouring thoroughly to collect what is the general feeling, than by endeavouring to exercise pressure. Of course, I should say whenever we find any case analogous to the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire, we should be prepared to act upon similiar prin-
    1710
    ciples, and take care that a discussion of that kind, generally interesting to the House, should not be interfered with.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Of course, it is early in the Session, according to the ordinary practice, for the Government to begin to take the Tuesdays. At the same time, after proper consideration, the House might be willing to make that concession, if it were assured as to the Business which the Government intends to proceed with, and that it is not in contemplation to favour us with an unduly prolonged Session. I understand from the Prime Minister that he does not at present intend to make the proposition, but that in a few days he will make a proposal in regard to this matter. Therefore, I shall content myself with giving Notice that when it is made we shall expect to have something definite as to the measures to be taken up, and the order in which they are to be taken up. We shall be very anxious to know what are the intentions of the Government in regard to several of them, especially the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no proposal to make now; but I have given Notice that it is our intention on Monday to ask that we may be allowed Tuesday nights for Government Business. We have pretty well signified to the House the subject of the Bills which we intend to introduce; but, at the same time, we shall be happy to give any further information on the subject.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked whether the Government would not consider the question of a Saturday Sitting for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) Bill?
    MR. BROADHURSTinquired if the Prime Minister was aware that next Tuesday he had first place for a Motion regarding the better housing of the multitude of the people? That was, at least, as important as the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on the following Tuesday. He would like, if the House would permit him, to read a short note on this subject—["Order!"]—he would not do so without the permission of the House; but the question affected a vast number of people on whom the House and the country depended for its prosperity.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a Question.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, his Question was, Whether the Government would give some other opportunity before the end of the Session for bringing on his Motion, or give any promise that they would deal with this important subject themselves?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Premier at the same time whether, if the Government took both Morning and Evening Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, he would recommend that the natural hour of meeting, 4 o'clock, should be resumed?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could quite understand the reasons which induced the Prime Minister to announce that he would take Tuesdays and Fridays at rather an earlier date this Session; but he would ask him whether it was not within his power to find some method of marking the proceeding as exceptional, depending upon the exceptional nature of the Government Business before the House, so that it might not be drawn into a precedent in future Sessions?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think, with regard to the exceptional nature of the reasons which my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to notice, the very character of the conversation to-day will probably be sufficient to record and make plain the considerations which will guide the House if it should act in the direction which I have indicated. I quite agree with the noble Lord that perhaps after next week, and after the disposal of the Motion to which reference has been made, it may be right that we should return for the general convenience of the House to the ordinary hour of meeting. With regard to what has been stated by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Broadhurst), I would point out that I do not in the slightest degree question the importance of the subject which he proposes to open; but my hon. Friend will feel, I think, that a Motion of that kind proposed on the 3rd of July cannot be intended to be the basis of legislation of a positive kind during the present Session; and if that is so, it is quite evident that it places his Motion on a different footing from the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who, although aiming, I rather think, at legislation, yet legislation of a kind that might probably, if it were adopted, be comprised
    1712
    within a couple of lines or within a very limited space indeed. Under these circumstances, I certainly hope that before the close of the Session my hon. Friend may have an opportunity of explaining his views upon the subject with all that intelligence and all that information which we know he possesses in regard to matters upon which he addresses the House.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether he was to understand that the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill had been definitely abandoned from the statement of the Premier that the Government did not propose to bring forward any Bills other than those of which the House were already in possession?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. My declaration was made with a reservation. I spoke only of the principal measures of the Session. With regard to measures that do not come under that description, and do not promise to occupy a large space of the time of the House, it is impossible to make any abstract declaration.
    MR. HUGH SHIELDasked the Prime Minister whether, should he ascertain before Monday that the feeling of the House was in favour of the Government taking Wednesdays as well as Tuesdays and Fridays, he proposed to enlarge his Motion so as to include Wednesdays? Having, himself, charge of a Bill on the Paper for next Wednesday, he had a personal interest in the question.
    MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Question of the hon. Member, I think we had better reserve to ourselves a perfectly impartial consideration, whatever the information we may receive with regard to the feeling of the House, and act upon it, though subject always to the condition that the House shall not be taken by surprise.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether the Government proposed to find any more work for the Grand Committee on Law—[Mr. WARTON: No, no!]—and in particular, seeing that the Scottish Members were so assiduous, whether the Government would not consider the possibility of referring certain Scotch Bills to that Committee, adding 15 additional Members—[Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!]—and, if necessary, enlarging the functions of the Committee for that purpose?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is a subject on which I do not think we should take such a step as that indicated by my hon. Friend without ascertaining that it was agreeable to the general wish of the House. But I could not answer a Question of that kind without Notice.
    CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Speaker, with regard to the Navy Estimates, Whether it was in Order for the Government to take Votes 15 and 16 that night, taking into consideration the fact that when the Committee last reported Progress they were in the middle of Vote 2?
    MR. SPEAKER, in reply, said, it was quite competent for the Government to do so, and that it was not altogether a question of Order, but a question of the convenience of the House.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  DR. CAMERONasked what was to be done with regard to the Bill relating to Scotch government? It had been promised for to-night; but he did not see any Notice of Motion on the Paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was afraid he was himself in default in this matter. He was himself surprised that the Notice was not down on the Paper for that night. The Bill was ready and the speech was ready, and the only thing wanting was the Notice. He was in Committee upstairs at 4 o'clock the day before, when the Sitting of the House came to a premature close, and it was his fault the Notice was not put down. He would bring it forward to-morrow night, if possible, and, if not, then on Monday.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked when the Bill would be in the hands of Members?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: After it is introduced.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  COLONEL KING-HARMANgave Notice that on Tuesday next he would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was true, as stated in a daily paper, that English fishing vessels had been sent to the West Coast of Ireland to examine into the fishing banks with a view to securing the best stations; and, whether the same vessels could not be much more easily obtained at Dublin?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it would save trouble if he answered the Question at once. Hon. Members had complained to him that they had received in consequence of this report a good many applications from constituents and others who were owners of fishing smacks to have them employed on this service. He wished to say that there was no truth whatever in the report.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he intended to invite the House to take any further part in this Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We do not propose to proceed with this Bill until the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal) Practices Bill has finished its labours.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—ANDERSON'S INSTITUTION, FORRES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Council, If he would explain the grounds on which the Education Department has refused to give an annual grant to Anderson's Institution, Forres, Elginshire, for more than 70 pupils in average attendance, notwithstanding that that institution educates some 200 children?
  MR. MUNDELLA: When the Supply question was under consideration after the passing of the Act of 1872, Anderson's Institution was reported by tile school board of the district, and by the Board of Education in Edinburgh, as sufficient for 70 children, and that its teaching staff was in accordance with that. Subsequently the school board had to supply all the deficiency of accommodation, and, with the aid of lands and building grants from the Education Board to the extent of about £5,000, they made the necessary provisions. In 1880 Anderson's Institution applied for annual grants, which were awarded to them for the number which they had originally estimated to accommodate—namely, 70 children. But the application to extend the grant for 200 was declined, inasmuch as the Education Department were unable, under the terms of the Act of 1872, to make grants for

  1715
  new schools or extensions for a large number than was believed was necessary. The school board now supplied the deficiency. This decision of the Department must be taken as pending the revision of Anderson's Institution Endowment by the Endowed Schools Commission.

  ARMY RETIREMENT—CAPTAIN MOSSMAN.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE (for Mr. CHAPLIN)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Captain R. C. Mossman, late of the Army Hospital Corps, who was compulsorily retired in November 1881, after twenty-seven years' service in many parts of the world, as well as in the Crimean and Chinese wars; whether, by the terms of a Royal Warrant, officers of Captain Mossman's rank are not entitled, after twenty years' service, to a retiring pension of eleven shillings a day; whether it is a fact that Captain Mossman for some months received only four shillings a day, which was withheld altogether for more than a month, and is now in receipt of five shillings a day only, although, nominally, his pension is six shillings a day; whether Captain Mossman was retired on the report of a secret Board that he was unfit for further service, which report was not communicated to him until after his retirement; and, whether, in view of Captain Mossman's long service, he will give Captain Mossman that pension to which he is believed to be entitled?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe case of Captain of Orderlies R. C. Mossman has been brought to my notice; and, after full consideration, I am unable to sanction any alteration in the decision arrived at by my Predecessor. Captain Mossman was examined by a Medical Board in the ordinary manner. Upon its Report, he was placed on retired pay; but circumstances arising from his own misconduct precluded the grant of the full rate; and his retired pay has been subjected to a stoppage of part of it as a consequence of deficiencies in the stores for which he was responsible.

  ARMY MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he would
  1716
  allow such questions as might arise in connection with medical arrangements to be discussed in connection with the Votes relating to the Transport Department, and not limit the discussion to the Votes on which it might more strictly arise?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONagreed that it would be convenient that all questions arising out of the Report of the Earl of Morley's Committee on the medical arrangements in Egypt should be discussed together. It was not in his power to say what the Chairman of Committees might rule to be in or out of Order; but the Government would not interpose any obstacle to the discussion of any point whatever which arose out of that Report.

  INDIA—ALLEGED ATTACK UPON BRITISH TROOPS ON THE AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he could give the House any information with reference to the rumoured attack on British troops on the Afghan Frontier?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe Question ought to be put to the Under Secretary of State for India. I have no information on the subject.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) £419,600, Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, this was a Vote of some considerable importance; and as it involved, more or less, a Department of the Government with which he was for some time connected, and indeed presided over, he wished to make some few observations concerning it. He alluded to the Transport Department in particular; and though he had no intention at the present juncture of going into the whole question, he thought the present was an appropriate occasion for making some remarks on this particular branch of it which had reference to the organization of the body as a whole. He must, therefore, ask the

    1717
    Committee to bear with him while he went back shortly upon the history of the organization and working of the Transport Department and the Ordnance Stores. The story was an old one, but it was one of some importance; and though very well known to many Members of the Committee, there were some Members to whom it was not so familiar, and it was altogether unknown to a large section of the outside public, who had a great interest in the matter. It would be in the recollection of many Members of the Committee that there was a great breakdown of the Commissariat in the Crimean War; and after that, in consequence of inquiries set on foot, mainly at the instance of Mr. Roebuck, who was then a Member of the House, a great many faults were found, and naturally found, with the way in which the Department had been administered. One of the first reforms that was made at that time was to take away from the Treasury the control of the personnel of the Commissariat Department, and to place it under the control of the War Office. He was not aware that any other reform of great magnitude occurred at the time to which he was referring. There was, however, an opinion prevailing that the matter ought not to stop at the point which it had reached; and at the instance either of General Peel or Sir John Pakington—he did not remember which—a Committee, known as Lord Strathnairn's Committee, was appointed. This Committee went most exhaustively into the whole question of transport, and recommended a certain number of reforms, which were based chiefly on the French model, France at that time being the chief Military Power in Europe. It was not unnatural, under the circumstances, that most of the ideas in reference to the provisioning of our own Army should be, more or less, drawn from a knowledge of the French system. The Report of the Committee to which he referred, and its recommendations, such as they were, were published in the year 1867; but no action was taken upon them until some few years afterwards. If his memory served him rightly, nothing was done in the matter until the year 1870, when the Franco German War was taking place, and when there was a panic in this country, as he was afraid there always had been, and would be, in similar circumstances, It was thought on every
    1718
    side that, in the event of our having to send an Expeditionary Army to Belgium or elsewhere, the Commissariat and Transport Services would not be efficient for the purpose. The number of men in the Service was few; and though some reforms had been introduced, it was far from being in that state of perfection which everybody who took an interest in the question would have wished to see. Lord Cardwell and Sir Henry Storks then devised a system known under the name of the Control system, which was more or less a system of centralization, and was certainly not popular with the Army, among whose officers the belief existed that the Civilian Head of the Commissariat Department would have power over the military officers in command, to which they objected. There certainly was an objection to the very name of Controller, though he believed there was no intention on the part of the civilian authorities that the Controller should in any way interfere with the proper jurisdiction of General Officers in command. In fact, the name of Controller was so unpopular in the Army that when Lord Cranbrook came into Office, in 1874, one of the first subjects he found pressing—and it was pressed very strongly upon him by the military party of the day—was that the Control system should be at once reconsidered. The name of Controller was almost immediately abolished; but a great deal more was necessary to be done. It was perfectly clear that a system of decentralization, as opposed to one of centralization, was more or less necessary, and there were also questions of difficulty and grievance connected with the personnel of the Department. He perfectly understood the difficulty with which Lord Cardwell and Sir Henry Storks had to deal, and the object which they had it at heart to accomplish. Perhaps, if they had remained longer in Office they would have seen, or fancied they saw, the necessity for still further reforms. This was not the case, however, and to Mr. Gathorne Hardy—the present Lord Cranbrook—it came to find that some further reforms were necessary. Under the administration of the Department by Mr. Gathorne Hardy it was thought necessary that the whole subject of Control—or, rather, of the two Departments of Commissariat and

    1719
    Ordnance Stores—should be referred to a Select Committee. This was done, and the Committee, which was known as Lord Cadogan's Committee, recommended that the Commissariat at least should be put upon what was called a military basis. It was felt that some change was necessary, especially with regard to the personnel of the Transport Department; but it was not found to be easy, in fact it was very difficult, to obtain the military element, by reason of the fact that officers preferred to serve with their regiments in time of war. This was not to be wondered at, any more than was the suggestion that a combatant officer should be delegated in time of war to the performance of quasi-civilian duties. There was very great doubt, indeed, whether a sufficient supply of officers would be found for this service, and whether, if having volunteered for it in time of peace, they would not, in the event of war breaking out, go back to their regiments as combatants. The experience of the Crimean War was certainly opposed to the view that combatant officers would, in case of war, consent to give up their positions as combatants in order to continue to occupy civilian offices to which they had been appointed. His object in mentioning these circumstances, which must be more or less tedious to many Members, was to bring the history of the Ordnance Store and Commissariat Departments down to the year 1879, when it was attempted to put the Commissariat on a military basis, and, as far as the personnel was concerned, to place the control of that body under the Adjutant General at the Horse Guards. Reforms of this kind must, of course, be more or less experimental, as had been the case in the Egyptian War, when the real responsibility would seem to attach to the General in command. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had given Notice of a Motion on Vote 16 with reference to a very worthy public officer—he alluded to the Director of Transport—concerning whom he did not think any word of censure could be justly said.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he wished to remark, in explanation, that the Motion of which he had given Notice was not one of censure upon the gentleman now holding the office to which the Motion referred, but upon the system.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that it was far from his object to suggest that if any official ought to be censured it should be a subordinate, but that the censure should go higher; and in reference to that point he would say nothing as to whether, in his view, the responsibility ought to rest upon the General or his Chief of Staff. In any case, he thought it must be clear that the Department, as a Department, ought to be absolved from blame. He wished to know from the Surveyor General of the Ordnance whether he could give to the Committee any information as to the probable working of the new system which it was proposed to introduce? It was not possible, in the course of a speech which must be limited in its duration, to deal with a subject which had occupied the time of several Committees, and concerning which several Blue Books had been issued; but it must be patent to any hon. Member who had considered the question that the provisioning of an army in the field was a matter of the utmost importance, and that the personnel of the Department on which that duty devolved should be of the very best matériel that could possibly be obtained. He knew that it had been the practice of the officers in the Commissariat Department to do their duty in the best possible manner; but he knew also that it had been the practice, in course of wars in which this country had been engaged, in the public Press and elsewhere, to throw the responsibility of any disasters which had occurred to the Army upon the Commissariat Department, and he thought that very often that had been done with great injustice. The Commissariat Department had very difficult duties to perform; and it had, unfortunately, not many friends either inside or outside of the House of Commons. The result was that the old saying, "Hit him hard; he has no friends!" was acted up to. The difficulties of the Department generally arose, therefore, from the want of sufficient time and materials at its command. He had something to say as to the Medical Department; but this he should defer until the Medical Vote was reached. He wished, however, to ask his hon. Friend to say whether the present system of transport was working smoothly and well, and whether the employment of mules, which had been found of advan-

    1721
    tags in tropical and semi-tropical climates, might not be extended in countries which were neither tropical nor semi-tropical with a saving of expense? He should also like to have some information on the subject of transport carts, and particularly as to the use of the Flanders waggons, which, though unsuitable for use in Egypt, had, as he was informed, been sent out to that country for use in the course of the recent military operations. They were carts which would have been perfectly suitable for use in countries like France or Belgium, for instance, but were altogether unsuitable for use in a country like Egypt. As a matter of fact, from the first to the last of the Egyptian Campaign, there had been great and unnecessary haste. This country was not ready for the operations which were undertaken; and this was a very serious charge to make, because it was obvious that, in these days, if any country was in a position such as to make it necessary either to declare war or to defend itself from attack, it should be ready to do either one or the other at the shortest possible notice. His own view was, that if it should be found necessary at the present moment, this country could not send out an Army Corps consisting of 20,000 men. If it were necessary to send out a second Army Corps fully equipped, he felt certain that it could not be done in existing circumstances; and, therefore, he ventured to urge upon the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) the importance of paying particular attention to the Departments to which he had been calling the notice of the Committee. It was the more important that this should be done, because, as everyone knew, their Army had to do service in every part of the world, and under every condition of climate. He hoped the noble Marquess, who was actuated by the best motives, and who had a knowledge of the War Office going back for a quarter of a century, would give his best attention to this question. He wished to say a few words in reference to the Reserve Force. This Force was represented by a large number of men on paper, but most of them were simply "men with muskets." In saying that, he did not wish to depreciate the Force, of which he had a very high opinion; but he saw no means, under present arrangements, of putting them in the
    1722
    field, if it were necessary to do so, in a state of efficiency. What he wished to see was, that the Army of this country should be in a better state of preparation than it could claim to be at the present time. The subject was one which had, without doubt, been talked about ad nauseam, until Parliament and the public had alike lost interest in it. That being so, they had this other difficulty—that the Secretary of State in charge of the Army was so pressed for money that he was anxious to get his Votes through the House as quickly as possible. However desirous the noble Marquess might be to introduce reforms in the Army, he was met with many and diverse opinions as to the best mode of carrying out those reforms. Nothing could be more important than that the country should have, above all, contented Services; but, at the same time, it was an undoubted fact that much jealousy and discontent existed in the Ordnance Store, and unless great care was taken, those feelings would increase, and injury would be done to the efficiency of this important branch of the Service. When he was in Office, he was constantly receiving letters on the subject. It might be a small matter in the opinion of outsiders; but, nevertheless, there was that feeling of jealousy in the Ordnance Store that he had described. It was thought that the Commissariat had been much better treated than they had been. They complained that they had not a military title. This question was thoroughly well considered at the time; and it was found quite impossible, considering the prejudices which existed in the Army generally, to give to the civilians of the Commissariat or the Ordnance Store Department a military title. It would, no doubt, be one of the duties of his hon. Friend the Surveyor General (Mr. Brand) and of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) to see whether it was possible to content the Service by doing something in the way of either making it more military or more civilian, at any rate in the way of making it more contented. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) thought it was quite right he should mention here a grievance that he had previously brought before the House. He asked a Question the other day with regard to the storemen and firemen at Woolwich. These men, like

    1723
    everybody else, had a great deal to do at the time of the Egyptian Campaign. In the strict letter of the law he believed they were paid for overtime; but, at the same time, he thought that it was only fair to say that it was part of the contract with them, or at any rate it was an understood thing, that that overtime should be only exceptional. When, of course, it was carried on for days, perhaps for weeks, he thought the men had in equity, if not in justice, some sort of claim to extra remuneration. The Ordnance Store officers had a great deal of responsibility put upon them, and an immense deal of trust was placed in them. They were not overpaid, and they rarely got anything in the shape of decorations or remuneration of any sort. However that might be, he believed they had always done their duty most cheerfully and most contentedly; and he wished, as he said before, that that spirit should continue. It was absolutely necessary that any Department of this kind should be perfectly contented with things as they were, if it was possible to arrive at that state. He hoped that, if it were possible, his hon. Friend the Surveyor General (Mr. Brand) and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would consider whether they could do anything for these men, who considered that they were very hardly used as compared with the labourers. It would be only a fair and proper thing to see if it were possible to do something for them, considering the immense amount of labour that was put upon them during the Egyptian Campaign. He did not know that he had anything else to say on this Vote at the present moment. He had detained the Committee at some length, and if he had been a little tedious he hoped hon. Gentlemen would forgive him. He was anxious that the country should be in a state of preparation; and he did not think that at present they were in a proper state of preparation, notwithstanding the enormous amount of consideration and inquiry that had been given to the subject.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the historical summary of the noble Lord the Member for West Essex did not do justice to the late Lord Hampton; and he (Sir George Balfour) desired to explain that Lord Hampton was entitled to the credit of initiating the Army reforms. The appointment
    1724
    of Lord Strathnairn's Committee was the first step, and before it he (Sir George Balfour) gave evidence as to the system in India, in regard to the Ordnance, and partly as to the Commissariat. On the proceedings and Report coming before Lord Hampton, he immediately invited Sir Bartle Frere, Sir Henry Storks, and himself to form a confidential Committee to suggest the reforms and the measures for reforming the Military Store and Commissariat system. On submitting their recommendations, Lord Hampton invited Sir Henry Storks to preside over the Department, and, with the assent of the Heads of the Liberal Party, then in Opposition, the appointment was accepted by Sir Henry Storks. He (Sir George Balfour) also was asked by Lord Hampton to aid Sir Henry Storks; and, after pointing out the objections which might be urged against his (Sir George Balfour's) employment in the War Office, he felt he could not resist the reiterated demand for his aid in carrying out the reforms and economies which Lord Hampton desired, and joined Sir Henry Storks. Important changes were proposed and carried out, both in the Ordnance and in the Commissariat; and here he must state that Sir William Power, the then Commissary General, took an active and prominent share in those important changes. He mentioned that able officer's name, because if they searched the roll of Commissariat officers of this century no name more able or better qualified could possibly have been found. The changes which were initiated in Lord Hampton's administration might be justly considered as the groundwork of the many changes since made. He (Sir George Balfour) did not venture to assert that those changes were free from defects; but, considering the difficulties thrown in the way of improvement by the Treasury, and by opposing interests, he did say that the arrangements effected were successful in promoting greater efficiency, and, undoubtedly, vast economy. Anyone who would look at the Army Expenditure would find that in 1868-9 the Army Expenditure amounted to £16,727,503, and in 1870-1 it had fallen to £13,869,882, which, in contrast with the Military Expenditure of the present year, of upwards of £18,000,000, showed most favourable results to the credit of the Control Depart-

    1725
    ment formed by Lord Hampton, and presided over by Sir Henry Storks. Unhappily, changes were made in the Control Department. The name of the Head was altered from Controller General to Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and Sir Henry Storks was made a Parliamentary officer, instead of remaining at the Department, the Chief of four great branches of the Army, having an annual expenditure of £6,000,000, and stores to the value of £29,000,000 or £30,000,000. He (Sir George Balfour) was then strongly opposed to this alteration of name, and virtually of responsibility, to the Secretary of State, by becoming a Parliamentary officer. And, since then, he had no reason for departing from the opinions he then entertained. He continued to think that the Surveyor General of Ordnance was entirely out of place in the House of Commons. He ought to be in his Office, instead of wasting time in attending to a fow petty Questions, which the Secretary of State could easily deal with. It was impossible for him to be in the House of Commons, often eight or nine hours of the night, and then transact his business in the War Office for an equal time during the day. With regard to what had occurred in relation to the Transport and Commissariat in Egypt, it would be far better if the country had a Report from Lord Wolseley as to what he did, and what he failed to do, and in what direction the Ordnance and Commissariat showed defects. Such a Report was still wanting, before an opinion could be expressed. It was certain that ample means of stores and supplies were at the disposal of that gallant Officer; and with the liberal use of money an abundance of camels, the finest kind of transport for Egypt, could have been obtained. It was a surprise that the 30,000 camels which the Tribes formerly furnished for the transport of baggage and merchandize, before the railway was opened, had not been obtained. Before the operations commenced it was understood that arrangements had been made for securing the transport, and the reason of the failure should be made public.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he was not quite certain whether this was the time to call attention to the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts. His impression was that it might be raised more fittingly on another Vote. At all events,
    1726
    he should like to know whether he should be in Order in reverting to the subject? The House had been promised a Bill, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had said he might introduce it to-night. Whenever that Bill was introduced, they could only hope to have a discussion upon its principle on the second reading. The second reading of the Bill, however, might be delayed for a considerable time, as there was no knowing what blocks would be put against it. It was essential that the discussion on the subject should not be relegated to the closing days of the Session; and, therefore, he was unwilling to allow this opportunity to go by without having some assurance from the Government that they would have an early opportunity of considering the extraordinary course—an unparalleled course in the history of legislation—which the Government had pursued in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would refer to Vote 15, he would find that under Sub-head H provision was made for the expenses of working the Contagious Diseases Acts. If it was at all necessary to discuss the matter in Committee of Supply, the most convenient opportunity would be when Vote 15 was under consideration.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), who opened the discussion, spoke about different persons giving advice regarding the Commissariat. The noble Lord said that one man gave his opinion, and another his opinion, as to how to do the work; and said that such advice generally amounted to advice as to how not to do it. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had been a reformer at the War Office; and ho (Dr. Cameron) was sorry to say that the noble Lord's reforms had resulted in about the perfection of how not to do it. The Commissariat Department in the late war broke down in what might have been a very disastrous fashion, and yet the Committee were now asked in this Vote to vote nearly £200,000 for that Department, an increase of £20,000 over the amount voted last year. He did not grudge the money, because he considered it a most necessary Department for an efficient Army; but what ho did complain of

    1727
    was that the system was such that they had a most inefficient Commissariat. He thought it was but proper that the public should know the extent to which the Commissariat and Transport Services broke down in the late Egyptian Campaign, and why they broke down. The Commissariat and. Transport Staff was in such a condition as to be almost unworkable; it was officered not only by trained Departmental officers, but by regimental officers, who left their regiments temporarily, with a view of returning on some future occasion. Those officers entered into the Commissariat Service at such an age as to be too old to learn the fundamental duties of that Department, and they were retired at such an age as prevented them from looking to that Service as a settlement for life. Men high in the regimental ranks were placed in the Commissariat under men with lower regimental rank. Those men had to work under them the most unworkable materials. In the Transport Service drivers were sent out, selected from Infantry and Militia Reserves, who knew nothing about horses, and who could not even ride. There was no school to train the officers. The auxiliary drivers hired in times of war were even worse than those he had described. In the late Egyptian War, he (Dr. Cameron) understood that the Transport Service drivers were largely composed of the tag-rag and bobtail of the Levant. The most unfortunate thing was that the Department was going from bad to worse; for as the experienced officers who had pulled the Department through all the strain of the Egyptian Campaign retired there was no one to take their places. He did not want to find fault with the Department, and he felt inclined to agree with the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) that for some of its shortcomings the General in command was responsible. He (Dr. Cameron) did not, however, think it was fair to throw all the blame upon the General in command any more than upon the Commissary General. The fact of the matter was that the evil was attributable to the system of divided responsibility, for which the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) himself was largely responsible. An Order was issued in 1878 which overturned the old system, and inaugurated the system which now prevailed. Under the present system
    1728
    there was a Director of Supplies and Transport, who was at the head of the Department. His business it was to be charged with the supervision and control of the Commissariat and Transport Services of the Army. There was also a Commissary General at head-quarters, who was supposed to be the adviser of the Surveyor General on all questions relating to the personnel of the Commissariat and Transport Department. It was laid down in the Order in question that the Commissary General should give the benefit of his Commissariat experience upon all questions on which his advice would be useful. It would be seen that the duties of this officer were not very distinctly defined; but the Committee would infer, from a number of Questions which had been asked in the House upon the subject, that the Commissary General had never been consulted in any of the matters in which his experience would have been most valuable. The Commissary General was a man of great experience and at the head of his Department. The country paid him £1,500 a-year, and it also paid to three other gentlemen £1,095 each yearly for the benefit of their Commissariat experience. When, however, war occurred, and the country needed the advice of these gentlemen, they were thrown overboard. In peace time we pursued a proper and rational system. Let the Committee consider what took place in times of peace. He would give an illustration of flour bought for Aldershot in time of peace, and flour bought in time of war for Egypt. Supposing it was required to buy flour for Aldershot. The Director of Contracts advertised for tenders; tenders were sent in to the Commissary General at Aldershot; he selected his tender, and obtained for it the approval of the General in command. Having done that, the tender selected was sent on to the Director of Contracts, and if he approved of the tender, he intimated the fact. The tender was then accepted, the flour was sent to Aldershot, and there it passed the Commissary General, who gave a voucher that everything was right. That voucher was handed back to the Director of Supplies and Transport, who in this case really acted as auditor. That was what occurred in time of peace, and a better plan could not be devised. Expert Commissariat

    1729
    officers were entrusted with the purchase, and there was a strict system to see that every precaution was taken that the articles purchased should be all right. But when it came to a time of war all that was changed. What happened in the case of the purchase of flour for Egypt? The Director of Supplies and Transports, who in times of peace really acted as an auditor, went into the open market, and by means of a Government broker, on whose advice he acted, bought flour. Now, the flour purchased for Egypt was American flour, and was sent out in accordance with the advice of the civilian broker in barrels. When it was landed it was found that, to a large extent, it was unfit for food. It had been said that that flour was only for the early supplies; as a matter of fact, two months' supply of flour was purchased by the broker in question. The Commissary General was not consulted; indeed, the flour was bought in defiance of all Commissariat experience. The Commissariat never sent American flour to Malta, because they knew from experience that it would not keep. They had established mills there, and they had proposed the establishment of mills at Gibraltar. In this case they were not even shown the samples of the flour, neither were they consulted as to the mode in which it should be packed. The consequence was that when the flour arrived in Egypt it was bad. He had also asked a question about the mouldy hay that was sent to Egypt; that hay went out in exactly the same fashion as the flour. It was bought by the Director of Supplies and Transport, who was in times of peace a kind of auditor, but who had no Commissariat experience—it was bought by him, not through those experienced Commissariat gentlemen for whose services the country paid £5,000 a-year, but through the agency of a private broker; the hay turned out in large part bad, and had to be used for bedding. He understood that the hay was pressed in some new machine. Now, war time was not a time to make an experiment. They ought not to "swop horses crossing a stream;" indeed, transport was so costly that it was perfectly unjustifiable to resort to experiments in time of war. That however, did not exhaust the matter in connection with the Transport Service. The purchase of mules was
    1730
    most important, and according to an Order that had been read the Commissary General was to have the absolute supervision of the Transport Service Corps, and yet in this matter again he was thrown overbeard. Mules were purchased in Malta, and for some time they were purchased there by an Infantry officer, without any assistance from any veterinary surgeon. Some mules were bought at Smyrna by an Artillery officer, who had a veterinary surgeon accompanying him. The veterinary surgeon would not pass some of the mules; but the Artillery officer told him that that was not his affair, and he would pass them. The veterinary surgeon complained that not only was the Artillery officer not guided by his advice, but he would not allow him to have any say as to the management of the mules. It was a fact that even the branding irons that were necessary to mark the mules purchased were left comfortably in the hands of the contractor, so that he could do just what he liked with them. The mules were shipped, but the barley could not be got at, so that the poor animals were required to live on chopped straw for nine days. Could people wonder why the wretched beasts did not come up fresh and spirited when they landed? As a matter of fact, two-thirds of them were not fit for work until after Tel-el-Kebir had been taken. What occurred at Smyrna was not exceptional. As a matter of fact, some mules were purchased in Syria, and two-thirds of those were unfit for work for weeks after they landed. That, however, did not exhaust the matter. A quantity of pack saddles purchased abroad for those mules turned out utterly useless; there was nothing to hang the packs on, and the saddles provided were returned to store. The same thing with the waggons. They were sent out, and were intended to be drawn by two horses. As a matter of fact, two horses could not even draw one of the waggons over the sand of the Desert when it was empty. He understood, also, that the wood fuel was sent out in such lumps that it could with difficulty be used. Stationery forms, which were in immense demand in times of war, were not forthcoming for a month, and many of the stores were destroyed in transit. After the purchases were made in the ridiculous fashion he had described, they were

    1731
    handed over for shipment to the Naval authorities. There was a rule that what was called a cargo book should be kept; but, as a matter of fact, it was given in evidence before Lord Morley's Committee that in several cases the Naval authorities did not know where the cargo was stored. It took two days to find a much-needed consignment of flour, three days to find tea, and five days to find sugar. Although the Commissary General ought to have control of such matters, he was never consulted in regard to any of them. The Commissary General in the field was never told of the removal of the base of operations from Alexandria to Ismailia. It appeared that Lord Wolseley had issued embarking orders, but that some of the regiments had not cared to obey them, and did not bring with them the two days' rations he ordered them to take, and there was no machinery for serving out supplies at Ismailia. There were no weighing machines, no clerks, no nothing. When the men were ordered to march the supplies could not be carried forward, owing to the utter breakdown of the regimental transport; and it was found, in connection with the regimental transport, that there was no shoeing arrangement, so that the mules attached to it were really dependent upon charity for getting shod. The squadron carts, whose service sought to have been utilized in bringing up the supplies, were utterly useless. These squadron carts had been condemned, over and over again, as unfit for anything. An hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) had spoken about the camels as the natural mode of transport. He understood that camels were offered to the Chief of the Staff in Egypt, but that they were refused. The Chief of the Staff wanted to hire the camels; but the Egyptians were shrewd enough to see that it would not pay to let out camels in war time. After the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir, the authorities got hold of a number of Egyptian camels, and if they had had drivers they might have been made useful; but until they pressed the Egyptian prisoners into that service they had no drivers. Then again, unfortunately, some of the camels took it into their heads to walk into the Canal along with their baggage. It must, however, be borne in mind that the camels were offered, and could have been purchased, while they were
    1732
    wasting money in every other direction. If ever anything extraordinary broke down, the Army looked at once to the Commissariat for au alteration; and whenever anything went wrong, there was a general cry of "Hang the Commissary General." No doubt that would be an effective and striking remedy; but on this occasion it would have been totally unfair. It would have been unjust to hang the Commissary General. He was not consulted about the flour sent out; he knew nothing about the bad hay, or the purchase of mules; he had, probably, expressed his condemnation of the carts he was not asked about the saddlery; and he knew nothing about the shipment of stores. He was not even informed about the change of base, and it was no business of his to buy the camels. On the contrary, the Commissary General, considering the system under which he worked, did wonders. He had requisition for all sorts of supplies made upon him, in excess of what was allowed by the Regulations. He (Dr. Cameron) was told that the number of waggons that went up with some of the head-quarters was something astonishing. One-half of the transport, in one case at least, was taken up by the baggage for head-quarters, and the supplies for the Transport and Commissariat Services themselves. He believed that the amount of Transport at the disposal of the Commissariat was utterly inadequate; and it was, to a considerable extent, in consequence of this that the Transport Service broke down. But, be that as it might, the Transport of one Division could not bring up much more than one clay's supply for the men alone. There was no provision made for carrying up forage or fuel, and these indispensable articles had to be carried up at the expense of other things. In regard to hay, it was impossible to obtain forage. The Veterinary Department said—"We want more forage; it is absolutely necessary that we should feed our horses well, while they are doing this hard work." But the Commissary General was obliged to lay down the rule that the further the Cavalry were from the base, the smaller should be their rations. Taking everything into consideration, it was wonderful how the few trained, energetic, and zealous officers belonging to the Transport Service in the Egyptian Campaign

    1733
    did their work at all. But if they could not hang the Commissary General for the reasons he had stated, then it appeared to him that the only other practical chance of obtaining reform was to oppose the Vote. He did not blame the Government in the matter. He thought they had had thrust upon them a baneful legacy from their Predecessors. He did not propose to move the disallowance of the Vote at the present stage, because he trusted that the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department (Mr. Brand) would be able to tell the Committee that he contemplated sonic thorough reform of the whole system. In short, there ought to be very little difficulty about it, for what they really wanted was undivided responsibility. It appeared to him that there was no second question in regard to the propriety, as recommended by the Commissary General, of having a supercargo on board ship to see where the supplies were stowed, and to know how to lay his hands upon everything when it was wanted. There could be no second opinion as to the absurdity of retaining Commissaries General at headquarters at a time of peace at high salaries, and dispensing altogether with their services in a time of war. They had seen that the present system did not work well; but if they preferred to go into market, and obtain full value for their money through a Government broker, they must also adopt an entirely different system. They would then save the money that was now wasted upon Commissaries General. At any rate, do not let them keep up this dual system—a system practised in a time of peace, only to be thrown aside in a time of war.
    MR. BRANDsaid, he thought the criticism which had been passed upon the Commissariat and Transport Services was one which would be of very great advantage to the Army; and he fully agreed with the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), that the Commissariat officers in Egypt had done wonderfully good service. The Transport of an Army was, perhaps, the most important branch of it, because without Transport no Army could exist, and certainly could not move. He had no doubt that the Transport Service required careful organization in a time of peace, and
    1734
    yet it was impossible to have their Transport complete in a time of peace. Therefore, the object they must have in view, in organizing a good system, was to have the Transport Service capable of expansion, so that when war came upon them they might be able to expand the Service and meet the requirements of the time. The difficulty, no doubt, had been felt not only in the case of the Egyptian Expedition, but in all the recent wars in which the country had been engaged. In his opinion, the difficulty as regarded the Departmental Staff of the Commissariat and Transport had been met by the changes introduced into the system some two years ago, by making the Departmental Staff of the Commissariat and Transport more military. He had to say, in answer to his noble Friend the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), that it had been found the system, so far as peace was concerned, worked well. There was no difficulty in obtaining officers in the Commissariat and Transport Corps; and he believed that under the Warrant the Secretary of State had power, if he found it desirable, to make permanent the services of officers who had shown ability and capacity in connection with the Transport Corps. He could not make the same remark in regard to the rank and file. That was a much more difficult question. His noble Friend asked him to let him know what the decision of the Committee was with respect to that portion of the subject? All he could say was that the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter had only recently reported, and their Report was now under the consideration of the Secretary of State; but he believed it would be found possible to carry out some of the recommendations of that Committee, and that they would be able by that means to give the rank and file of the Commissariat and Transport Corps expansion; and that the Secretary of State would be able, by limiting the time of service of the rank and file of the Commissariat and Transport Corps to three years, to form a valuable reserve in connection with that Corps. In that way he thought they would be able to solve the difficulty as regarded the rank and file but he could not say anything further on that point, because, as a matter of fact, the detailed recommendations of the Committee had not at pre-

    1735
    sent been approved by the Secretary of State. His noble Friend had referred back to the history of the Commissariat and Transport Corps. He (Mr. Brand) did not think at this time it was necessary for them to go further back than the year 1870, when the Surveyor General was appointed, and, under an Order in Council, made responsible for the supply and transport of the Army. At that time a Military Department — the personnel, the control of the personnel, and the discipline of the Commissariat and Transport Corps—was under the Surveyor General. His belief was that the change which was made, transferring the control of the personnel and discipline of the Commissariat and Transport Corps from the Surveyor General, who was a Parliamentary official, to the Commander-in-Chief, was a good one. At any rate, the Commander-in-Chief had control at home; and he considered that the Commander-in-Chief in the field should have complete control of the personnel of the Army in the field.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had never disputed the propriety of the Commander-in-Chief in the field having the control; but what he contended to be a mistake was that the Commander-in-Chief at home should have control in a time, not of war, but of peace.
    MR. BRANDsaid, he thought that the control of the Transport and Commissariat Service ought, as far as possible, to be assimilated to the general organization of the Army; and as long as the Civil Department had control over the expenditure he thought the nearer they kept to that system the better it would be for the Army. His noble Friend had asked him several questions with reference to the arrangements that were made for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. The noble Lord had asked him questions as to carts. Two-wheeled carts were provided for the Expedition to Egypt on the demand of the Commander of the Forces; but wheeled carts were found to be of no good in that country, and the whole of the transport in Egypt, except that which was carried by water or rail, was conducted by mules. That mode of conveyance was found to be the best means of transport; and certainly he thought that mules were much better adapted for transport purposes than carts in that
    1736
    country. The noble Lord asked him a question in reference to the amount of transport they had. They had transport waggons sufficient for one Army Corps at the present time; and, as the noble Lord was well aware, it would not be desirable for them to keep a large store of waggon material in this country, the more especially when they bore in mind the fact that in all wars of recent years they had been obliged to take the transport they could find in the country in which the war took place. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasow (Dr. Cameron) had made an attack upon the present organization of the Department, and the hon. Member had stated that there was a divided responsibility. Now, in 1878, Mr. Halliburton was appointed Director of Supplies, and in the hands of that gentleman also was placed the control of the transport of the Army. At the same time, the grievances of the Commissariat branch were also met. It was urged that there ought not to he officers from that Staff on full pay having control over the personnel and discipline of the Corps. It was evidently inadvisable to place in the hands of a Commissariat officer on full pay the control of questions relating to the allowances to his own forces. As far as regarded the present holder of the office, he could only say that during all the time he had been in that position he had performed his duties in the most admirable manner. There was no officer of the Staff whose services had been more valuable than those of Mr. Halliburton. The result of the system, whatever objection there might be to it in theory, had been good. Since Mr. Halliburton's appointment, in 1878, they had been engaged in four wars—namely, in a war at the Cape, in the Zulu War, in the Transvaal War, and latterly in the Expedition to Egypt; and in every one of those cases the bulk of the supplies sent from this country was sent in sufficient quantity and in good order. When they came to think that 20,000 tons alone were sent to Egypt, and that there was not one single failure in the supply, except in respect of the flour mentioned the other day, he thought the Committee would say that the result of the system in practice had been thoroughly good. He would not refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee further than to state that in two para-

    1737
    graphs in that Report the Committee acknowledged that the work of supply was well done. They said that there were abundant supplies of meat and plenty of vegetables, and they thought that no complaint whatever could be made against the Department here which was responsible for the despatch of supplies from this country. With regard to organization, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) must remember that there had been a great many changes in the Department. Her Majesty's Government were certainly not responsible for the special organization of the supply and transport branch now in existence; but he thought it would he advisable not to make any further change in the Department until same serious weakness had been found out. The result altogether had been satisfactory; there were certain points, no doubt, brought out by the Egyptian Campaign which deserved the serious consideration of the War Office, and these matters were now under the consideration of the Secretary of State. With reference to the remarks his hon. Friend had made in regard to the mules, his hon. Friend asked him various questions upon that matter. He had already acknowledged in that House that the conduct of the officer sent out to purchase the mules was reprehensible in not acting on the advice of the veterinary surgeon.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he had not complained or mentioned the name of the officer; but he had spoken of the system.
    MR. BRANDremarked, that he was coming to that point. The system was, as a matter of fact, a simple one; and if competent officers were sent out, there could be no difficulty in obtaining a supply of mules; but there was great pressure, owing to the shortness of time in which they had to make the arrangements for the force to be sent to Egypt. Nevertheless, the countries in which the mules could be found were well-known, and there was no difficulty in obtaining a supply of mules. An officer was sent to Smyrna for the purpose of purchasing mules; and if he had acted on the advice of the veterinary surgeon, he would not have sent mules to Ismailia in the condition which had been described by his hon. Friend. There could be no
    1738
    doubt whatever that in that particular case mules were sent out which arrived at Ismailia in a bad condition; and he regretted that in this instance the advice and counsel of the veterinary surgeon were not taken. He did not know that there were any other questions which had been put to him in the course of the discussion which it was necessary for him to answer. If there were, and his noble Friend would call his attention to them, he would be very happy to answer them as far as possible. There was, however, one point alluded to by his noble Friend—namely, the question of gratuities to the storeholders of Woolwich Arsenal; and all he had to say on that point was that the question had been carefully considered by the Secretary of State, and he saw no reason for re-opening it.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there could be no doubt that this was as important a question as could possibly be brought before the Committee of Supply in connection with the Army Estimates; and he was extremely glad to hear his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance state that he was quite prepared to listen to any suggestions, and, if possible, improve the present system, which he himself admitted did not work quite as well as it might do. They knew perfectly well that the hon. Gentleman was quite right when he stated that it was the usual practice not only of this Government, but of all Governments, at the moment a war was over to dispense with all the services as far as possible, and especially to reduce the services connected with the control and discipline of the Transport and Commissariat Corps down to the lowest numbers possible. He contended that that was one of the most unwise courses that could possibly be pursued. They all knew perfectly well what took place in the Crimean War. At that time everybody was outspoken because the alarm was so great. It was felt that they were never in a position to go to war, and were never prepared for what might happen. At that time statements were made in Parliament to show that the same thing could not occur again; but he ventured to say that in every war which had taken place since the same thing had occurred; and they had not

    1739
    profited by the lesson taught, severe though it was. The hon. Gentleman the Surveyor General of the Ordnance admitted the fact himself, when he stated that no complaint whatever was made about the 20,000 tons of supplies sent out to Egypt. The complaint was that 20,000 tons of supplies might have been received there; but they were not available for the troops. That was the one main point the Surveyor General of Ordnance ought to have directed his attention to. When they recollected the pride with which it was stated to the House that, at any rate, the Expedition to Egypt would be sent out without let or hindrance to its being conducted in the best way, it was disheartening to find, at the very commencement of the operations, although it was perfectly well known, and was stated on authority, that on a certain day the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir was to take place, and although it was perfectly well known that a change of base was to be made from Alexandria to Ismailia, and it was the easiest thing possible to have sent sufficient transports, sufficient medical stores, and all other appliances that were necessary—it was disheartening to find that no care or thought whatever was taken in regard to the supplies, and that the first portion of the Army had to march into the interior of the country absolutely without supplies or the means of transport. He thought the Committee were very much indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) for the great care, pains, and trouble he had been at to collect all the facts he had stated so clearly, showing how the different things had been purchased that were to be sent abroad, and how the supplies were purchased which were obtained from foreign countries; the little care that was taken of some of the articles purchased, and the condition in which they arrived in Egypt. If he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was rightly informed, it was an absolute fact that there was no transport at all when the troops reached Ismailia. There were no mules at Ismailia; but camels could have been had for £16 a-piece, with all their kit and packs, and they would have been of the greatest service to the Army as the troops marched up to Kassassin. But there was a General Order issued that, without further instructions, no camels were to be bought,
    1740
    and no camels were bought. He was informed that the Chief of the Staff, who was the second in command, knew that he could get as many camels as he considered necessary; but he only asked that he might he permitted to hire camels, and on the part of the Egyptians that offer was wisely refused. What was £16 a-piece for camels, when it was necessary that the Army should be sent up in the best condition for fighting? I t was lamentable that such events should have taken place in the Egyptian Campaign. There was one thing more. Everything was supposed to be all right. The railway was said to be in working order, and the Canal was said to be working order; and, therefore, any other means of transport would not be required. But everybody know that the first thing that took place in a war was the destruction of the railway system; and, if there was a canal, it was at once stopped, and they were not able to use it. No provision was made for these sevents; and, if he was rightly informed, the small transport attached to the Medical Service for transporting the stores necessary for the sick and wounded was taken in order to convey to the front the food absolutely necessary for the troops, and the medical stores were left behind. He believed he was correct in making that statement. Then what he had to say upon the matter was that they ought to learn a little wisdom from what had taken place, because if the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir had not been fought when it was, the consequences might have been most disastrous. Let them, in the future, look a little more closely into these matters, and he thought some grave defects might be detected. The Regulations for the Army Transport, as they at present stood, he thought, were objectionable, no distinction being made between the transport required for the equipment of the troops in the field and that wanted for the supplies and stores of the Commissariat Departments. The equipment of the troops on a fixed quantity, and the transport required for tents, tools, baggage, first reserve of ammunition stores, and, say, four days' rations and forage, could easily be calculated. The transport required by the Control Department must always, with an army in the field, be an uncertain quantity; it must vary with

    1741
    the distance the troops to be supplied were from the Commissariat base of supply. To meet these requirements, there should be two distinct systems of transport—one a military organization, the other more on a civil footing. The Military Transport should be arranged by troops, each troop capable of transporting in war time the equipment of a brigade; whilst the Commissariat Transport should not be a fixed quantity, but must depend upon the nature and extent of its work for its organization. A proper nucleus should be kept up in time of peace on which to form Field Transport when required. He would not go further into detail; but he trusted that such a discussion as they had had that day would do good; because, if there was one thing the country ought to be prepared with, it was a thoroughly organized and efficient Transport and Commissariat Service. He might go one step further, and he would say that the Medical Department ought to have a Transport entirely to itself, which should be totally distinct from any other, so that the men attached to it would be in a proper position to carry up all the stores that were necessary. They were now to have a complete Army Corps at home, always ready for immediate service; but he thought the country ought never to be satisfied until they received a satisfactory assurance that the Army Corps was absolutely and thoroughly complete in every respect—complete in regard to its Control Department, its Transport, its Commissariat, and in regard to its Medical Staff. If they would only place those matters in a perfect state of organization he was sure there would not be 1s. wasted, and that the utmost advantage would be secured whenever a war broke out again. A great country like this ought always to be prepared, and he thanked his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) for all that he had done to place transport ships in a state of readiness for any eventuality. By sea they had everything in good order. No other nation could have touched them in sending out an Army in the way they sent out the Expeditionary Force to Egypt; but as regarded the control of that Army, the Commissariat and the appliances necessary for the comfort and merciful consideration of the sick and
    1742
    wounded, they absolutely and entirely failed. The defects which had been pointed out were far from creditable to them. He pressed, as strongly as he could, on the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War not to let these things pass by without an attempt being made to remedy them. It was not easy to say when they might be at war again, because, as they all knew, war came when it was least expected, and at a time when they were least prepared for it. All he asked the noble Marquess was that he should be prepared for any future emergency. Hereafter all responsibility would fall upon the Secretary of State for War; there was no longer a dual command; and the noble Marquess was the Minister they had to look to, because upon him the great responsibility would rest. He sincerely hoped that good would result from the discussion which had taken place.
    COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, he thought the Committee should insist on knowing who was really responsible for the mistakes which had taken place in connection with the Commissariat. Who was responsible for the bad flour, for hay that was unfit for use, for saddlery that was of no service, for fuel that could not be made available, and for the other defective stores that were sent out to Egypt? All these matters ought to be known. It seemed to him that the Surveyor General of the Ordnance rather approved of the way in which the Commissariat was carried out in Egypt, because he had nothing more to say than that the supplies were sent out in an adequate and proper manner. It was, however, a very serious question to consider; because it concerned, not only the credit of individuals, but the well-being of the Army. If the Commissariat was not in an efficient state, the Army was perfectly useless. The Surveyor General of the Ordnance had passed over all that the Committee really wanted to know. It was absolutely essential, he thought, that they should be told who was responsible—for instance, for the flour sent out being utterly useles? He hoped that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), in order to make a practical protest against the manner in which the Commissariat's work was carried out in Egypt would take a Division upon the Vote.
    COLONEL STANLEYwished to say a few words upon the Vote, in consequence of some of the remarks which had been made in the course of the debate. Undoubtedly, it always had been, and always would be, very easy to find fault with the Transport arrangements, in connection with military operations abroad; but he wanted to bring back to the minds of the Committee the different circumstances under which England was placed from those of other countries. He did not say that there might not be a complaint made here and there; but he thought that that which should be at the bottom of every change was a want of readiness in the country, and a want of means at hand for carrying forward with efficiency the Transport operations connected with a campaign. He would ask hon. Members whether they really saw what that meant if they were to keep up Transport arrangements and a sufficient regimental Transport Service in a time of peace? He entirely concurred in the advantage of regimental Transport; but if it was necessary to keep it up constantly in a state of efficiency it would entail enormous cost upon the State. It would be necessary to incur very large expenditure in maintaining large stores and men for a Transport Corps in a time of peace; and he ventured to say that when they came to this Vote in the Estimates the criticisms which his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance had undergone that day would be as nothing compared to what he would have to undergo hereafter. But that was not all. It was desirable to come to an entire agreement as to what was really required for the Transport Service. A few years ago opinion was in favour of wheel transport as compared with pack; but some time afterwards it was thought to be better to provide pack transport instead of wheel. Then, again, his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance said that the experience of those who had had to do with mule transport led them to the conclusion that it was, in some respects, better than transport by camels. All these were essential points, and it must be borne in mind that the kind of transport that might be suitable to the Cape would not be the sort of transport that would be useful in Egypt. On the whole, if the
    1744
    Committee were inclined to say that there should be one uniform system of transport, he was rather driven to the conclusion that they should prepare Estimates with a view to the transport in future being probably required to be all by camels. If they could carry it on wholly in that way all the better. Henceforward, he thought they should bear in mind the possibility of having to carry on their transport, or the greater portion of it at all events, upon what was called the pack system, rather than they should be compelled to depend wholly on wheel transport. Then, as regarded the cart and the waggon trains—there, he thought, they bad profited less by their experience than they might have done. A certain portion, and not a considerable portion, of the train which was provided out of the Vote of Credit some years ago, did, as a matter of fact, come into use at the Cape; but he was free to admit that taking a country like Egypt, and other countries of a similar nature, where the Army was obliged to operate, it was an undoubted fact that a large proportion of the transport was a great deal heavier than was found to be practicable or they would care to use if they could possibly find any other. He presumed that the wheel carts alluded to by his hon. Friend were Maltese carts, or some adaption of them. And in a country where there were no roads that would probably be the best kind of transport they could use. Then, again, as to the question of drivers. Of course, it would not be so difficult to keep up a staff of drivers as it would be on account of the expense to maintain a large quantity of regimental transports; but, then, if they kept up the drivers without having the transports on which they were to practise the advantage of keeping up a staff of regimental drivers became really a very questionable one. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War said something about an intention on the part of the War Office to carry out in a time of peace a system of regimental transport. He believed there was some idea of seeing, at all events, to what extent such a system could be utilized in preference to a system of general transport conducted under the Commissariat. But there, again, he must point

    1745
    out this difficulty—that if they had regimental transports, they must either have a large and unnecessary reserve of animals to replace those which broke down, or, on the other hand, they must have a regimental transport of moderate dimensions. Then, again, until it was known, with some approach to certainty, in what country they were going to operate, and the system under which they were going to work, it was impossible to say what kind of transport was wanted, and there would hardly be any advantage in keeping up a particular kind of service at a very large expense, which in all essentials might fail them at the very moment they required it. He thought it was better to know they were not prepared than to think they were prepared and then find out their mistake when too late. There was another point which had slipped out of sight. It was said, and said truly, that all the stores in connection with the recent Expedition were shipped properly, and that everything was sent out for the use of the Expedition that could possibly be required. That, for the purposes of the moment, was a statement which he was fully prepared to accept; but it was said that the different stores could not be found at the moment they were wanted. That, at all events, was the assertion which was generally made in regard to the question of shipment from one port to another. He did not know whether any appointment was ever made; but it was within his recollection that some person of great experience laid stress on the necessity of having an officer to go out as a sort of supercargo, who should see that the stores were properly shipped, and that they were not disarranged and re-stowed and placed where they could no longer be got at. That question of sea transport brought him to another question. It had been said that they ought to have the transport always with the regiment, and that the two should be kept as far as possible together. That was not a new question, but it was one that was well considered by the Committee which sat upon the Mobilization of the Army in 1878. That Committee came to the conclusion that instead of having wheel transports with the regiments likely to embark it would be better to have it all ready at the port of embarkation,because
    1746
    they must make certain provision for stowing the stores on board ship. The Committee, therefore, came to the deliberate opinion that instead of having the transport at Aldershot and the Curragh, or such places, it would be better to have it at Plymouth and Portsmouth, and the ports from which the troops were likely to embark. In the criticism which invariably took place upon this Vote these were considerations which he ventured to suggest ought not entirely to be lost sight of. As regarded the organization of the Department, he was glad to hear that his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, on the whole, approved of the system which he and his noble Friend near him (Lord Eustace Cecil) instituted when in Office. His hon. Friend, who, of course, was on the watch for any defects, would, no doubt, do his best to remedy any that were discovered. But of this he (Colonel Stanley) was certain—that they could have no system of Transport Service capable of expansion, unless, to a certain extent, they admitted into the Commissariat Department for the time being combatant officers. It was necessary that there should be a spirit of contentment among the officers of the Commissariat Department; but the Staff should not be altogether composed of non-combatant officers when a war broke out. The expense would not be very great, because it would not be necessary to keep up in a time of peace an excessive Department. Of course, promotion would be slow, but they would have men of mature age, and a Service in which a great deal of good material could be found when wanted. That was a desirable object to attain, and hence it was felt that they ought to have a system which could be expanded in a time of war, although it might only be a small one in a time of peace. It was also felt desirable that those who were brought into the Commissariat Department should be competent officers, with habits of subordination, and accustomed to look to a military Commander for everything. Although it was not to be expected that they were to lose sight of financial considerations, nevertheless they should make the military duties connected with the Commissariat their primary consideration. These were all the remarks he thought it was necessary to make, and he hoped the

    1747
    considerations he had brought under the notice of the Committee would not be lost sight of. It was only by taking advantage of the experience of a campaign when it occurred with the determination of remedying the difficulties that were found to exist that they could hope to arrive at that perfection which he was satisfied was the object of his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he did not intend in any way to oppose the Vote that was before the Committee; but he had stated, on a previous occasion, that he would take the first opportunity of asking his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance a question about the bedsteads sent out to Egypt. The troops at Aldershot had been deprived. for some considerable time of those useful articles; and he, therefore, thought the present Vote afforded a fitting opportunity to ask whether anything had been done to provide that in the event of another war such as that which had recently taken place in Egypt, the troops at Aldershot should not be entirely denuded of bedsteads, as they were on that occasion.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he rose to answer one or two of the questions which had been put to him by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to what he (the Marquess of Hartington) had said, in moving the Army Estimates, on the subject of transport. His statement on that occasion was that plans had been prepared by a Departmental Committee to utilize some of the animals sent home from Egypt, and to make provision for the establishment and employment of a larger amount of transports, so that it might be in readiness to accompany the first Army Corps sent out on active service, and that it might be permanently employed in a useful manner in a time of peace. He had stated that the military authorities concurred in the desirability of maintaining a regimental system of transport, and that the matter would be thoroughly considered. It had been considered by a Committee in which the military element was largely represented; but he had only seen the Re-
    1748
    port of the Committee, without being able to enter into all the details, and there had not been time to arrive at any conclusion upon it. He might, however, say that, although they were extremely desirous of having a system of regimental transport permanently maintained, they could not see their way to recommending any plan by which such a transport system could be usefully kept up in a time of peace. He was afraid that such a system as that suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire, although it would involve a large expenditure in a time of peace, would really be almost useless in a time of war; and it would be found that when war did break out, they were by no means better provided for than they were now. He trusted, however, that it might be possible to extend the number of Commissariat and Transport Companies, and to provide them with useful occupation. That would enable a larger number of men to be trained for the Transport Service; and the value of the system would be more easily developed in a time of war than it could be now. But he had received the Report of the Committee so very recently that he had not been able to arrive at any conclusion upon it, and he thought it would be undesirable to go into details at the present moment. Upon the general discussion which had been raised he would only make one or two short observations. He did not at all acknowledge that the Commissariat or Transport Service in the late Egyptian Expedition had broken down. No doubt, as he had before acknowledged, now and then difficulties did spring up, and some faults and defects might have been disclosed; but to say that there had been anything like a general break down was an entire exaggeration, and an assertion which he was desirous of contradicting. But as there would be another opportunity, upon the Medical Vote, of discussing the question, it was not desirable that he should enter into it now. A great deal had been said about the badness of the flour which had been purchased, and it had been asserted that that circumstance ought to condemn the present arrangements for the supply of food. Now, in the first place, he denied that the flour had failed. The evidence

    1749
    showed that the flour was not absolutely bad, and one officer stated that the bread made of the flour, although not as good as it might have been, was, nevertheless, perfectly eatable, and that he had himself eaten much worse bread. But, admitting that the flour had failed, it was said that that fact was owing to its having been purchased by the Director of Supplies and Transports, and not by the Commissariat Department. As a matter of fact, he believed that it was purchased in the usual manner, and that flour of exactly the same description in anticipation of operations in South Africa was purchased for Zululand at Malta and sent to Natal. There was nothing whatever to show that, by whatever Department of the War Office the flour had been purchased, exactly the same results would not have followed. What had occurred could not have been foreseen, and must have occurred under any circumstances. Then, a great deal had been said about the alleged failure of transport at Ismailia. Now, he was informed that there was an adequate supply of transport; but the general transport was not landed until after the main body of the troops had arrived, and before it could be landed the troops were marched forward, and, no doubt, suffered hardships for the moment. But he must point out to the Committee the totally exceptional character of the operations carried on by Lord Wolseley. In ordinary circumstances it would not have mattered to Lord Wolseley whether he waited one or two days, or a week, or a fortnight, until he had time to land all his transports and all his supplies, and thoroughly to organize his Transport Corps. But it must be borne in mind that in this particular case time was the essence of the operation, and most vital to its success. Lord Wolseley, therefore, determined at once to seize a considerable length of the Canal, although, in doing so, he know he was acting, to a great extent, independently and in advance of his supplies, and that his troops must be put to a certain amount of temporary inconvenience and temporary hardship. It did not follow that because Lord Wolseley was compelled to act in advance of his transport and in advance of his supplies, that was due to the want of the proper organization
    1750
    of those Departments. Lord Wolseley would, he thought, be the first to justify, for military reasons, what took place. His hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance had said that the present Government were not specially responsible for the particular form of the organization of this Department. The Department had undergone very great changes during the 16 years which had elapsed since he (the Marquess of Hartington) became first connected with the War Office; and the House would not, perhaps, be surprised if he was not in a hurry to embark in any fresh changes in relation to the Supplies or the Transport Department. But he acknowledged that it was the duty of the War Office to watch carefully the results of every campaign, large or small, which the country was called upon to undertake. His hon. Friend had stated that there had, in recent years, been three small wars which this country had had to conduct; and, substantially, the experience of the Egyptian Campaign had not yet been thoroughly sifted and considered. It would, however, be their duty, as soon as they had a little more leisure, thoroughly to examine into the experience which had been gained as to the working of the Transport and Supply Departments, and the control and command of those Departments. With that view it was possible that it might be necessary to appoint a small Committee for the purpose of examining the evidence which could be obtained, and to see what improvements were necessary; but he did not think it would be requisite to have a large Committee. No doubt, if changes were found desirable, they would be carried out; but, at all events, he thought it would be premature to alter at once, and without further consideration, the existing system, and until full opportunity had been afforded to prove that it had in any essential degree broken down.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it appeared to him that the discussion which had taken place on the Front Benches upon this subject had assumed the character of white-washing, pure and simple. None of his charges had been answered. What he protested against was that the system that was practised, and carried on in a time of peace, was overthrown the moment a war broke

    1751
    out. When they were most dependent upon the experience and skill in purchasing possessed by their officers they required the auditor to act as his own auditor in a time of war; and, in point of fact, what they established was simply a self - contained Department. That was, undoubtedly, wrong financially; but a more serious matter was that they dispensed, at the very time they wanted them most, with the services of those for whom, during a time of peace, they paid so dearly. His hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance appeared to treat his charges as if they were not correct. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had commented upon the flour. Now, what occurred about the flour was this. There were three consignments of flour. The first was so bad that it was reported by Lord Wolseley to have been unfit for food, and some of the medical officers who gave evidence before the Royal Commission spoke of it as being productive of disease. The second consignment could not be got at for some days after the search for it commenced. To make matters worse, this bad flour had to be made up by bad bakers. They had bakers connected with the regimental establishments, but they had never practised baking in the open; and, consequently, matters were made worse by the employment of bad bakers. In regard to the mules, he had not referred to those purchased in Smyrna only, but to the mules purchased in Cyprus and Syria; and he asserted, as a fact, which could not be contradicted, that one-half of the mules constituting the most important branch of the Transport Services were landed in such a state that they were not fit for work for some weeks after their arrival. The same thing occurred with the saddles. The saddles which were bought in the East were useless, and had to be thrown aside. Then, again, the goods sent out were improperly packed; the siege train did not arrive until too late; the iron huts ordered for Egypt did not reach there until November. He could multiply these charges to any extent; but he would ask his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance to inquire of the Commissariat officers themselves; and, if he wanted a candid opinion, let him go among the retired Commissariat officers. He had
    1752
    very little doubt that they would tell the hon. Gentleman that the Commissariat Department was in a worse state than it had been in during any previous campaign, and that it was going from bad to worse. When experienced officers retired, there were no properly-trained officers to take their places. As there had been no answer to the charges he had made, and as the gravity of this state of things was fully admitted, he felt very much inclined to emphasize his scruples by dividing the Committee, and by moving to reduce the Vote by £200,000, that being the amount for the Commissariat. He thought, if they were to have a Commissariat at all, they should have an effective Commissariat. It would be much better to have no Commissariat at all than to have one in such a bad condition, and concerning which the military authorities hold out nothing even in the shape of a moderate prospect of reform.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that, whilst it was incumbent upon the military authorities to take care that mistakes, similar in character to those made recently, did not occur again, it should be remembered that the Commissariat system, as a whole, was upon its trial. He thought that some of the shortcomings that had been put down to the Commissariat branch might, perhaps, more fairly be attributed to the hurried arrangements made in this country. He trusted the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) would be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, without dividing the Committee on the Vote.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURalso appealed to the hon. Member for Glasgow not to divide on this item. The Committee was in a very thin House, and the Government would be strongly supported by Members who had not heard the case as so well set forth by the hon. Member. He believed that, considering the short time allowed for getting ready the Transport and Commissariat supplies at Ismailia, and the urgent necessity for Lord Wolseley to make a movement to the front before preparations had been made by the Departments, that the Commissariat and Ordnance had acquitted themselves exceedingly well. At all events, the first and foremost consideration was to

    1753
    wait till Lord Wolseley had reported on the arrangements he made for enabling these two Departments to be in readiness at the new base of operations, which was so secretly, and, on the whole, so well established.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTventured to add his appeal in favour of the withdrawal of the Amendment. He had one question to ask the noble! Marquess the Secretary of State for War—namely, Were any deductions to be made in connection with the Police for this service, which were not included in the present Estimate?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, a short time ago a reduction had been made in respect of the Police of £2,270.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, after the discussion that had taken place, and the appeals made to him, he should not divide the Committee on the Vote.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out certain discrepancies between the original Estimate for 1881–2 and the Appropriation Account, which should be inquired into.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) would find, on closer examination, that the difference he had alluded to was apparent only, and not real.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £3,117,000, Provisions, Forage, &c.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked why the cost of provisions was in excess of the Estimate of last year by £105,000? A similar increase also appeared in the charge for forage and fuel, which it was difficult to understand, inasmuch as hay was cheaper. Oats had varied very little, and straw was rather less than it was last year.
    MR. BRANDsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would see, on reference to page 16, that the increase of £105,000 was due to the large replacement of men which took place in connection with the Egyptian Campaign. The same explanation applied to the excess in respect of forage.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £784,000, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the Committee would receive some full explanation from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War with regard to any proposal that might be entertained for changing the uniform of the British Army. The noble Marquess had stated, on a former occasion, that no attempt would be made to make any change of the kind until after the discussion of the present Vote. He did not see many supporters of the "dear old red" present on that occasion; but he did hope that there would be many hon. Members, even if they were not soldiers, who would be found ready to stand up for that colour which had been worn by their troops for so many years. They all knew that for a very long period of time their Army had been clothed in red. In looking into some old records he saw that red was the colour of his own regiment, the Royal Dragoons, at the time they were serving in Tangier as long ago as the year 1661. Again, there was no doubt that in the time of Queen Anne that colour was still in use, and he believed that all the troops engaged in the wars of Marlborough fought in red, which colour had been in use from then up to the present time. With these traditions, he asked whether they ought to change that colour? They all knew what the "thin red line" had done in every quarter of the globe. What it had done in India, in the Peninsula, at Waterleo, and at the Alma; in short, throughout the Crimean War, and all the other wars in which this country had been engaged. If his memory was not at fault, he believed that a General Officer, who had served with great distinction in India, was at one time deprived of his chance of getting a command of a Division, because he bad not appeared on parade in red, but in kharkee, or in a suit of white. This was recorded against him; and if it were true, that General Officer was punished for not appearing in the very colour they were now asked to abolish. For his own part, he should protest, as strongly as possible, against any alteration of the colour of the national uniform. It must not be said that they were only going to put men in undress into this grey uniform, because they would soon hear from the military authorities that they could not have two sorts of uniform. He was satisfied that, before long, if this change

    1755
    were made, the red would disappear altogether, and nothing would be left but that miserable rabbit colour, or slate colour, which was now worn by the Devonshire Volunteers. What was the case with foreign nations? The Prussians made no change in their uniform, which could be seen twice as far off as the red uniform of our troops. And then they were going to change the colour, because some people thought that with the arms of precision now in use it was dangerous to appear in the old colour. The French Army was dressed in blue and red trousers; but it once happened to a regiment of Chasseurs, that their trousers were changed to blue, and when they went into action, the result was that they were fired upon by their own men. He believed that if the Army were polled, 99 out of every 100 men, as well as the whole country, would raise their voices against any change from the national colour. If it was said that the scarlet was not so good on service as some other colours, he recommended that they should go back to the old dark or Turkey red for the undress uniform, which would be more invisible than the scarlet, and because it did not stain so readily, was, therefore, much morn serviceable. For it was, indeed, a most important thing that every General Officer should know his own troops coming up, and the red through a glass, however stained, could always be seen. Such would not be the case with grey. They also had it on the highest authority in the Army that no change of the kind should be made, for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, presiding at a dinner in the City, had said that he hoped no alteration whatever would take place in the national uniform. They all knew that His Royal Highness was expressing the general sentiment in saying this, and they were glad that he had done so loudly and fearlessly; because in these days of change no one know what the next day might bring forth. But it was felt that the Army was not in the hands of military authorities. He said it with all respect, that there were civilians at the War Office who were dictating to the Government what should be done with the Army, and military officers felt that they were under the dominion of someone whose object in making these alterations was economy, and not what
    1756
    the requirements of the Service demanded. When he looked upon the Committee which had been appointed, he did not think that the Army had much confidence in it, except so far as one or two names were concerned. To what tests had the rod colour been subjected? It was said that it was very conspicuous in the case of large bodies of troops; but did any Member of the Committee recollect the advance of the Prussians at Spicheren, who could be seen from the moment they moved from Saarbrucken? The same remark applied to the Battle of Gravelotte, which was won at last only by the desperate efforts of three or four regiments of Prussian Dragoons. There was no desire on the part of the Prussians to change the national uniform which, with the spiked helmet, was as conspicuous as anything could possibly be. To say that the enemy would not know the position of the Army when large bodies of troops were moving was an absurdity. They knew this by their scouts, who found out the number and size of the battalions on the march. But it might be that, in isolated cases—patrols, pickets, and small bodies of men, for instance—the men were more exposed in red than in some other colours. But it must be remembered that it was the business of men so engaged to keep out of sight; and he ventured to say that as long as the belts, helmets, and other accoutrements were the same as those now worn, the rod coat would make no difference whatever. They were now asked to destroy the respect which had existed for that colour, and which for centuries had been the national colour in the British Army; and he could not allow any such change to be made without entering against it his most earnest protest.
    MR. BRANDsaid, he hoped he should be able to remove, by a very brief statement, the fears which had been expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend with regard to a change in the colour of the Army uniform. In the first place, he thought he had given to a portion of the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, on the introduction of the Army Estimates, a construction which it did not bear. The exact words used by the noble Marquess were—
    "I do not think it at all desirable to force this change upon the Army. The course which we propose to adopt is to issue a certain amount

    1757
    of clothing of the new colour as an experiment. I have omitted to state that the Committee do not recommend any change to be made in the colour of the full-dress uniform."—(3 Hansard, [277] 236-7.)
    The question was simply this. The great increase in the range of modern rifles had made it necessary to consider, as far as they could, the question of the safety of their troops. No doubt, when troops were massed together, it made little or no difference whether they were dressed in grey or red uniforms. When, however, they were engaged in picket duty, skirmishing, or similar operations, the case was different; the individual soldier was very much exposed; and, personally, he thought that, under such circumstances, it would be an advantage to place the men in colours that were less conspicuous. His hon. and gallant Friend had introduced into his speech a reference to the recommendation of Lord Bury's Committee on the subject of the uniform of the Volunteers; but he would point out that the recommendation of that Committee was not made because of any superiority as between one colour and another, but simply on the ground of uniformity, as was stated in the Report. But it did so happen that in 1869 the Committee, over which General Lindsay presided, recommended grey, or rifle-green, for the Volunteers, because it was said that scarlet changed colour, and was easily soiled. The position was this—Certain trials were being made with respect to the kharkee colour, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether that colour would be best. His hon. and gallant Friend was wrong in thinking that the military officers were over-ridden in this matter by civilians. All he could say was that the Commanding Officers had been asked to try this experiment in their regiments; and he was informed that the proposal had been accepted in the case of 28 regiments unconditionally. That, he thought, showed that Commanding Officers were anxious that the experiment should be tried. There was no intention, at the present time, to deal with the dress of officers. On the grounds he had stated, and seeing that it was not, in any sense, intended to substitute kharkee for the red uniform, he thought that common sense would suggest that the experiment should be made.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he was glad the Government were proceeding in this matter in the manner stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. There were two points to be considered—one of sentiment, and the other of utility. He had no doubt that there was a deep feeling with regard to the red uniform, not only in the Army, but also in the minds of the people and anyone acquainted with their military history would know that ever since their troops had worn that colour it had boon associated with the greatest victories of this country. He believed that Lord Macaulay said that the red uniform originated with the Dutch Guards of King William. It was associated, no doubt, in the minds of their troops with the victories of Marlborough, and the success that had happily attended their arms ever since. With regard to the question of utility, it had been his good fortune to serve in three or four quarters of the world; and he recollected that when his regiment was fighting the Kaffirs in the bush at the Cape, it was found that the red uniform, which alone was worn by officers and men, got soon soiled, and became, in consequence, very nearly invisible. It was, however, very difficult to lay down any rule as to the relative visibility, or otherwise, of colours, so much depending upon atmospheric and other conditions. He could conceive that in Egypt rod would be much more visible than in some other countries. Again, they must not suppose that on service the red coat of the soldier retained that brilliant hue which they were accustomed to see in St. James's Park. There was one advantage possessed by the red uniform—namely, that it did not allow our troops to mistake the enemy for some of themselves; nor, on the other hand, could the enemy mistake our troops. There was some advantage in that, because what had happened in the Crimea was not likely to occur often in the case of our troops—one British regiment would not fire into another, under the impression that it belonged to the enemy. If the troops were dressed in the material now being experimented with, they would be in a colour very much like the Russian grey; and, again, if the atmosphere were thick there would be a resemblance to the bluish grey of the Austrian Army; and, of course, under the circumstances of war with either of those two Powers,

    1759
    an accident might happen that would be very much regretted. These considerations, he thought, were very deserving of the attention of the Government. He was extremely glad to hoar that the colour was to be experimented upon, and that they were to have the opinions of Regimental Officers with regard to it. He did not wish to cast any slur upon the constitution of the Committee; but he would remark that, although it had amongst its Members four Staff Officers, he did not see that it included a single Regimental Officer. As he regarded that as a misfortune, he could not help thinking it would be well if the Committee were a little enlarged, so as to comprise one or two Commanding Officers actually in command at the time. He thought, however, his hon. and gallant Friend was in error in supposing that this proposal emanated from civilians. As a matter of fact, having read the Report, he could not find that any civilians were on the Committee at all. It was true that Professor Abel was called upon to give his opinion; but he was not a Member of the Committee. A recommendation had been made that the colour of the belts, havresacks, and ornaments should be changed. The present arrangement gave a great deal of trouble to the soldier; and he thought that umber, although not so pretty in effect, would be much more serviceable. He trusted that whatever change did take place it would only be sanctioned after the greatest consideration.
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONsaid, he was glad to hear that if the change suggested was carried out it would only affect the undress uniform. Three General Officers had sat upon the Committee referred to, and two of them had commanded regiments wearing a green uniform. Lord Wolseley never commanded a regiment at all; therefore they might have little sentiment as regards the red colour. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brand) had said, it would be injudicious on the part of officers commanding-regiments to refuse to accept the experiment, considering the high quarter from which the offer came. He had had experience in India and other parts in regard to the colour of the uniform, and he had never found that red had produced any effects detrimental to the soldier. But unless the shooting of the Army greatly improved, and
    1760
    became more effective than they knew it to have been in Egypt during the late campaign, it would matter little what colour the British soldier was clothed in. He hoped the British Army would always be clothed in the colour in which all their battles had been fought, and their victories won. They were now 12,000 men under their proper strength, and he believed that the colour of the uniform had great influence in attracting recruits; and he was certain that if the Army was dressed in grey, or green, they would not be able to get recruits until they increased the rate of pay.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he had had 30 years' experience in the Army of different coloured uniforms. His objection to even the undress uniform of the Army being grey was this—there were two shades of grey, and it was very difficult to get the shades to agree year after year. When he first joined the Army, 31 years ago, the soldiers were trousers of a grey mixture with red coats; and even in the present day, in the Infantry of the Line, the same difficulty was largely experienced. After the Crimean War that grey mixture was given up, because of this difficulty; and he still adhered to red as the colour of the uniform of the English Army, and would do his utmost to retain that colour for the fighting dress. If the authorities decided that grey was to be the undress uniform of the Army, he would urge that it should be simply undress for fatigue duty and in barracks; but that when the men were out of barracks, or away from the country, they should be allowed to wear the uniform as full dress, for he was certain that the proposed change in colour would be very detrimental to the recruiting for the Army. He felt certain that the reason why recruiting was at the present moment at such a low point was due to the fact that men were parading the streets and the country in grey uniforms. If grey was generally adopted, there would still be further difficulty in obtaining recruits. He happened to be acquainted with the uniform of the 3rd Devon Volunteers, and he was satisfied that that colour would not be altogether serviceable for Her Majesty's Army. It was either too dark or too light; and if it was decided that that should be the colour for the future, he hoped the authorities would take into consideration the advice

    1761
    he had offered as one who had had 30 years' experience, and make the grey uniform only undress uniform.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, there were few military subjects in which he did not entirely concur with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and it was therefore with great regret that he found himself compelled to differ from the hon. and gallant Member, to a certain extent, upon this important subject. That regret was the more profound, because, so far as sentiment was concerned, his feelings were entirely in unison with those of the hon. and gallant Member. He admitted that it would be a rude wrench to break with the traditions of so many hundreds of years, and to suddenly give up the familiar scarlet of our uniform which was associated with so many glorious recollections. It was quite impossible to ignore sentiment upon this question; and he was quite prepared to acknowledge that the success or failure of their recruiting would depend, to a great extent, on the retention or discontinuance of the present colour. But, while giving the fullest weight to sentimental considerations, he felt that there was something even higher than sentiment, and that was the paramount necessity of economizing, by every means in their power, the valuable lives of the soldiers composing their small, but very expensive Army. Last year he should have hesitated a great deal before consenting to the discontinuance; but he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that, in the face of the Report of this Committee, there was no alternative but to adopt their suggestion. Coming, as it did, from three very eminent Generals, assisted by the highest scientific knowledge, it appeared to him that the Report of the Committee was absolutely conclusive. The experiments of that Committee were conducted under varying conditions of weather, atmosphere, surroundings, and back grounds, the object being to make the experiments as exhaustive as possible. Experiments were made on six days; three in winter, one in spring, and two in the summer, and the result was to eliminate all the colours now used in the dress of the British Army. The conspicuousness of white or red was demonstrated, and it was shown also that the brickdust uniform was only a shade better than the
    1762
    present scarlet. It must have caused that distinguished rifleman, General Hawley, a severe pang to be obliged to condemn the scarlet of their Infantry and the blue of their Artillery, as well as the green of the Rifle Brigade and 60th Rifles, and, without hesitation, recommend that the uniform of the 3rd Devon Volunteers should be adopted as the service dress of the British Army. He had no doubt that the Committee came to that decision very reluctantly; but the Report was unanimous. He was extremely glad to find that the Committee, deeming it inadvisable to break with the glerious traditions of the British Army, so far as colour was concerned, recommended the retention for full dress uniform of the present colours; and he sincerely hoped hoped those colours might not be discontinued, for he was fully convinced that a neat and attractive uniform was of great importance in obtaining a steady and continuous supply of recruits. It had been said that this proposal was only the thin end of the wedge, and was a preliminary to the entire abandonment of the present uniform; but he really could not understand why that should be the case. At the present moment, the Guards and the Highlanders had an undress uniform different in colour from the full-dress uniform. Last year, when the Guards went to Egypt they left their bearskins behind them; and no one would, he supposed, propose that for that reason the bearskins should be discontinued. The service uniform should differ in shape as well as in colour from the undress, for the latter should be looser than the former. He hoped never to see the day when the Guards would go on any sentry duty in London in Norfolk jackets. Such an idea was altogether most incongruous, and not in accord with their conceptions of smartness of a soldier; but he could not see how there was any more reason why a soldier should wear full-dress uniform on service than for hon. Members of that House when in the country to dress as they did in London. His own idea was, that the best way to partially retain the present uniform was to adopt the suggestions of the Committee, and he did not see what was the use of appointing a Committee at all if, when they reported unanimously, their recommendations received no attention. The Government would incur grave responsi-

    1763
    bility by rejecting the recommendations of that Committee, backed as they were by such an overwhelming weight of professional as well as scientific authority.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the question of worn-out clothing, which was dealt with by paragraph 146 of the Regulations. That paragraph required that clothing which had been worn for a year, except such as was required to be retained for the use of recruits, should be taken into regimental stores; and under paragraph 147 a soldier who did not return his clothing to the stores after the expiration of the period for which it was issued would render himself liable to be tried by court martial for making away with the clothes. He had been given to understand that these paragraphs were very objectionable indeed to the Army in general, and especially to recruits. The soldier at the end of 12 months was obliged to hand into the store the clothing he had worn during that period, and it then became public property. After that, it was passed over to a recruit as the uniform in which he was to go through his preliminary drills. It was said that the education of the Army was now considerably improved, and that the recruits were of better quality and better education than they had been for many years past. He was informed that these recruits, with this supposed improved education, were very much disappointed and disgusted at having handed over to them for their preliminary drill the garments which had been worn by some other men for 12 months. Besides that objection, this was a matter which involved a great deal of extra trouble to the Quartermaster of the regiment in preparing returns, and looking after all this clothing. This duty was very distasteful to officers of that position. Then, again, some of the clothing issued to recruits was returned to stores by men who had been discharged, and some men returned the clothes in a far cleaner state than others. But, however that might be, it was, he thought, very objectionable that recruits should have to wear old clothing after other men had been wearing it for 12 months. Then there was no doubt, he thought, that the soldier would very much prefer at the end of 12 months to purchase his old and comfortable
    1764
    clothing; and he wished to urge the Surveyor General of Ordnance to consider whether it would not be possible to revise these two paragraphs. He believed that this present system had prevented a good many respectable and serviceable men joining the Army.
    MR. BRANDsaid, the adoption of the principle that the clothing was the property of the State was recommended, in the first instance, by the present Quartermaster General, and, subsequently, approved of by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, (Colonel Stanley). The hon. Member (Sir Henry Fletcher) had done good service in calling attention to this point, which had, in fact, already engaged the attention of the Secretary of State for War; but there was a misapprehension on this point. Any time-expired articles might be retained for an additional period if the Commanding Officer thought there was any necessity for such retention; and it was further provided that if articles of clothing, not time-expired, were returned to the stores damaged through wilfulness, the necessary repairs would be carried out at the expense of the soldier; but that if they were returned in good condition no charge would be made upon the soldier. Proposals were now being considered for giving to recruits a serge uniform for the purpose of preliminary drill.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was glad to learn that the clothing of soldiers was still to be regarded as the property of the State. There was a twofold object in the adoption of that principle. One was to save the articles which were previously wasted; and the other, and more important, object was to take away any excuse from those who dealt in old clothes, and who, unfortunately, were sometimes only too ready to facilitate desertion in order to get hold of the clothes. If the clothes were declared to be the property of the State the soldier had no right to dispose of them, and in that way a great blow was struck at people who were willing to make bargains with soldiers for their clothes. That was a matter which should be looked on, perhaps, a little in the light of sentiment, as well as by the consideration of how much further wear there would be in the clothes. He had no doubt that soldiers would be very glad to purchase some of the old uniforms at

    1765
    a low price; but many of the things which were sent back to the stores were in such a condition that they ought to be destroyed, and he hoped that consideration would not be lest sight of.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,269,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores (including Establishments of Manufacturing Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDdesired to bring under the notice of the Committee a matter of some importance which came before the Public Accounts Committee of this year upon Vote 12, when they were considering the Appropriation Account for 1881-2. There was a net deficit upon the Army Vote for that year of £44,197, and it became the duty of the Committee to examine into the reasons why that deficit occurred, and whether it might not have been avoided. In the first place, the Committee had to inquire whether the Department were to blame in not having brought forward a larger original Estimate. They found, however, in this case, as he was bound to say they had found in most other cases, that the Department were not in fault upon this point. They had then, in the second place, to consider whether a Supplemental Estimate should not have been presented, so as to avoid the deficit. It was quite clear that if a Department had any reason to think that there might be a deficit, they were bound to apply for a Supplemental Estimate; because in this way Parliament had practically a better opportunity of examining into the expenditure of the Department than it had after a deficit had been incurred. Now, an inquiry whether a Supplemental Estimate should not have been presented was simple enough in the case of the Civil Service Departments, and for this reason—that those Departments were quite separate from each other, and any deficit upon one Vote could not be met by any surplus that might arise upon any other Vote. For example, a deficit on the Irish Education Vote could not be covered by a surplus upon the English Education Vote. But the case was quite different with the great spending Departments of the
    1766
    War Office and Admiralty. In those Departments the savings or surplus upon one Vote might be applied, with the consent of the Treasury, to cover the deficit or excess expenditure upon another Vote. Thus savings on the Stores Vote might be applied to meet a deficit on the Works Vote, and so on. When, therefore, the Public Accounts Committee inquired into the cause of the deficit of £44,197, and why a Supplemental Estimate was not taken, they were met by the reply that the Department had expected that the deficit would have been covered by surpluses upon other Votes. The attention of the Committee was then directed to Vote 12, when a remarkable state of things was disclosed, showing that there was a defective system of accounting at the War Office. He would venture to read to the Committee a few paragraphs of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which the point was shortly stated, and in which suggestions were made for an improvement of that system. They report that—
    "Your Committee were surprised to learn that in addition to these general difficulties in the way of making an accurate calculation of the expenditure, a deficit of £70,000, or there. abouts, was incurred in the Store Vote, upon which Vote it was believed, apparently up to January 1882, that there would have been a surplus, or at all events that there would have been no deficit. This Department is especially under the control of the Office for the larger portion of its expenditure. The Accountant General could give no satisfactory explanation upon the matter, and the officer who had the charge of the expenditure at the time has left the office.
    "It appears to your Committee that if proper steps had been taken for the purpose, there should have been sufficient information in January 1882 to have enabled the Department to make out a sufficiently accurate estimate of the probable expenditure and wants of the Department for the financial year.
    "In truth, the only defence put forward by the Department is that it was believed, as late as January 1882, that the surpluses on the whole accounts would be sufficient to cover the deficits.
    "Your Committee consider that the chances of such miscalculations being made would be, if not altogether removed, yet very much diminished, if a better system of rendering accounts prevailed in the War Office. They would suggest that the accounts should be kept closer up, and rendered at least quarterly, which they are informed was formerly the practice in the Office.
    "The course pursued in the Office with a view to ascertain the financial position of things, and to judge whether Supplementary Estimates will be needed, is fully explained by the Accountant General in his evidence. The state-

    1767
    ment that has been made out in the Department for the first half year is looked to mainly as a guide as to whether the expenditure is going on at the ordinary rate or not. This information is supplemented by general inquiries of the heads of the Departments whether they think that there is anything likely to arise which will cause a disturbance in the expenditure of their several Departments. Upon that half-yearly statement, and upon those replies, which, it is stated, are general and not in figures, a conclusion is arrived at whether money should be asked for.
    "Your Committee suggest that these inquiries from the heads of the Department and the replies should be more definite; that they should be in writing; and that they should be placed on record."
    He wished to know whether effect would be given to these suggestions of the Public Accounts Committee, as it would be seen that the matter was one of considerable importance?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst had alluded to what was the present practice, and to what he hoped would be the future practice of the War Office in regard to the rendering of accounts. One of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, over which his hon. Friend so ably presided, was that the accounts should be rendered, not vivâ voce, but in writing, in order that a more effectual check might be kept over the expenditure of money, and that the Public Accounts Committee might be able to see how the account itself was being kept. He was able to assure his hon. Friend that the Department saw no difficulty whatever in rendering these accounts in writing, instead of vivâ voce, as at present, so that there would both be a record in the Office, and the Public Accounts Committee would be able to have recourse to it. As to the second, the more important point that his hon. Friend had alluded to — namely, the desirability of preparing Supplementary Estimates where there was a deficit, it would be impossible, in the present instance, to state how much was wanted while the war was going on—that was to say, it would have been difficult to tell how much money was wanted within the time at which it would be necessary to give this information. But it was possible to make an estimate within, say, 1 per cent of the total amount; and in the particular case referred to, though it was true that there was a deficiency of £73,000 in spite of its having been
    1768
    believed, up to January, there would he a surplus, that was to be accounted for by the fact that a war was taking place in a distant country, and the accounts were not rendered so early as they otherwise would have been. The Accountant General had, with him, gone through those matters very carefully; and they thought they saw their way to returning to what was the former practice in the War Office—and that was the point which the hon. Member had specially alluded to—namely, of rendering the accounts, as far as possible, quarterly instead of half-yearly. He could not say, in the event of such wars as that in South Africa again taking place, that the Department of the War Office would always be assured of receiving these items in time to make up the quarterly account; but there was every inclination on the part of the Office to shorten the time over which the accounts extended, and the Accountant General had arranged with him for a return to the former practice, whenever possible, of rendering accounts quarterly, instead of half-yearly, from all branches of the Service under the Finance Department.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he was sorry to see, during the discussion of such a Vote as this for a sum of £1,269,500, such empty Benches in the Committee. He could recollect, on former Army Estimates, that when the Vote for guns and small arms, and so forth, came on, the Committee was far more crowded than it was at present. He, of course, trusted that they had now got into the "piping times of peace," and that they would not in a hurry have to go to war again. He could not, however, take the view that because they were at peace that, therefore, hon. Members should do nothing, and not seek to inform their minds as to the condition of the Service. He should like to say something, first of all, with regard to the Ordnance Committee. This Committee was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), some two or three years ago. That Committee was established in consequence of the alarm that was felt at the difficulties experienced by the Heads of the Artillery and Engineering Department, in carrying out all the various arrangements as to the manufacture of guns, so as to sup-

    1769
    ply, not only the Military Department, but also the Navy. It was felt that there should be an Ordnance Committee, or some authority of that kind, to whom reference should be made. To his mind, it was a great question whether it would not have been better to adhere to the old system. He know that there was considerable trouble, and he was aware of what the officials at the War Office, especially the Director of Artillery, had to go through, and he knew that an increased responsibility was more or less thrown upon the Secretary of State; but considering what had happened, and that it was two years or more since the Ordnance Committee had been appointed, he must say they had seen very little result indeed from its labours. The Committee was appointed to consider whether any change was necessary in the system of ordnance. It was admitted that in consequence of the vast improvements in powder, especially in pebble powder, it would be absolutely necessary, under any circumstances, to adopt breech-leading guns, especially in the case of the Navy. He could not for the life of him understand why such an enormous delay had taken place on the part of the Ordnance Committee in making known their views, seeing that it might be laid down as a premiss that they must adopt the breech-loading system. The Gentlemen upon the Committee were all men of great experience, and of skill as experts, and they had the advantage of hearing all that was to be said—and there was a great deal to be said—by Members of both Professions of that House. These Gentlemen had all had experience for several years past of the War Office system, and they had, which was the strongest consideration of all, the knowledge that the Navy at the present moment was certainly not very far superior in guns to that of any Marine Power, and that it was absolutely necessary that they should have the best possible gun in the world in the shortest possible time. That matter, he believed, was touched upon in the Naval Estimates, and he trusted it would not be lost sight of, but that it would be strenuously kept before the notice of the Government. That might lead to their discovering whose fault it was that they had not got on faster. He believed that the 43-ton gun was the one decided
    1770
    upon; but, so far as he knew, none of Her Majesty's ships at that moment were thoroughly armed with this weapon. He believed they would hear more about this matter, however. Well, that was a point upon which he particularly wished to question the Government—as to what progress they were making with the heavy ordnance, and when they could expect to have the pattern of guns finally approved of, and what orders were still outstanding for naval armaments? Then they came to the military question, and it was impossible for him to say, of course, what progress had been made in this respect. When the Conservative Government left Office, in 1880-1, by the following March it was calculated that there should be, at least, four heavy 100-ton guns in position at the various fortresses for which they were intended. Probably they had all been put in position; but he was not quite certain about it. Then, as to 80-ton guns, at that time there were only two. There was a question as to whether there should be any further manufacture of these guns, and that question entirely depended on the Committee. As to field artillery, when the Conservatives left Office, there were completed on the 31st of March, 1881, 579 guns, and there was a siege train of heavy and light guns. Of course, what one world be glad to ask was, whether these field batteries had been kept up to their old strength, and whether breach-leading guns had been substituted in some cases in the batteries? He knew there was a considerable difference of opinion on the subject; but his opinion was at that time that the muzzle-leading gulls did very well, and that before getting rid of them they should adopt the best pattern of breech-loader. However, there was a growing feeling in the House in favour of breach-leaders; and if field batteries were to be revised and re-manufactured in the shape of breach-loaders, it was surely only fair for him to ask what progress had been made in that respect? There was a Committee appointed—one of the hundred Committees at the War Office he was sorry to say—to inquire into the question of machine guns. That question was a very important one to the Navy, and it was also a very important one for the Army. He was glad that they were waiting to obtain the experience of the Americans.

    1771
    No doubt this experience had been obtained, and he should hope that the Committee had not followed the example of the Ordnance Committee, but had arrived at some result, and were in a position to order machine guns for the Navy in such proportion as to make it at least equal to Franco or Germany. Another gun had been referred to this Committee—namely, the magazine gull. A great deal had been said about these weapons; but when the Conservative Government left Office the question was entirely in embryo. There was a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to these guns, many people doubting whether such complicated pieces of mechanism would ever be useful in time of war; but, at the same time, its rapidity of fire was considered a great point, and there could be no question that in the hands of an expert and skilled marksman it would do a great deal of damage. There might be some Report from the War Office—if there was he had never heard of it—as to the result of the inquiries and experiments in regard to magazine guns. These were all important matters, particularly as far as the House of Commons was concerned, because, sooner or later, he feared they would involve an enormous expenditure. These were questions of 'Ways and Means, and it was for the Executive to decide how these guns were to be introduced, and in what proportion, having due regard to the state of preparation and efficiency which Foreign Powers were in in this matter. It was only the Executive that could decide on these questions, and they in the House of Commons were more or less obliged to follow the lead of the Executive. Considering the present Government had now been three years in Office they had surely had sufficient time to consider all these matters; and looking at the amount of information they had obtained, and the excellent advice they had received from authorities on those abstruse and difficult questions, they should be able by this time to give the House to understand what progress they had made, and what progress they were likely to make. A great deal had been said as to the quantity of stores consumed in Egypt, and a great many people believed that their reserves of stores must have suffered very materially. Many people were of opinion
    1772
    that, the cost of the war having been only some £4,500,000, it was remarkably economical; in fact, they could not for the life of them understand how it had been done. An idea had got abroad that the reserves of stores had been largely drawn upon. Without making that charge against the Government, he should like very much to know what was the amount of stores left behind by the late Government? He could only say that he should sincerely rejoice to find that everything had been kept up as the late Government had left it. They had the advantage—an advantage he did not at all despise—of taking a considerable sum of money in 1878 for both the Army and the Navy, and they made the best use they could of it by putting the reserve stores in the best possible position. On the 31st of March, 1880, they had something like 503,000 Martini-Henry rifles, of which 212,000 had been issued to the troops and Reserve Forces, and there were in store some 290,000. Of carbines they had issued 32,000 to the troops, and they had in store 19,000, making altogether 51,000. As to ammunition for small arms, it was laid down that the proper amount they should have should be at least 60,000,000 rounds; and it would be very satisfactory to know now that they had that quantity in store to use in case of emergency. Again, as to powder, he did not know—he did not suppose anyone knew — whether they had yet reached the end of invention in this respect. Powder had been steadily improving for some years, and they had now got to pebble powder, which gave, he believed, the greatest amount of force with the least amount of damage to the gun. That, as he had said before, had entailed upon them a fresh expense, as it was absolutely necessary, considering the slow burning properties of this powder, that they should go from muzzleloaders to breech-loaders. When the late Government left Office they had in store of this powder 312,000 barrels, of which 130,000 were "P 2" pebble powder. He need not tell the Committee that of the 312,000 barrels, 130,000 barrels of the "P 2" were of the most efficient kind; because the "L G and L" powder was, after all, a powder that was only useful for salutes, although it could be used in case of emergency; it was not powder they would think of using in connection

    1773
    with the new and powerful guns they were manufacturing at the present moment, except under great emergency. And, amongst other stores, the late Government had left behind them 380 tons of gun-cotton. They had left also 431 Whitehead torpedoes, 336 meant to be used for naval armament. They left behind also a fair amount of camp equipage, of saddlery, and other stores. He mentioned all those things because they were now in time of peace, and he did not think there would be much danger in the Government stating the quantities of these things they had in store. It would be very satisfactory to learn that they had a large amount of stores. The subject would be discussed again and again in that House in future years. The Estimates were, to a certain extent, larger than they had been since the Crimean War, in consequence of the progress in science and gunnery. The Estimates were large, and were growing larger and larger every year. And they knew very well what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had said the other day as to the terms to be offered to recruits; and they were all anxious that the best article should be obtained. All matters of this kind must increase the expense of the Department. He was not at all an economist in the way of wishing to cut down expenditure where expendi·ture was absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Service; but, at the same time, he thought that great care, caution, and prudence should be exercised in the introduction of anything new, and he was anxious that what was done should be done gradually; because everything new meant greater expenditure. It was very difficult to say what course should be adopted to put an end to these difficulties with regard to the Navy; but he thought it was impossible for one moment to wish that the Navy should have an Arsenal of its own. Persons who advocated that could have very little idea of the enormous cost of such an undertaking, not only with regard to the first cost of arms, but also with regard to the manufacture of different patterns. These who were familiar with the matter well knew that changes of pattern were always going on both in the machinery and carriages of guns; many thousands of pounds, he believed, were constantly being spent in alterations, and he could
    1774
    not help thinking that there should be some strong central authority able to control the naval demands in that respect. He believed that the time would come when that House would endeavour to reduce this constantly increasing expenditure. When they considered the numerical strength of their Army, and compared its cost with that of the Armies of Foreign Powers, and when they compared the cost of their ships with that of foreign ships, however proud they might be of them, there could be no question that they did not manufacture as cheaply as some of their neighbours. He thought it right to call attention to these subjects, and he regarded it as most useful that there should be a discussion on this Vote. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Brand), who took the greatest pains in this matter, would, doubtless, be of his opinion that it too frequently happened that these Votes were brought in at the end of the Session, when there was no opportunity of discussion, when few persons knew whether they were armed or unarmed, or whether they received value for the money spent or not. He hoped to get a reply, before the discussion terminated, on the questions he had felt it his duty to raise.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he had no wish whatever to delay the Vote. When he looked at the amounts asked for, he felt it perfectly useless to attempt to do any good by criticizing them; but he wished to enter his protest against the constant increase in the expense of the Establishment, which, to his knowledge, had gone on, year after year, to such an extent, that it was impossible to know what it would result in. When the first proposal was made with reference to the Establishment, it was stated that the annual cost would not exceed £35,000; but the Vote now asked for was £647,000, or £53,000 in excess of the amount for last year. It would seem that these Establishments were a sort of mulch cow, to provide places and jobs for those who were employed in them. He never could get any accounts except from two officers who were employed apparently to do little or nothing. What they required was a debit and credit account for the whole of these Establishments. In making up that statement, there should be a charge for interest on capital at 4 per cent. Then there should

    1775
    be an account of stock taken, as was done in every commercial business, showing what had been consumed, what had been manufactured, and what remained over at the end of the year. When that was done, then only would they be able to see what was the cost of these Establishments to the country. But all they could get now was a long rambling statement, which he was satisfied no accountant could make head or tail of. He felt it his duty to make these remarks, although he was addressing them to empty Benches; but he would not delay the Vote for a moment longer.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was mistaken with regard to the accounts. A statement was published every year showing exactly what had been spent in each of the different Offices. He had always looked upon it as a great difficulty, in reference to manufacturing establishments, that they had a tendency to reduce the expenditure in their accounts on all staple articles which they wished to show were produced cheaper by them as compared with the trade. Then they were apt to put the small articles in which the trade could not compete with them at as high a cost as possible. He did not think the hon. Member was right in thinking that the appointments were in the nature of sinecures; because many persons employed in the Establishments had to work very hard and give great attention to the work required of them; and he believed that many of them would, upon examination, show a very fair amount of manufacturing knowledge. He was himself in favour of these Establishments, because, if they did not exist, the Secretary of State for War would be completely in the hands of private manufacturers. The men employed under the existing system acquired technical skill, and the Secretary of State for War had always a staff of officers to advise him. It was, of course, quite possible that the system might be pushed too far; but he thought it a mistake to suppose that they could over do without manufacturing establishments for the Army and Navy altogether. Again, they might be reduced; but he repeated that it was impossible to abolish them entirely. The tendency of private establishments would be, no doubt, to manufacture as cheaply
    1776
    as possible; while the tendency in the case of a Public Department was to manufacture extremely well without regard to expense.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, said, he could not allow the misconception of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) as to the meaning of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) to pass without correction. The hon. Member for Birmingham was quite well aware of the existence of the accounts referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. Indeed, one of the two accounts annually rendered for the Small Arms Factory at Enfield bore the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham. It showed in minute detail the whole of the charges for turning out small arms, by debiting every kind of conceivable charge, even to the portion of charge which was incurred for Divine Service to the Arms Establishment, besides interest on capital, sinking fund, wear and tear, and other items, such as a private manufacturer would have to show in his books. The other Ordnance Departments, for guns, carriages, and laboratory stores had likewise annual accounts. But what his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham urged was the exclusion of Vote 12 from the Army Estimates, by converting all the funds now shown therein into a separate manufacturing account, whereby all fully completed stores would be shown, and their cost, as well as the quantities and value of the materials at the opening and closing of the year. By this change, the difficulties about supplying naval ordnance and other supplies for the Navy direct from this manufacturing establishment, and paying for the same out of funds provided in the Navy Estimates, would cease. The Army would, in like manner, pay for all supplies out of funds obtained in the Army Estimates. But even without this change, the Navy could pay for its ordnance and stores by means of voted sums. The Clothing Department, although under the War Office, now provided clothing for India, for police and others, and received from the Departments the value of the supplies, as shown in the Estimates. The continuance of the bad practice for the Navy in obtaining guns, projectiles, and gunpowder free of cost to the Navy, but at the charge of the Army, should be

    1777
    terminated. It was the cause of great waste. At present the armament of the Navy was again under change, and was the fifth within the past 25 years. Now, this new armament could not be made up of fewer than 3,000 pieces of various calibres, and the capital representing this complete armament might be valued at £4,000,000; and all this large amount must, under the existing bad practice, fall on the charges for the Army, thereby largely swelling the cost of this branch of the Service. At this rate, the five changes in the armaments within 25 years must have swelled the expenses of the Army by from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000. The evil was still greater, for by making the Naval officers depend on the Army for the guns of the Fleet, it not only engendered carelessness in the way of arming the vessels, but, what was a great evil, the scientific questions involved in the description of gun and projectile most fit for naval service were not properly considered by naval officers. No doubt, the Navy Estimates now bore the cost of foreign ship transport of the Army. This practice was equally objectionable, as the money needed for providing transports ought to be voted in the Army Estimates and paid over to the Transport Department, which hired the transports. Looking at the long delay in arming the Fleet, and the urgent necessity for having their first line of defence in the most effective state, he would earnestly advise a special loan of £4,000,000 to be raised, and employed to pay for the guns, projectiles, and gunpowder immediately the stores were available. The loan might be paid off in six or seven years, by an annuity which would appear in the Estimates of the Navy. There was one point to which attention had already been drawn, and that was the large excess on Vote 12 of the Army Charges in the Accounts of 1881-2. The excess of expenditure would have been far larger but for the mistake in the appropriation in aid, which turned out to have been far in excess of the estimated amount. There was no excuse for any excess in the expenditure of Vote 12. A Liability Book of all orders for purchases of stores would effectually protect the Departments which controlled Vote 12 from any excess, and it was to be hoped that in future the excess would be guarded against.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERalso was of opinion that it was very desirable that the supply of naval guns should be taken out of the Army Estimates. They were now spending on the Army a considerable sum of money in connection with the Navy; and, looking at the state of the Army at the present moment, he thought that money which was now voted in the Army Estimates for naval guns should be devoted to raising a further number of men in the Army. There was no doubt that to carry out the territorial system in a proper manner a very large number in excess of those at present would be required; and he hoped the Government would seriously consider the advisability of doing away with this Navy Vote in the Army Estimates, so as to obtain an additional £600,000 for the use of the Army.
    MR. MACFARLANEwished to call attention to the case of the inventor of the guns in use in the Navy.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not avail himself of this opportunity to call attention to the grievances of any inventor. This is a Vote simply for ordnance and other warlike stores.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked whether, if he moved to reduce the Vote, he would be in Order in calling attention to this matter
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be in Order in moving to reduce the Vote; but not in discussing the grievances of an inventor.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad to find that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War agreed with the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. He had been rather surprised to find that the Vote had been under-estimated; and, therefore, he thought the noble Marquess had done well in accepting these recommendations, because he thought that, with careful supervision, such a mistake could not possibly recur. With regard to the noble Lord's (Lord Eustace Cecil's) question respecting magazine guns and machine guns, if anything in that direction was going on the public and the Committee were perfectly ignorant of any intention on the part of the Government to introduce a new weapon.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, the Committee was still sitting.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was aware of it; but he had not heard that anything was going to be done in the way of introducing new guns this year. If there was any such intention, where were the guns to be made? On this Vote hon. Members had a right to know whether the Committee had any such intention. The Martini-Henry, when first introduced, was not a good weapon, but that it was now a good weapon was generally acknowledged; and, therefore, he should like to hear from the Surveyor General of the Ordnance whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a new arm? If so, he would ask whether that new weapon was to be made at Enfield, and whether new machinery was to be set up at that place? because, as he was informed, the Government had been offered a most advantageous site in Birmingham. They bad a small manufactory at Birmingham already; but it was not equal to their requirements. They were now making all their own arms, just as foreign countries were; but in this country he thought it was advisable that the gun trade should have some share in that manufacture. The Government were quite right to have a manufactory of their own, because they could test the work made elsewhere; but if they manufactured all their guns, and then had to introduce new machinery, it was better that they should set up a new manufactory in Birmingham. He understood that the site and buildings they now had at Birmingham would fetch a very large sum, and that the new site and buildings would only cost the Government one-fourth of its original value; and, by having the manufactory at Birmingham, the Government would keep up the manufacture of military arms of precision, which, he was told, was dying out in that town. He believed the noble Marquess had been pestered to death about this matter; but he did not think it was out of place on a Vote of this kind to state that this site could be obtained, and that if they did not take it they might not have another opportunity of purchasing a site at such a reduced price. He objected to the Government trying to get everything into their own hands. They ought to keep their establishments within reasonable bounds.
    MR. BRANDsaid, there were two 100-ton guns now at Gibraltar, and one would shortly be sent out to Malta. Of the 80-ton guns, two had been completed; of the inferior artillery guns, 290 had been appropriated to the field batteries at home; and with regard to the machine guns, 967 had been supplied to the Navy. Of those, 275 were of the Gardner pattern; but the majority were Nordenfeldts. The result of experiments carried out by the Admiralty was the selection of the Nordenfeldt guns, and those experiments showed that there would be no difficulty in constructing the machine guns to throw shells as well as solid shot. The question of changing the rifle of the Army had been referred to a Departmental Committee, who were making experiments both with the Martini-Henry and the magazine guns. With respect to stores, he did not think it was advisable to go into much detail; but, generally speaking, the stores were in a good average condition. They were taking this year money for 40,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. The stores of small arms were a trifle below the average; but that was owing to the issue of the Martini-Henry to the Militia, and the necessity of not very largely increasing the stores pending the decision of the Committee. He was very glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words generally with reference to this question. It would be found by reference to the Estimates that there was a decrease of £20,000; but that was only apparent. There was a transfer from the Army to the Navy Vote of £113,000 for gun mountings and stores; but, on the other hand, there was a transfer from the Navy to the Army Vote of £10,000, leaving a balance of £103,000. Therefore, if they deducted the sum of £20,000, which was the apparent decrease, from the £103,000 balance, there was a real increase of the Vote by £83,000. This increase was mainly on account of the Naval Service. The three principal items were saltpetre, sulphur, and gunpowder, which together amounted to £10,000; but it was well to mark here that the powder issued to the Navy was not charged to the Navy in the Vote. With reference to the cost of projectiles, the increase in the cost for breech-loading ordnance was very considerable. There

    1781
    was also an increase in the Army Vote of £114,000 for projectiles, and then there was a large increase for wages in the laboratory. There was also an increase on account of ammunition for small arm practice. These various items increased the Vote by £83,000; and, looking to the future, he was sorry to say that he did not think there was any great chance of any large diminution in this Vote. On the contrary, he feared the reverse would take place. With respect to the demands for the issue of Martini-Henry rifles to the Volunteers, and the enormous cost of these breech-loading ordnance for the Navy, it was impossible to suggest that there was any probability of a diminished Vote; but, so far as the Army was concerned, he thought the Committee would agree that the Vote was exceedingly moderate, having regard to all the circumstances. With regard to the production of guns for the Navy, there had been charges made against the Department of delay in respect of those guns. He did not know whether those charges referred so much to the question as between the War Office and private firms, or as between the War Office and the Admiralty; but the policy of the Government had been to encourage private trade as far as possible. It was necessary, some years ago, to establish Government works, because they could not always depend upon private establishments. The Government were able in this way to check the cost of the guns; and he thought, on the whole, the system had resulted in the production of as good guns as, if not better than, those of any other nation in Europe. As to the question between the War Office and the Admiralty, it had been stated that naval opinion was ignored, and that these guns were forced on the Navy; but, as a matter of fact, officers of the Navy had been on every Committee appointed to consider this subject during the last 20 years. There were Naval Officers now serving on the Ordnance Committee, and not a single step was taken which was not directly approved of by the Director of Ordnance. There had been no delay with regard to construction. There had been very difficult questions to settle; but there had been cordial co-operation between the Admiralty and the War Office. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) made a speech in
    1782
    the House some time ago in which he condemned, in very severe language, the condition of the guns in the Navy. There was, however, no foundation for the statement of the noble Lord. The Conqueror had her guns, and at the time of which the noble Lord was speaking the guns were lying on the wharves. They had been in a state of transition as regarded ordnance in the Navy. There had been an entire change in construction and material, and those changes had raised very difficult questions. Every attempt had been made with regard to this question, both by the Admiralty and the War Office, to overcome these difficulties. The delay, if there had been ally, was owing to the difficulty of completing the designs for the guns; and, for his part, he would frankly say he thought that delay had been advantageous; for there was no more important thing, in his opinion, than that the guns which were provided for the Navy should be such that the sailors who had to serve them should have confidence in them. Last year the whole question of construction, and of the material used, was raised by Sir William Armstrong; and the consequence was that the Committee had to take evidence of a great many skilled witnesses, and upon that evidence they had decided to change the material, and at the present time every gun under construction at Woolwich was being made of steel. It was satisfactory to know that the manufacturing departments were now keeping up with the demands of the Navy. He did not know whether the Committee would care to hear of the condition of the present breech-loading ordnance; but he might say, with reference to the 255 guns that were said to be out·standing, in a Report which was laid on the Table the other day, a considerable number were ready for issue, and that a great many others had been proved. He had no doubt that before long the arrangements for the provision of guns would be in a thoroughly satisfactory state.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, there was one question he would very much like to have cleared up; the more so, since the answer given by the Government just now had made the matter rather more cloudy than heretofore. The hon. Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) had said that the Committee sitting at the War Office

    1783
    on Small Arms had decided to have 1,000 repeating magazine rifles made for the Navy. The hon. Gentleman also said he would not increase the small arms store, pending the decision of the Committee upon the question that had been referred to it. As he (Captain Aylmer) was a Member of the Martini-Henry Committee, he took a deep interest in that question. He believed the trials the Martini-Henry rifles were put to were the greatest trials that had ever been made since small arms were invented; and he hoped before any change was made in small arms an equally exhaustive trial would be made. At the same time, he thought the magazine rifle was the weapon of the future; and he desired to know whether the object of the Committee now sitting was to examine between the merits of the Martini-Henry and any other rifle brought forward, or whether they had only to examine between the merits of the Martini-Henry as a slighter weapon and the magazine rifle? Supposing that the Committee were only to inquire into the merits of the magazine rifle as against those of the Martini-Henry, and the Committee reported in favour of the magazine rifle, was it intended to issue the magazine rifles to the Army generally?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that on page 53 he saw an item of £20,000 sot down for ammunition for the Militia. Now, time after time, he had drawn the attention of the Committee of that House to the absurdity of this Vote. He did not know how many hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the Committee were acquainted with the musketry training of the Militia; but be could assure them, having himself had practical experience, extending over several years, that the money which was spent upon musketry instruction in the Militia was absolutely thrown away. The hon. Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance had told them that a net decrease shown upon page 49 was only apparent. Now, if he were to strike out the £20,000 on page 53, he would make that net decrease a real one, and the Services would not be in the slightest degree the less efficient. He could assure the Committee that he was not exaggerating the case. He was sorry it was so; but
    1784
    musketry instruction in the Militia in the annual training was not only irk-some to the men, but it was also costly to the officers. It could not be properly carried out in the way in which it was done under the present system, and it interfered with that which could be properly carried out—namely, the ordinary drill and training of the Militia. He assured the Committee that it was in no captious spirit he offered these remarks. It was only in small details that economy could he effected, and he was strongly of opinion that for this expenditure the nation got no return. There was one branch of drill which used to be carried out in the Militia, but which of late years had been discontinued, or rendered optional—namely, bayonet exercise. He could imagine no branch of instruction in which it was more necessary to give young soldiers tuition than to teach them how to handle the bayonet, which was the old English weapon; and it was with great regret he had seen the instruction as to its use discontinued of late years in the Militia. He might remark, in passing, that the bayonets issued to the Militia were 4½ inches shorter than those issued in the Line. He did not know that that was a matter of much importance; but it was rather singular, and he did not know the reason of it. But what was really of importance, and what ought to be attended to, was that the men who carried those weapons should be instructed in their use; and in order to call the attention of the Committee to the matter he would move a reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,259,500, be granted to Her, Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores (including Establishments of Manufacturing Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1884."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
    MR. BRANDsaid, in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member Maidstone for (Captain Aylmer), he had to state that the Committee now sitting at the War Office had not to inquire as to the comparative merits of the magazine rifle and the Martini-Henry. They had had several magazine rifles referred to them for experiments. As to the Martini-Henry, it was proposed to alter the bore in order to get a lower trajec-

    1785
    tory, and the Committee were asked to report upon that too.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would not think it necessary to divide the Committee on this Vote. He did not know whether the hon. and gallant Baronet was present on the last occasion when the question of Militia instruction—especially musketry instruction — was fully discussed. As a matter of fact, in the limited time the Militia were out for training, there was no time for the men to go through a complete course of drill for valuable and practical musketry instruction. That, however, was a matter which must be left in the hands of the military authorities, who were responsible for the training of the Militia Force. So far from recommending that the musketry instruction should be abandoned in the Militia, the Committee who lately inquired into musketry practice in the Army as well as in the Militia had recommended that the Militia as well as the Army should have an increased amount of ball practice.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: And a longer training.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that was so, and he thought they also recommended longer training. The question raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet was one deserving of attention, and before that time next year he would be glad to learn the opinion both of military and Militia officers in regard to it. But in the course of the present year it would be impossible to make any alteration in the way in which the training of the Militia was carried out. Therefore, it would be necessary to provide a sufficient sum on this Vote for the ordinary training. The most convenient opportunity of discussing this matter took place the other night. In the absence of a great many of the Militia officers a Vote taken now would hardly be a satisfactory one.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, the noble Marquess had given an instance of the very little attention that was being paid to the representations of officers and others acquainted with the necessities of the Service. The noble Marquess had stated that he did not know whether he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was present during the discussion
    1786
    which took place on a certain occasion with regard to musketry instruction in the Militia. It so happened that he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was the humble instrument of bringing that subject before the attention of the noble Marquess and the rest of the Committee.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that many other Militia officers spoke upon that occasion, and for the moment he could not recollect who they really were. He recollected now, perfectly well, when he was reminded of the fact, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did initiate the discussion.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he was glad the noble Marquess had re' called the circumstance. It was not only this year that he had brought the question before the attention of the Committee; but every year since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. He was glad to accept the assurance of the noble Marquess that the subject would receive his attention, and he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, it was with great pleasure he heard that the War Office was prepared to give a favourable consideration to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. There was one point, however, on which he had expected that some further information would have been given. On Vote 12 it was supposed, as late as January, 1882, that there would be a surplus; but, as a matter of fact, there was found, in March, 1882, to be a deficiency of £70,000. He had given the noble Marquess an intimation that he should ask the question, and he understood that some explanation would be forthcoming. Perhaps, before they passed away from this Vote, some Member of the War Office would give an explanation as to how the deficiency had been brought about.
    MR. BRANDsaid, the hon. Baronet would remember that there had been no excess in the Army Votes generally for 16 years, so that during all that time the expenditure had been kept within the Estimate.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that fact did not bear upon the deficiency arising upon Vote 12, upon which information was desired.
    MR. BRANDsaid, the excess of Vote 12 in the year referred to by his hon. Friend was owing to the abnormal circumstances of that year. There were several causes for that excess. In the first place, there was the war then going on at the Cape, and when the Supplementary Estimates were presented to the House there were five months' accounts due, and an Estimate made for the expenditure which was not sufficient. In fact, there was an excess of expenditure at the Cape of £10,000, and that accounted for £10,000 of the deficiency. In every year, on Vote 12, there was a considerable amount which was expected to fall in that year, but which really had to be carried over, and, therefore, fell in the succeeding year. As a general rule, this carrying over was balanced by an equal sum that was carried over at the end of the same year. But, on this particular occasion, the carrying over was not balanced by the sum of £30,000. This accounted for £30,000 of the excess; but it was quite an abnormal circumstance. Then there was a difficulty in estimating the cost of the new breech-leading Ordnance. As it had turned out, a sufficient sum had not been taken for that purpose. Another disturbing cause was the great pressure put on the Department for expediting the issue of Ordnance for the Navy. He believed he had now explained to his hon. Friend the circumstances which might be considered abnormal, and which accounted for the excess. There was a balance of liabilities, as he had said, to carry over the year to the amount of £30,000; there was excess of expenditure at the Cape amounting to £10,000; there was excess in the cost of guns of £10,000; extra expenditure upon the Navy, £10,000; and, in addition to this, there was a deficiency in the Estimates with reference to the armaments. He agreed that the Vote ought to be controlled, and that this excess ought not to occur in future years.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £739,400, Works, Buildings, &c. at Home and Abroad.
    MR. ACLANDdesired to call attention to a point of some importance, which had been brought under his notice in the course of the last few weeks. For the satisfaction of the public, as well as for his own, and that of the persons concerned,
    1788
    he desired to know whether anything was likely to be done with respect to the improvement of Netley Hospital? He had had occasion to go to Netley a very few weeks age, and he found that the lifts which were originally placed in the building for taking up the patients, and also for carrying up coals, had not been used for 20 years, except on one occasion when the patients' lift was experimented upon with the result that the officer, who was good enough to be the subject of the experiment, was let down with great violence, but, he believed, without any serious consequences. He knew it was the feeling of the medical officers who had been at work at Netley for many years that the power of using a lift would be of great value to them for the sake of the patients brought there. He might say that the lifts, as originally constructed, were so made that no stretcher could be put into them; and, therefore, no man could be carried up if he were lying on his back. Consequently, for about 20 years, the patients bad been carried upstairs at considerable inconvenience, and with great pain to themselves, and much labour to the officers. Not only was this the case, but the coals were required to be carried up weekly by the attendants, and the stairs and passages cleaned afterwards. In his opinion, it was discreditable that such a state of things should have continued for 20 years in a national military hospital like that of Netley. He had taken the trouble to inquire whether, in the loading hospitals in London, there were lifts; and he found that for the last 12 years, in St. George's Hospital, lifts had been in hourly use, not only for the purpose of carrying patients up to the higher wards, but also for lifting up provisions, coals, and other necessaries. This was the case also in St. Thomas's Hospital. Both hospitals were maintained by voluntary contributions, and each, therefore, had to shift for itself. Netley Hospital, however, was supposed to be the school of military medical science; and surely every advantage that could be given to the medical officers there and to the patients should be provided. He had hoped that something would have been done already in the direction indicated. All he knew was, that a few weeks ago nothing had been done, in spite of repeated representations on the subject. There was one other

    1789
    point, in connection with the same subject, on which he wished to ask a question. It was referred to in the evidence of Surgeon John Longmore, who was one of the Professors at Netley. It was the question of the railway accommodation to Netley. From Mr. Longmore's evidence the condition of things in this respect was anything but satisfactory; and he desired to know whether the Surveyor General of the Ordnance could inform him if there was any scheme in preparation by which men who were brought home wounded could be convoyed without change of conveyance from Portsmouth to their beds at Netley?
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, before his hon. Friend replied to the question put to him, he should like to ask another, about two very important confidential Commissions that were appointed some time ago. The Vote itself was in excess of the Estimate by about £23,000. That was not a large sum; but, still, every little helped, and the Votes went on increasing. The two Commissions were, rather, a Commission in one case, and a Committee in the other. They were appointed on the subject of Home and Colonial Defences. Now, the question of the Colonial Defences was a very important one. He believed his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Henry Holland) was one of the Members. The Committee, of course, did not pretend to know—it would not be advisable that they should know—what were the recommendations of the Commission. At least, they might ask if the Report had been received; and whether the Government were taking active steps to carry it out? And if, also, they would assure the House that such steps, as they in their judgment thought proper, were being carried out in conjunction with the Colonial authorities; and whether the Committee had reason to hope that all the important stations all over the world—most important in case of war—were receiving that attention which they deserved? They knew that in the Australian Colonies something had been done by the Colonists to provide themselves, at all events, with gunbeats, and, he believed, with guns. It would be a good thing generally if the Committee could receive the assurance that something was being done. They did not want an important Commission of this kind to be appointed
    1790
    to go through a great deal of labour in examining witnesses, and then that their Report should be left in some pigeon hole. Again, there was the question of our Commercial Harbours at home. This was a very important question, and he believed that a Committee of experts had been appointed to inquire into it. A great deal was said on the question in 1878-9, at a time when they thought it was possible that they might be engaged in war. No doubt, if there were any apprehension of war again, the subject would once more come up. At the present moment it was a time of peace; but they all knew how suddenly a panic might arise. They knew, moreover, in what an undefended state Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Hull were. In fact, there was hardly a port they could mention, except some in the South, like Portsmouth and Plymouth, that were fully prepared against any great warlike expedition. The Report of the Committee could not be over-estimated; and he should like to know whether it had been received; whether the Government were going to act upon it; and whether they could give an assurance to the Committee that either now or at some future time active steps were to be taken with regard to Colonial and Home Defences; so that the public might feel that they would not again be left in the helpless state in which they always found themselves when there was a chance of an outbreak of war?
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, be was glad that attention had been called to this matter, because the inquiry came very much better from a third party than from one who had served on the Commission, as he had done. The Commission had a difficult task to perform. He (Sir Henry Holland) saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. They had had the pleasure and the advantage of his services on the Commission on Colonial Defences for a year; and, therefore, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not consider he (Sir Henry Holland) was over-rating the importance of that Commission. The inquiries were, of course, strictly confidential; and all he could say was that the Commissioners did all they could to cut down what was considered absolutely necessary expenditure to the smallest amount. He could see, by reference to page 65 of the Estimates, that at present

    1791
    no effect had been given to any of the suggestions of the Commission; but it would be a great satisfaction, not only to individual Members, but to the country generally, to know that the suggestions and recommendations of the Commission were receiving the serious attention of the War Office.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Report of the Commission was more under the consideration of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brand) than himself. The course taken on receipt of those two important and valuable Reports was this—to refer them to the consideration of the advisers of the Secretary of State. Hon. Members opposite would, he was sure, admit that the Report of the Commission on the subject of Colonial Defences, valuable as it was, was rather general in its character, dealing mainly with political considerations, and was hardly one upon which they could act without further examination on the part of their professional advisers. With the view of enabling that further examination to take place, it had been referred by his hon. Friend to the Inspector General of Fortifications, and his recommendations with regard to it had only very recently been received. It now required further consideration from the point of view of the provisions and armaments that would be required. It would be his (the Marquess of Hartington's) duty, when the whole matter had been considered, in consultation with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and others of his Colleagues, to take the opinion of the Government as a whole as to the extent and mode in which these recommendations could be best carried out. he thought the same course would be taken on the Reports of both Commissions; but the consideration of the Report of the Colonial Defence Commission was rather more advanced than the consideration of the Report of the Commission on Commercial Harbours.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he could not allow the further Vote for the battery at the end of the Dover Pier to pass without earnestly calling attention to the way the public money was uselessly spent. That battery now stood on the Estimates at upwards of £142,000; but that was only a small part of the outlay. The armament was to be of the largest calibre of guns, and would need the permanentloca-
    1792
    tion of a strong detail of Artillery. The annual cost of the guns, projectiles, stores, and pay of the Artillerymen could not be less than equal to the interest on £200,000 of capital sunk. Here they had, then, an outlay of more than a third of £1,000,000 for this one battery. Again, this was the outcome of a much larger expenditure on Dover Harbour. They first began the Pier for a refuge harbour, at an estimated charge of £250,000, and, immediately after the death of the Duke of Wellington, the costly fortifications on Dover Heights were begun, contrary to the views of their great Commander, in order to defend and protect the harbour. These works had already cost more than a third of £1,000,000, and were to be improved and extended as soon as the extension of the Dover Harbour Works justified the plea. Thus they had a Harbour commenced, whose cost no one could guess at, and the cry was still in favour of a large refuge harbour capable of holding their Fleet, and whose cost could not be estimated at less than millions. They also continued fortifications at Dover in spite of the Report of the Defence Commission of 1860, which stated that fortifying Dover Heights was a blunder. Further than this increased demand for works at Dover, a Commission had been sitting to find out places in other parts of the Kingdom where further fortified works could be put up, thus resuming the waste which was begun 25 years ago, and which had ended in an outlay of £7,000,000. He earnestly hoped that the Prime Minister would bring some of the old opposition which he used to feel against Lord Palmerston's former projects to bear against the now outlay. It was now a matter of history that the Prime Minister drew forth from Lord Palmerston the remark that he dearly loved his Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that he would part with three Glad-stones rather than not have the planned fortification. One precaution could, however, be taken, and that was to require all the outlay on new works, and on new guns, to be borne by the Annual Estimates, and not to be made, as formerly, with borrowed capital.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, before the Government replied he should like to ask for an explanation of another matter. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had called attention to

    1793
    an over expenditure on the last Vote which had come under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. He (Dr. Cameron) would wish to state, as illustrating the unsatisfactory condition of the account keeping in this Department, that an excess to which he would refer was not known in the War Office. He saw in the Estimates they had a Vote for Barracks; and he understood that two years ago, owing to the system of account keeping in this Department, under which excesses were not paid back to the Exchequer, that a house was built at Chatham out of savings for "barrack flooring." He did not know whether the Government had any information on this point; but the case could be put in the same category as that referred to by the hon. Member for Midhurst. The peculiarity was that whilst in the Navy they had an independent audit, in the War Office each Department authorized its own expenditure, and then audited its own accounts. That would probably explain the occurrence of the fact he had mentioned, and which he had on first-class authority—namely, that two years ago a house was built out of the savings of "barrack flooring," and the place was only accidentally so found to have been built by some application about its rating.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he wished to make an observation or two as to what fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour), who spoke immediately before the hon. Member who had just sat down. On the subject of the Colonial Defence Commission the hon. and gallant Member had spoken with, perhaps, a natural apprehension that the appointment of this Commission would lead to an increased expenditure on fortifications in various parts of the world. Now, the object with which the Commission was appointed was rather that they had found in 1878, when the country was in a state of tension, and war did not appear to be probably very far distant, that there were a number of small fortifications in various places which took a large amount of stores and not an inconsiderable number of men to defend them, and which would not, under modern conditions, be of any great importance. It was thought desirable that the general question should be con-
    1794
    sidered, to ascertain what places could be abandoned without harm to the Public Service—that was to say, what fortifications could be given up, so that the forces they possessed in the Colonies could be concentrated rather on those points that were really important. It was with that view that the Commission was appointed, and to the best of his knowledge it was in that view the Commission had conducted its inquiry. He only mentioned that, because it seemed to him that the apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, though by no means unfounded in some respects, had no foundation in this respect. It was reasonable to hope that the Report of the Commission, far from being averse to expenditure, would be one more likely to lead to economy than the reverse, and if acted upon would tend to the development of the strength of the Empire.
    MR. BRANDsaid, that as to the increase of expenditure it was more apparent than real. Regimental and Departmental pay, which showed an increase of £12,384, was formerly charged under Vote 1, whereas now it was charged under Vote 13. With regard to Netley Hospital, there had been a Report as to lifts there. Shortly afterwards an accident had occurred, but it was not of a very serious nature. A minute inquiry was made, the result of which was to prove that the accident had occurred in consequence of one of the chains slipping. He had now instructed the Inspector General to make a careful inquiry as to the cost of providing lifts on the hydraulic principle. The other point referred to had been brought under consideration.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDasked whether, in regard to the new lifts, care would be taken that they should be of an adequate size?
    MR. BRANDsaid, he had not yet committed himself to the putting up of new lifts. What he said was that he should inquire as to what would be the probable cost of having them fitted up; if it was decided to adopt new lifts he would take care to bear in mind the observation of the hon. Member.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there was a point to which he wished to draw attention which, so far as he could see, he should not be able to raise on any other Vote—namely, the question of

    1795
    the depôt centres which were building, or had been built. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a sum of £3,000,000 had been voted for these depôt centres when Lord Cardwell was Secretary of State for War. Well, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) failed any where to find in the Estimates an account of how that money was expended; they were entitled to know how much of it had been spent, how many barracks had been built, what barracks were still contemplated, and whether it was the intention of the Government to construct all those works which were at first planned? He did not know whether he was in Order in raising the point on this Vote; but he saw no other opportunity of being able to do so. Building of this kind was going on all over the country, and in some places large buildings were being constructed, like those at Bedford; and he thought hon. Members were entitled to know how this money was being expended, particularly as at this moment there was considerable discussion as to the wisdom of such operations. There was great difference of opinion as to whether it was wise to have the men scattered up and down in so many depots, or whether it would not be wiser to have fewer depot centres, and the men more concentrated.
    COLONEL DIGBYwished to draw attention to the hospital of the Foot Guards. Two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), in introducing the Army Estimates, stated that he was going to introduce a scheme for building a large hospital in London for the Foot Guards. Perhaps he (Colonel Digby) was wrong in saying for the Foot Guards alone, the undertaking having probably been for the whole of the troops in London. At present the arrangements were in an unsatisfactory condition, and he should like to know what the views of the Government were on the subject?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid he could not give the hon. and gallant Member any de·tailed information on the point he raised; but he believed the Annual Military Localization of Forces Account showed the expenditure raised for that purpose. He believed that account had been before the Committee. He was sorry he could not go more fully into the matter at that moment.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that no doubt it was true the noble Marquess could not give them that information at the present moment; but he would point out that the account to which he referred did not tell them what works were going on, but what had been expended. In 1871, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelet) had protested as strongly as he could against £3,000,000 being granted; and he had pointed out that they would never know how much of that was being spent—that year after year would pass without adequate knowledge being conveyed to the House as to what was being done. Surely it would not be too much to ask for a statement as to how the money was being expended, and what was being done every year?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that perhaps he might state that the whole amount granted—to be raised entirely by loan—was £3,600,000, and that out of that sum there only remained £260,000 unexpended. As to the account, it was laid before Parliament every year, and was placed before the Public Accounts Committee, of which the hon. and gallant Baronet was himself a prominent Member. With regard to what work was being done, he might say that very little at present was being done, since the 70 brigade depôts, the construction of which was provided for in the amount granted, were now nearly complete.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, the question with regard to the hospitals had not been answered, and that if no statement was made with regard to the item, though they had taken over three hospitals—that of the Grenadier Guards, the Fusiliers, and the Coldstream Guards—they would be entitled to raise the question on the Report of the Medical Committee which had been sitting at the War Office. Sir John M'Cormick had intimated in his Report that it had been recommended that the Guards' hospital should be amalgamated with the general hospital for the whole of the troops in the London district, and that at the present moment the officers of the Guards were the lessees of the existing hospital, their lease extending 17 years. The Report stated that, as yet, nothing had been done.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLwished to know whether the noble Marquess, or his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Brand),

    1797
    could say whether or not there was a sum set apart for the insurance of these hospitals?
    MR. BRAND: The Government does not insure these buildings.
    COLONEL DIGBY: May I ask what is the intention of the Government with regard to these hospitals?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been misunderstood, for he had only been alluding to the closing of the Stock Purse Fund, and not to the building of a large hospital. There was no intention of building a large hospital for the Guards, and the question pending was whether the War Office should take over the hospitals now occupied by the Grenadier, Coldstream, and Scots Guards? He had had the advantage of communicating with the solicitor of the Grenadier Guards, Mr. Farrer, and with Colonel Moncrieff of the Scots Guards, as to their respective positions. He was able to assure the Committee that, to the best of his belief, the Government would be able to wind up and close the whole question during the present Session. Full compensation would be given to the officers for the unexpired term of their leases, and those who had left the Guards—as, for instance, Major General Gipps—on promotion, while the question was pending, would lose nothing by the delay in settling the matter.
    COLONEL STANLEYasked if the hon. Member would be able to give further information—as the Medical Vote was discussed—when Vote 4 came on?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he should be happy to give fuller information upon that Vote.
    GENERAL OWEN WILLIAMSwished to have some information as to the amount taken for Dockyard defences. The Estimates seemed to him to be very large.
    MR. BRANDsaid, the only amount it was proposed to take this year was £7,000.
    COLONEL TOTTENHAMsaid, it was stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brand) that it was not the practice to insure Government buildings. Was that the case with all Government buildings?
    MR. BRAND: Yes; the Government does not insure any Government buildings; the buildings insure themselves.
    Vote agreed to
    (6.) £127,300, Establishments for Military Education.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War and of the Committee to a point of considerable importance bearing on the examination of the candidates for first commissions in the Army. During last spring, in the month of April, be thought between 200 and 300—nearer 300, he thought, than 200—were competing for some 30 commissions in the Army. It was obvious that, under these circumstances, very few of these candidates could possibly succeed; and what he wished to ask the noble Marquess was whether he would do anything for these young men, or, at any rate, for some of them, who had failed from no fault of their own? Their case was one of peculiar hardship. The examination in which they failed—the present final examination—was a new one. It was introduced, he believed, some two years age, no doubt with the view of still further weeding and eliminating from the list a large number of the already too numerous candidates. He thought most Members of the Committee would be of opinion that this excessive multiplication of examinations was the very curse of the Service. What did they want with three examinations for first commissions in the Army? Surely the preliminary and the second examination should be sufficient to test the merits and qualifications of any candidate for a commission in the Army. Moreover, he had to complain that this last final examination had had on some of these candidates who failed an overdue retrospective action, and in this way. At the time this final examination was first instituted some of these candidates who had failed the other day had already passed the preliminary examination; and, as they had since succeeded in passing the second examination, it necessarily followed that, by the rules prevailing at that time, they would now have been entitled to hold commissions in Her Majesty's Service. The examination of which he spoke was, probably, not very difficult. It consisted, he believed, for the most part, besides a few other subjects, in a certain number of not very difficult questions on military law and tactics. That circumstance was of no avail—it rather en-

    1799
    hanced the difficulties where the competitors were so many and the prizes were so few. He was told by the Examiners, where all answered well, or, at least, correctly, they were in the habit of placing at the top of the list those candidates whom they said, to use their own expression, "answered in the best form." That system, he maintained, was excessively unsatisfactory as regarded the parents of the candidates. If the parents were called upon to pay large sums of money to "crammers" for the purpose of imparting technical education to their sons, which, in the event of their subsequent failure to pass for the Army, was of no possible use to them in future life, therefore the whole, or most, of the time and money those candidates expended on their preparation for this examination was really thrown away. This system was also exceedingly demoralizing to the candidates themselves, who became disgusted, and lapsed into habits of idleness. When the various regiments of Militia were called out for training the "crammers" suspended their course of instruction, and these young gentlemen, who, with regard to them, stood in statu pupillari, were called upon to join in giving expensive inspection luncheons, in consequence of which they contracted habits of extravagance, and, at the conclusion of the training, they returned with no very great zest or zeal to their studies, which they regarded as not very congenial. But, further, most of these young gentlemen had no interest in the Militia—they were only birds of passage, so to speak, and their only object was to obtain commissions in the Army. Therefore, he would ask the noble Marquess if he would do something for the candidates who were rejected at the last examination from no fault of their own; and whether he would make some changes in the mode in which candidates now entered the Army from the Militia?
    COLONEL MILNE HOMEsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend had drawn attention to a point of very great interest in connection with the Army at the present time. He wished to call attention to the vacancies which existed in the Cavalry regiments. He believed that some short time ago there were no less than 50 such vacancies, although one might hear from many Cavalry officers that there were plenty of good men
    1800
    ready to enter the regiments if they could but pass the examinations. He, therefore, recommended that those candidates for Cavalry regiments who were approved in every sense by the Commanding Officers should be permitted to go in, not for a competitive, but a qualifying examination. He was willing that that examination should be made as strict as was necessary; but he was opposed to the candidates being put to an unnecessary expense for cramming and going up to examinations which they could not pass, and which unfitted them for everything else. They had abolished Purchase in the Army, and thereby endeavoured to cheapen the profession of the soldier; but, unless he were mistaken, the cost of cramming for the Army very often cost as much as an ensign's commission in an Infantry regiment. This was a most serious question, so far as the Cavalry regiments were concerned; and he ventured to hope the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would give it his earnest attention, in order to find some means of filling up the existing vacancies in these regiments. He begged to assure the Committee that the work in the Cavalry regiments pressed very heavily upon those who had to do it, in consequence of its having to be performed by a comparatively small number of officers. Again, after officers were appointed to their regiments they were absolutely pestered with the examinations they were called upon to pass, and the consequence was that the ordinary work of the regiments was thrown upon the other officers. In this way far more than a fair share of the work was thrown upon the officers serving in the regiments. He rose simply for the purpose of asking that something might be done to fill up the vacancies he had referred to.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Marquess to the disadvantageous circumstances under which young men were examined for the Artillery. He believed that about 120 young men came up last week for the Artillery examination. They were examined in a room in Westminster Palace Hotel, in which he felt sure the President of the Council of Education would not have allowed as many school children to be brought together; the windows had to be kept open on

    1801
    account of the heat, and the noise of the trains on the Underground Railway and the traffic in the streets made the voices of the Examiners inaudible. Under these circumstances, a great number of the young men, more sensitive than others, did not stand a fair chance in the examination. He asked the attention of the noble Marquess to the practice he had described, and he trusted that in future the examinations for the Artillery would take place at Burlington House, as in the case of the other Army examinations.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, so far as he was aware, no change of importance connected with the examinations for the Army had occurred since he went to the War Office. His hon. and gallant Friend was under the impression that there was a difference three months ago.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he knew that one candidate was rejected in April who had passed the preliminary examination before this final examination was instituted.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could only repeat that no change of importance, that he knew of, had taken place since he had been at the War Office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken could hardly expect him to be aware of the system of examination in its details; but he would confer with the Director of Military Education with reference to the points to which his attention had been called, in order to ascertain if any redress could be given.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, some of the existing arrangements were absolutely inconsistent with men who obtained commissions being made into good officers. He was certain they were asking the young men of the present day to do more than was necessary in the way of fitting themselves for the position of officers. The present system, he maintained, would result in the loss to the Service of the best men—men of the class who would make the best officers. Again, going to officers serving in the Army, the regimental officers were kept back, while men who had passed through the Staff College were, in every way, advanced before them. He admitted that it was an advantage for officers who knew their regimental work to go to the Staff College; but
    1802
    many men, although they had passed through that College well, were quite unfit for regimental service. He regarded a good deal of the education given at the Staff College as useless for practical purposes; it had nothing to do with the duties which the officer had to perform. There were some subjects which, for military purposes, it was more important that a man should learn than all the mathematics in the world; and he said that if men were required to spend their time in learning to measure the distances to the sun and the moon they would never be able to command even a small number of men in the field. It was a mischief to carry that system too far; because it was well known they had not young men to fill up the vacancies in the Cavalry Regiments, and his hon. and gallant Friend on the Treasury Bench knew well that there were men who had passed through the Staff College to whom the authorities at the War Office dared not give a command.
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONsaid, a certain number of Queen's Cadetships were given every year to the sons of distinguished combatant officers of the Army who were living; others were given to the sons of combatant and noncombatant officers who had died in the Service. But none were given to the sons of medical officers who were living. This latter class, however, said that they did not want to die, and they would rather see their sons in the Army before that event took place. He trusted that the gift of the Queen's Cadetships would be extended to the non-combatant officers he had referred to.
    Vote agreed to.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
    (7.) £864,800, Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he thought the Committee had some reason to complain of the course taken by the Government in reference to the Navy Estimates. On the 7th of May last the Committee were engaged in discussing Vote 2. Progress on that occasion was reported at a late hour of the night, on the understanding that the discussion on that particular Vote should be continued when the Committee met again. He asked at

    1803
    the commencement of the evening whether they would be in Order in taking Vote 15; and Mr. Speaker ruled that the Government were in Order in so doing, and that it was not altogether a question of Order, but a question of the convenience of the House. His contention was that on the occasion he was referring to the Committee were given distinctly to understand, when Progress was reported, that the Business was to be taken up at the particular stage reached. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War was then acting as Leader of the House, and he consented that the discussion on matters connected with the personnel of the Navy should, as in former years, take place on Vote 2. But the Government had now left that Vote altogether, and passed on to Vote 15. His objection to that proceeding was not on the ground of irregularity, but because it would result in the Estimates being put off until it was, for various reasons, too late to discuss them efficiently. The Committee were now asked to grant a certain sum of money, and when it was granted he know very well that the promised opportunity for discussion would be postponed till the month of August. They had always been told that the Navy Estimates should be brought forward at an early period; but, as a matter of fact, they had never been discussed before the first week in August. He submitted that, in the course they were now taking, the Government were not acting properly in this matter, and that the Navy Estimates ought to be discussed at a period of the evening when Members were likely to be present who took an interest in the questions that would be raised. He thought that Progress might that evening have been reported on the Army Estimates at half-past 10 o'clock, for the purpose of proceeding with the Navy Estimates.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he hoped some assurance would be given from the Treasury Bench that the claims of the widow of the late Captain Brownrigg had not been forgotten, and that she had received some consideration for the gallant manner in which her husband lost his life, as had been promised on a former occasion.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, the circumstance referred to by the right hon. and gallant Admiral occurred
    1804
    before he held his present Office, and the case had not come before him. Under the circumstances, he was unable to reply to the question put to him; but he would inquire into the matter and give an answer on Report.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £876,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Military Pensions and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, he might refer under this Vote, which related to pensions, to a new Circular which had been issued by the Admiralty dealing with engine-room artificers. By that Circular, these men had to serve two years more in order to acquire a pension. Hitherto they had been entered for 10 years, and then re-entered for 10 years, while by this new Circular men who had served 10 years were required to serve 12 years more. The effect had been that out of 600 men not a dozen had re-entered; and one reason why they had not re-entered had been this — that the effect of this Circular would be to defer their rise of pay. The number of artificers entered from 1873 to 1876 was 96 — those had obtained their second rise of pay; but under this new Circular their next rise of pay was to be deferred until the completion of the 12th year. They would be deprived of 3d. per day for two years, or 2s. 6d. per man. Then, between the latter part of 1876 to 1882, 313 men joined, and those men would be mulcted of £4 11 s. 3d. each, which was 3d. per day for one year, before they got their next rise, and then would be deprived of 3d. per day for two years before they got their subsequent rise. In all, this loss amounted to £13 13 s. 9d. per man for men of this class. The loss to the men was something enormous. Men who had joined from 1872 to 1882 would lose to the amount of £5,755 6s. 3d. Surely a mistake like that would not be allowed to continue; and he should be glad to hoar some explanation of it from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he thought they were entitled to more ample opportunities for the discussion of the ques-

    1805
    tions that were raised in connection with the Navy Estimates. This was a question which they should be placed in a position to consider a little more exhaustively than was then possible. The Prime Minister had said that an entire evening should be devoted to the Navy Estimates, and if that was still the intention of the Government, he did not wish to prolong the present discussion; but if these brief snatches of time only were to be placed at their disposal, then he should follow his hon. Friend opposite fully into the question he had raised with reference to the effect of the recent Circular upon the pay of these engine-room artificers. But his desire was to allow the Vote to pass, on the understanding that another opportunity would be given to discuss the point raised by his hon. Friend as well as other kindred matters.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) found fault with the Government for not going on with the consideration of Vote 2. He begged to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the reason for the course they were now following was the convenience of the House; because it might otherwise have been alleged that insufficient time was allowed for the discussion which hon. Members desired to take upon that Vote. The money now asked for by the Government was necessary for the pay of the Navy, and he had not anticipated that, under the circumstances of the case, any discussion would have been raised on the present occasion. It was not unnatural that his hon. Friend behind him (Mr.Macliver) should have said something on the subject of the recent Circular, so far as its effect upon the wages of engine-room artificers was concerned; but he thought it would be much better that this question should be considered when they reached Vote 2.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, if it were understood that another opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of the question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought that it would be better to go into the matter when that opportunity presented itself.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it was impossible for the Government, notwithstanding the statement just made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, to make sure of a discussion on
    1806
    Vote 2 on all the subjects connected with the Navy which hon. Members would have to refer to. The difficulty they were placed in was this. The Admiralty asked for £2,000,000, which would meet their expenditure during the months of July and August; and unless the House continued to sit into September he felt sure that the general discussion of the Navy Estimates which had been promised would probably be postponed until the next Session of Parliament. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) complained of the invariable delay which took place in bringing forward the Navy Estimates. The result of that delay was that the Estimates were year after year shunted until the and of the Session, the Government, in the meantime, having obtained without the least trouble all the supplies they wanted. It was true that when the end of the Session approached the Estimates would be brought forward; but hon. Members would then find that no one was present to discuss them. The rest of the money would then be taken for the Shipbuilding Vote and the Vote for the matériel of the Navy, and so the general discussion that was to have taken place would be again put off indefinitely. The fact was, this was really not the way in which Public Business ought to be conducted. He did not blame the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) in the slightest degree; but he considered that the £10,000,000 required for the service of the Navy ought not to be voted in a slipshod manner. Two nights only had been given to the discussion. The general discussion had not yet been completed. He was sure that those who were present upon the two last occasions would not say that there was any prolonged or unnecessary discussion. The Government were now asking for £2,000,000 without any discussion whatever, which would adjourn the proper discussion of the Navy Estimates until the time when no one was present.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, the Prime Minister had given an assurance that night that the Government would take care that an opportunity would be given for resuming the discussion of the Navy Estimates. That promise would be fulfilled. There was no intention that the Votes should be put

    1807
    off until the end of August; but, of course, the Prime Minister was unable to state a definite day on which they would again be taken. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, promised that the House should shortly have an opportunity given to it for discussing Naval matters. Two nights had already been given for discussing Navy Estimates; and if the first night was not a full one, it was not the fault of the Government, but owing to the fact that a Motion was brought on before the Estimates.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that if they were very soon to have a discussion on the Navy Estimates it would be better the hon. Gentleman should only take £1,000,000 instead of £2,000,000; £1,000,000 would last him all through July, and then the Committee would be assured that the promise of the Prime Minister would be necessarily fulfilled before the closing days of the Session. That was the proper Constitutional course to take.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that, in my opinion, the question raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) is in no wise relative to Vote 2. That is the Vote on which he may properly raise the question.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, in reference to what had fallen from his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) as to the pledge given by the Primo Minister that they should have an early day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates, he might remind the Committee that the Prime Minister had said that they intended to go on continuously with the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. That alone precluded them from any chance of reexamining and considering the Navy Estimates at an early day.
    MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, he understood that on the last occasion when the Estimates were before the Committee he could introduce the question of the engine-room artificers upon the present Vote. The Chairman had now ruled that it could not be taken except under Vote 2. What he wanted particularly to call attention to was, that of the 600 engine-room artificers not a dozen of them had consented to re-enter
    1808
    the Service, on account of the irregular character and the obnoxious regulations of the Circular recently issued. He would like to know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) meant to modify the terms of the Circular or not?
    CAPTAIN PRICEconsidered that Votes 1 and 2 were proper Votes on which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) could very properly raise questions with regard to the engine-room artificers. As concerned the Vote immediately before the Committee, he (Captain Price) desired to say one or two words regarding the rating of chief petty officers. That was a question strictly of pensions. He believed he was correct in saying—and he was sure the Secretary to the Admiralty would. correct him if he was wrong—that reports had been made to the Admiralty, by officers in Her Majesty's Service, that there was a difficulty in getting men to take the rating of a chief petty officer. Generally speaking, that rating was offered to men of 14 or 15 years' service, just four or five years before they retired from the Service. There was great difficulty in getting them to come forward, and for this reason—that there was no difference made in the pensions of the men from what they would receive if they remained in the Service simply as petty officers. A man had to consider what gain it would be to him to take the rating with the increased responsibility of chief petty officer. He had an increase of pay amounting to 5d. per day. So far so good; but, on the other hand, he had to provide himself with a new uniform, and that cost him £13. He was allowed to sell his old one, which brought him in about £2; so that altogether he was £11 out of pocket. It therefore took him about 18 months of his increased pay before he could meet the cost of the uniform; so that naturally what a chief petty officer looked forward to was his pension. That was the root of the difficulty. They did not get proper men to come forward. Captains of ships and Admirals of ports had almost to press young men—men who were not fitted for the rating—to take the rating of chief petty officer, because the officers who had had long experience would not take it for the reason he (Captain Price) had indicated. He hoped the Secretary

    1809
    to the Admiralty would be able to say whether the Admiralty had considered the matter, and if they had come to any decision. He trusted he had made the case clear; it was a very simple one, and he hoped the effects were as he had stated. If they could not get proper men to take the rating, they must look for the reasons; and if the reasons were as he believed them to be, it was a fair case for some amelioration to be given.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee were at some disadvantage by the ruling just given. It was clearly understood when Vote 1 was passed, that the Committee would be allowed on Vote 2 to range over the whole Estimate as if Vote 1 had not been passed. He was, therefore, quite startled to learn that they would be debarred, when they came to Vote 2, from giving the discussion the range which was distinctly understood it might take. He considered that the discussion had disclosed what he believed to be very grave irregularities in connection with the Estimates. It seemed to him most improper that the Government should, on an occasion like this, take Votes for £2,000,000 for Half-Pay and Pensions, and should feel at liberty to apply that money over the whole range of the Naval Service. He believed that was thoroughly and entirely unconstitutional, although he knew it was not unusual. And it appeared to him that a very great improvement upon the Constitutional practices of the House would take place if they insisted upon the Government of the day expending only the money which the House of Commons voted. Now-a-days they got Votes of this description for one set of Services, and they spent the money upon other sets; and they felt themselves at liberty to postpone the full discussion on the Naval Estimates to a period in the Session when it could not be properly discussed. His opinion was that the House would do well, if instead of passing, as it sometimes did, abstract Resolutions in favour of economy, it asserted its control over the expenditure, and only allowed that specific expenditure which it had voted. Now, he wished to say a word or two upon the Vote which was now before them. He should only say a word or two, and that by way of protest. It had been the fashion lately for hon. Members on the
    1810
    other side of the House to accuse hon. Members on the Ministerial side of saying things out of the House which they dared not say in the House. Now, he wished to state in the House, more strongly than he had ever stated out of it, that his objection was to that lavish expenditure—that increasing expenditure—of the public money upon the Non-Effective Services. He took the trouble that evening to look through the Votes of that year, so as to find out how much the Government considered they could afford to spend upon the additions to their Iron-clad Fleet. He found that, upon making a liberal estimate, the whole amount they proposed to spend on their iron-clads was but £1,000,000. What, however, they proposed to expend upon half-pay and pensions was £2,000,000. It did seem to him a most deplorable thing that, while the Votes of Parliament for the necessary and efficient performance of the Public Service and the keeping the country in its proper position should be subject to diminution, the Vote for Non-Effective Service should go on increasing year by year. It would be a shame and a disgrace that Parliament should separate and dissolve without taking some active stop for the purpose of checking the Government in continually increasing this Vote for half-pay and pensions. He knew he did not get much support in a matter of this kind; but he was satisfied the Public Service was suffering immensely from the present state of things. He wished it to be clearly understood that in saying that he was not opposing in the abstract and generally half-pay and pensions; but what he did oppose was the very extraordinary and constant growth of the expenditure under that head. He maintained that there was no Service in the world which could go on continuously increasing the appropriation of money to persons for doing nothing without arriving at a grave and unexpected disadvantage. He did not know whether they would receive that night from the Secretary to the Admiralty any encouragement to believe that the Government were taking any measures with the view of checking the growth of expenditure under that head. He recognized perfectly well the importance and magnitude of the question, and he know also that a prospective reduction of those Votes was a matter

    1811
    of great difficulty. But he did not think it would be satisfactory to hon. Members of the Committee to be told that those Votes must go on increasing merely because it was difficult to prevent their growth. He considered that was a question which the Government ought to face; and he, for his part, found it difficult to give anything like cordial or hearty support to any Administration whatever which passed over a subject that had become one of grave scandal, seeing that in the course of a few years it was shown, by the Return obtained by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes), that wasteful expenditure had nearly doubled. He thought he would receive much support, on the contention that it amounted to a public scandal, that while they saw the nation could only afford to spend £1,000,000 a-year on improving their Fleet, they spent no less a sum than £2,000,000 upon people who did nothing at all. If they could receive any encouragement from the Government to look for a diminution he should be glad; if not, and providing he could get reasonable encouragement, they would be justified in trying next year to carry some adverse Resolution.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) expresses some surprise at my view with regard to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver). It is strictly in accord with the Rules of this House, as they have been practised for several years. The hon. Member for Plymouth has raised a question which was referred to distinctly and specifically in the Vote before the Committee, and which Vote was announced in the Orders of the Day. This is clearly a proper occasion to bring it forward. It is not proper to refer to it on Vote 2, to which it has no relevancy whatever.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he did not understand his hon. Friend (Sir Edward J. Reed) to throw any doubt—in fact, he would have been behaving in an improper way if he had done so—upon the ruling of the Chair. While admitting that the decision of the Chair was in accordance with the Rules of the House, his hon. Friend alluded to the fact that there was an understanding among Members of the Committee as to the mode of arranging the discus-
    1812
    sion. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought the Chairman said on a previous occasion that questions might be dealt with under Vote 2 which were strictly not in Order under that Vote, if there was a general agreement in the House that that should be allowed—and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought there was that general agreement at the time. With regard to the subject of half-pay and pensions, raised by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward J. Reed), he could assure his hon. Friend that there was no one who looked upon the whole system of pensions with greater distrust and suspicion than he did himself. But, whatever they might think of the results of the system, they could not deny it was a system upon which the whole Public Service was built; and if there were those large Votes for Military and. Naval and Civil pensions, it was because they had induced officers and men to enter the Service many years ago on the understanding that there was so much pay and so much pension. That might be, or it might not be, a wasteful and improper way of conducting the Public Services. He dared say there was a good deal to be said in favour of paying a man the full amount he earned, and getting rid of the bargain of paying him a pension. But, unfortunately, whatever might be the merits of the question which was now raised it would only affect those who entered the Service in the future. The men who were now serving, and whose pensions formed the burden of the complaint, were men in regard to whom they were bound to carry out their obligations. The Government had no power to affect the growth of that Vote, as far as officers and men now serving in the Army and Navy were concerned. He bad one little crumb of comfort to give his hon. Friend, which was this—that in this year there occurred a cessation of the first Terminable Annuities in connection with the commutation of pensions, in consequence of which there was a saving this year to the extent of £17,898. That decrease would go on year by year for some time to come. He would also point out that the Government proposed, if Parliament would agree to it, to make a slight alteration in the service of the seamen who were to be engaged in the future, which would defer the period when they would become entitled to pensions. That was

    1813
    a step in the direction which his hon. Friend desired to see followed. But as to any sweeping reduction of that Vote, it was perfectly impossible it could be accomplished; because the nation had made certain contracts with officers and men, who were now serving in the Army and Navy, and it was bound, of course, to discharge its obligations.
    MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, he wished his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had gone one step further. It was a debatable question whether the system of pensions was one really necessary for the Public Service. As a matter of fact, he considered that one of the evils of their Service was that they had about double the number of officers to any other civilized nation in the world. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought he could make good his statement. In the German Army they had only about half the number of officers that we had. [Mr. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: No, no.] The fact was so notorious that he could not imagine anyone but the hon. Member for Eye doubting it for a moment. For his own part, he thought that if they could have public attention turned to the over-officering of the Navy and Army they would not only have a direct and large public saving in that direction, but also in another direction. He did not complain that there was too large a sum for the Non-Effective Services, as compared with the sum voted for the iron-clads and other implements of destruction; but he did consider that, in this country and all other countries, if it were not that the officers had an overwhelming influence in the maintenance of large Standing Armies, the public purse would be largely relieved of a great deal of the expenditure which was now regarded as necessary.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, of course he need not say he had any idea of proposing a reduction of anybody's pension who was entitled to a pension. His only desire was to prevent the introduction of any principle by which the Pension List would grow in the future. There was no difficulty in showing that the expenditure which they were providing for the future, upon the personnel of the Navy, was out of all proportion to the number of ships the nation had. As he understood the Chairman's ruling, it was necessary to take that part of the question now, because it could
    1814
    not be resumed on Vote 2; but he did not understand that ruling to limit the discussion to victuals and clothing on Vote 2.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he thought it desirable that the Committee should distinctly understand whether, if this subject was brought up on Vote 2, the Chairman would rule that out of Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I thought I had made matters perfectly clear. I said that the Motion of the hon. Member, which distinctly referred to this Vote, having been raised, it would be irregular to stop it at this point and relegate it to a Vote to which it has no relevancy.
    MR. PULESTONwished to know whether, when the subject was brought up again, the Chairman would rule that to be out of Order? Upon that would depend the course he would take now.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am unable to explain myself with greater clearness than I have already done three times.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he thought the Committee were getting a little mixed. It was about time they should review, and if possible reform, their procedure on the Navy Estimates. Vote 1 was wages for Seamen and Marines; but that was the Vote upon which the Minister introduced the Estimates, and covered all the ground connected with the Estimates, and hon. Members, in reply, covered the same ground, and discussed not only the question of wages, but shipbuilding, and pensions, and every matter connected with the Navy. It was found, however, that there was not time in one night to discuss all these matters; and the Government being anxious to get their money, Vote I was tacitly passed on the first night, with the understanding that on Vote 2 the same discussion should be renewed. As a matter of fact, on the last occasion they discussed very freely on Vote 2 the question of the matériel of the Navy chiefly in regard to shipbuilding, and then reported Progress, on the understanding that on the resumption of the debate on Vote 2 only questions relating to the personnel of the Navy should be discussed; but that meant not only that they should discuss pay, but also pensions, so that he took it when they came to Vote 2 it would be open to them to discuss every question relating to the Navy. He hoped that, as had hitherto been the case, when they came

    1815
    to that Vote, they would be at liberty to discuss such a question as that which had been raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver)—namely, that of the engine·room artificers, and their pay and pensions.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, that, whatever was right or wrong in this matter, many of the Dockyard Representatives were absent to-night, on the understanding reiterated by the Prime Minister, that all these matters would be discussed on Vote 2. He respectfully repeated his question whether, on Vote 2, these questions would be ruled out of Order? Because upon the reply to that question would depend his action now.
    MR. CALLANasked, whether, as a matter of procedure, it was in Order for the Government or the Front Opposition Bench, the Chairman having ruled that the question of pensions could be raised only on Vote 15, to make Rules to suit their own convenience, and discuss any matter but that which was before the Committee?
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the matter before the Committee showed the great inconvenience of the course the Government had taken. The result of taking Votes 15 and 16 had been to entirely overturn the agreement which the Government had made. He was sure the Chairman's ruling commended itself to everyone present. Votes 15 and 16 had been brought before the Committee, and subjects relevant to them must be discussed upon this Vote. No doubt, upon Votes 1 and 2 the whole Naval arrangements had, as a matter of convenience, been discussed; but if, by arrangements which were excessively inconvenient, two Votes were taken without discussion to enable the Government to obtain £2,000,000, it was evident that none of the subjects appertaining to Votes 15 and 16 could be again discussed on Vote 2, in anticipation of Votes 15 and 16, which had already been discussed. The breaking of the arrangement which had been come to with the House did not rest with the regulations of the Committee, which they must all adhere to. It rested with the Government, who had come down and, in anticipation of the necessities of the Service, had appropriated £2,000,000 to be devoted to paying pensions and shipbuilding which were in arrear. That would keep
    1816
    them going during July and August; so that, although he recognized the desire of the Prime Minister to give an early day, what with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill and other matters, such an opportunity would not arrive until well on in August. By that time the £2,000,000 would be exhausted, and so would the attention of Members, and the Government would be able to take the rest of the money without discussion. Subjects relating to Votes 15 and 16 could not be discussed now; but he asked the Chairman whether, with reference to other subjects not appertaining to those Votes, the arrangement would still continue?
    THE CHAIRMAN: There was, no doubt, what I must call an understanding—but that cannot be considered as of the importance of the Rules of the House—that on Vote 2 a general discussion was to be permitted; but, in the meanwhile, this question has been raised by the hon. Member on the Vote to which it strictly applies; and, therefore, it would not be proper, in my judgment, to relegate it to a Vote to which it has no relevance. I should consider that I was carrying out the Rules of the House, and of the Committee, if I gave a general effect to that understanding, which was accepted. It seems to me to be the general wish that there should be some discussion on Vote 2, somewhat of the nature of the discussion on Vote 1; but, clearly, it would not extend to matters which had been brought forward in their proper order.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought there was a little misunderstanding upon this question. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had referred to certain Orders or Circulars with regard to engineers and artificers, and the period at which they would be entitled to pensions. It appeared to him that the conditions under which engineers and artificers and other servants of the Crown might apply for pensions, were conditions which might properly be discussed on a Vote which concerned such distinct employment. This Vote was understood to apply to the payment not by way of food, but by making provision for those public servants; and the conditions under which they would cease to receive payment directly, and become eligible for pensions, clearly entered into the terms of their engage-

    1817
    ment. He, therefore, submitted that it would be proper that the Circulars should be discussed when Vote 2 came on again; and he concurred with his hon. Friend that there was considerable inconvenience in interrupting a discussion of this character by another Vote, such as that presented to·night. He was sure the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that it was not desirable to have this interposition; and it would be much better that on another occasion they should be allowed to proceed regularly with the Estimates, and go through with a discussion that had been begun, because great less of time and inconvenience resulted from this interruption. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) appeared to think that the Navy was vastly over-officered, and that the effect was to greatly increase the charge on the public purse for the Navy, in excess of what was necessary for the Public Service; but if the hon. Member should some day be called upon to perform some of the duties in relation to the Navy—as he hoped he some day would be—he would form a very different view upon this question. He himself believed there was no excess of officers in the Navy whatever; and he said this after carefully considering the matter with the greatest possible desire to effect economies in the administration of the Public Service. He was convinced there could be no greater inconvenience than that there should be any excess of any expenditure which could be avoided; but with the advance of science, and with the increased demand for engines, there was much greater employment and necessity for younger officers in the Navy. Where in old days three lieutenants were required in a ship, there was now ample work and necessity for four or five. These officers had to be employed in their younger days, and some provision must be made for them afterwards. They could not be turned adrift after 10 or 15 years' service, to make their way in the world as best they could. There was no excess of officers at present; and if, unfortunately, they found themselves bound to go to war, there would be some difficulty in finding a sufficient number of qualified officers for the ships they would have to put into active service; and he was sure his opinion would be confirmed by those
    1818
    who were now responsible for the conduct of Her Majesty's Navy. Although he regretted that there should be so large a charge for the Non-Effective Service, he was afraid that was part of the conditions of the engagements into which they had entered with these men; and that if they were to do away with the system of pensions now in operation, they would have enormously to increase their rates of pay. These were provisions which offered very small rewards for zeal, and intelligence, and education, and devotion to the Service; and it was quite certain that if men were exposed to the chance of being dismissed from employment to which they had devoted themselves, at the age of 35 or 40 years, there would be greater difficulty, in the first instance, in finding men, and, next, it would be necessary to very largely increase the pay; and even then he doubted whether the country would be as well served as it was at the present time. With regard to the conditions under which the blue-jackets entered the Service, he was glad to find than an endeavour was to be made to extend the period when they would be entitled to pensions. He believed that the Service would be greatly benefited by that postponement in every way. The blue jackets jackets would acquire a greater responsibility, and would thus improve the Service; it would lessen the charges for the Service, and there might be economy in giving higher pensions after 25 years' service, instead of after 20 years' service, as at present. The effect on the lower deck men would tend greatly to the improvement of the discipline and tone of the ships. He regretted that hon. Members, who had not any personal knowledge of the Service, had spoken, as they sometimes had, of officers who deserved all credit, and the most complete confidence of the country; for he was sure that anyone who had any knowledge of the sacrifices these men made could thoroughly appreciate the extent of the demands of the Service upon these officers in times of emergency and difficulty.
    MR. ONSLOWwished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what he meant by saying that he was a convert against the system of pensions? In this Vote there were pensions to officers for good and meritorious services; pensions for conspicuous bravery by engineers and

    1819
    warrant officers; pensions for the widows of naval officers; and gratuities for seamen and marines. Would the hon. Gentleman like to qualify the statement he had made? How far would he go to abolish these pensions? The Secretary of State for War had gone so far as to say that pensions must be increased in the Army. Did the hon. Gentleman intend to do away with pensions in the Navy altogether, or to increase the existing pensions? He thought every officer in the Navy would wish to have some explanation of the statement; and it was due to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman should give some explanation.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, his explanation was that he had not made such a statement. He had explicitly said that nothing that was done with regard to pensions would affect anyone now in the Navy. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) as to petty officers, that matter was now under consideration, and the Admiralty were endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon it. The same thing might be said with regard to the question of engine-room artificers. A complete answer had not been received to the Circular which had been issued; but if the proposal was ultimately found insufficient for its purpose, they would be ready to consider further what should be done.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's statement that he could not give a further answer as to the Circular, under the ruling of the Chairman the matter could not be brought up again; and he, therefore would move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Puleston.)
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. The Committee had been for three-quarters of an hour discussing whether a particular matter could be discussed or not; and the Chairman had distinctly stated that if there was a general understanding that this matter should be alluded to, he would not raise any objection to that being done on Vote 2.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, that was all he wanted to know.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, with regard to the engine-room artificers, their pension was only one point in their case, and, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, it really turned mainly upon the conditions governing their arrival at a pensionable period. It might probably be discussed on Vote 2, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that.
    THE CHAIRMAN: My duty is to carry out the Rules of the House, and there can be no question of what those Rules are in relation to this matter. The question now raised cannot, in my opinion, be referred to on Vote 2. That would be out of Order, were it not that there was a general understanding on the part of hon. Members that when Veto 2 came on I should not interpose. In the meantime, however, the question now raised by the hon. Member has been raised in its proper place, and has been discussed, and it would, therefore, be improper to remove it from that place in order to discuss it on a Vote to which it has no relevancy.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, that, if he rightly understood the Chairman, he meant to say that, so far as the pen·sions of the engine-room artificers were concerned, that question could not be raised again, but that the question of the pay of these people could be discussed again on Vote 2. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman had said? As to the unfair manner in which his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had been referred to, he wished to say this. It had been suggested that his hon. Friend had said something derogatory to some of the officers of Her Majesty's Navy.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to Order. He believed the Motion before the Committee was that the Chairman do report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Under the New Rules the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Question before the Committee
    MR. A. J. BALFOURwished the Chairman to give the Committee some assistance in this matter. It was plain, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), that he had misunderstood the question. If

    1821
    they passed this Vote, this matter could not be raised again; therefore, the passing of the Vote finally closed the discussion, and it would appear that the pledge given by the Prime Minister to the Committee would not be fulfilled—namely, that the whole question of Naval affairs could be discussed on Vote 2. In consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge many hon. Members who were connected with the Dockyards were not now present to take part in the debate. The Government had, unintentionally, no doubt, got themselves and the Committee into this difficulty, and it would be only fair that they should see themselves and the Committee out of it. He would suggest, therefore, the propriety of postponing the Vote.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood it, but only a small part of the case was affected by the consideration about which they had heard so much—namely, the question of the engine-room artificers' pensions. It was only the question of pensions which came under this Vote, and the whole of the rest of the case of the engine-room artificers could be discussed on Vote 2. The Question before the Committee was really whether they should go out of their way, by reporting Progress, to put off the Vote, when really only a small part, even of the case of the engine-room artificers, was involved.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that if the Government would agree to a proposal he had to make, probably the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Puleston) would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. The Government had already obtained Vote 15, and if they would consent to take only the 1st section of Vote 16 they would have £1,500,000, which would be sufficient money to carry them on until the early part of August, and the Vote would be kept open for the subject which hon. Members interested in Dockyards wished to discuss.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was never understood that any part of this Vote should be postponed until the early part of August. The Prime Minister had promised that an early day should be given for the discussion of this Vote; and it would not be in accordance with that understanding if these Estimates were postponed at the end of June until
    1822
    the beginning of August. They could not call the beginning of August an "early day."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) was perfectly right in what he had said. The intention of the Government had certainly not been that this Vote should be taken so late as August, but that it should come on some day in July. It appeared to him that in a particular instance where a certain point had been discussed, as he understood had been the case with the subject of these pensions, it could hardly be supposed that the granting of an interval between the first and second part of the Vote was a question which fell within the spirit of the undertaking of the Government, any more than he understood from the Chairman it fell within the Rules of the Committee.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that certain Members had believed that the general discussion would take place on Vote 2, and they were anxious to discuss, not the general, but a particular question. This particular subject rose on Vote 16. The right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee had ruled that this particular question could not be discussed on Vote 2. The Vote in which it occurred happened to be divided into two parts, and the first part of it had been put by the Chairman, and included a large sum for the expenses of the Navy in addition to the amount already granted. The proposal he made, which was to take the first half of the Vote now, and to leave the second upon which hon. Members wished to raise a specific question, was perfectly legitimate. Hon. Members were not present to raise this specific question in consequence of the pledges of the Government.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that the Prime Minister, in the few observations he had delivered, had given them a good reason why Progress should now be reported, and he did not think that anything which had been said had removed that reason. If the Prime Minister were even to give them a day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates they would be estopped from considering this subject of pensions now, or, at any other time this Session. Hon. Members had been in possession of the field the other day in discussing Vote 2. Under that Vote they could discuss the pensions of all

    1823
    Her Majesty's servants connected with the Navy; but now, if they passed this Vote, or part of it, they would be estopped from discussing the question which they wish to discuss.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I observe in Section 2 there is a Vote taken for artificers, and if that section is not now put, I presume the discussion could be taken on it.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, the engine room artificers' pensions only appeared in part 1.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, there was a large question as to pensions to be gone into.
    MR. PULESTONthought it was a mistake for any hon. Gentleman to suppose that the question of pensions was a small one.
    MR. RAIKEScould not help asking the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would not be economizing time by accepting the Motion for reporting Progress? It was clear the question hon. Members wished to discuss could not be raised on Vote 2. Was there, therefore, anything to be gained by endeavouring to divide Vote 2 into two sections?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 74: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 154.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would venture to ask the Prime Minister to allow Progress to be reported now. It seemed to him that time would be saved by adopting this course, and that there would only be a small amount of discussion on the matter when it came before the Committee again. Undoubtedly, if the Vote were pressed on now, it would involve a great waste of time. A sufficient sum of money had been granted for the Public Service which would prevent any inconvenience whatever being experienced during the interval.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not accede to reporting Progress upon the plea of the right hon. Gentleman, that some hon. Members were not present owing to their not having been aware that the subject was coming on for discussion. However, although the Government could not appreciate the reason given why Progress should be reported, they owed some consideration to the
    1824
    Committee. It had been suggested that if an adjournment were granted the discussion on a subsequent occasion would not be prolonged. To this no one had objected, and he supposed he might take it that silence gave consent. On this understanding he would accede to the wish of a large number of Members.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
    (Mr. Trerelyan.)
    SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].

      [BILL 13 0.] SECOND READING.
      Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th June].
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned to Monday."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
      MR. ONSLOWsaid, before the Bill was postponed he would like to ask whether it was to be put down as the second Order of the Day or not? It appeared quite unexpectedly as the second Order to-day. He would like to know exactly when it was intended to proceed with the Bill. Was it to be put down pro formâ for Monday, or did the Government intend really to proceed with it then?
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill would be the first Order of the Day, and this Bill the second.
      Motion agreed to.
      Adjourned Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (NOMINATIONS) BILL. [BILL 228.]
    (Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Burt, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Northcote.)
    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (NOMINATIONS) BILL. [BILL 228.]

      CONSIDERATION.
      Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
      MR. WHITLEYsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press this Bill now. It was a Bill that contained some details of a serious charac-

      1825
      ter, some of which seemed to him were, by the clauses of the Bill, very difficult to determine. There were some parts of the Bill of which he believed Friendly Societies and Savings Banks approved; but there were other clauses to which they had determined objection. By some of the clauses of the Bill Directors and Managers of Savings Banks were made responsible for the duty payable to Government. It might be true that they were not made legally responsible in one sense; but they objected to the responsibility being thrown on them of saying when duty was payable, and they considered the obligation should not be cast upon them of determining whether a customer had duty to pay, and they preferred that the present system should exist—that in all cases probate or letters of administration should be produced. The only argument against that was that there must be some expense; but by this Bill it was proposed that they should be called upon to pay on legacy receipts, which simply added to the expense. The clause was somewhat confused, because it placed nominations and wills and intestacies in the same category. A nomination for £100 of a person coming with a legacy receipt might be dealt with; but in cases of intestacy or wills there might be five or six legatees to be dealt with, and that was a responsibility the banks objected to. A probate would be granted free of duty up to £100, and therefore there could be very little expense, and it was only when the assets amounted to more than £100 that probate would be payable; and why a legacy duty stamp should be required in addition, it was impossible to conceive. To make banks responsible for paying legatees when there was a simple way of payment by executor or administrator, was a new feature altogether to which Savings Banks decidedly objected. Why were they to be placed in a position so different to other banks? Why were they to make inquiry into the circumstances of their customers?
      MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is discussing the whole of the Bill. According to the Standing Orders the House should properly proceed with the consideration of the Amendments, unless the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill should wish to postpone the Question that the Amendments be now considered. It
      1826
      is properly my duty to call on the Secretary to the Treasury to proceed with his Amendment.
      MR. BUCHANANasked, was it not open to raise the whole question on a Motion for the re-committal of the Bill?
      EARL PERCYasked, was there no means of moving that the Bill be postponed?
      MR. SPEAKER: I will read the new Standing Order in reference to the matter, which will answer the question whether it is possible to move the recommittal of the Bill—
      "When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a Bill as amended in Committee of the Whole House has been read, the House do proceed to consider the same, unless the Member in charge of the Bill shall desire to postpone its consideration, or a Motion is made to re-commit the Bill."
      Therefore, at this stage, a Motion to recommit the Bill could be made.
      MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was in hopes his hon. and learned Friend would agree to a postponement; but that not being so, he begged to move that the Bill be re-committed.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed."—(Mr. Whitley.)
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was in the hands of the House. But hon. Members had had full warning of the Bill coming on in all its stages, and the Amendments made in Committee were brought fully to the notice of those the Bill most affected. Of course, if the Bill were re-committed now he would lese a stage, and the House knew that was a serious thing at this period of the Session. His hon. Friend's objections were directed against Clause 9; but there were many Amendments before that clause would be reached which might be disposed of now. Then, if the questions raised by Clause 9 appeared to be of such difficulty and complexity that the House was unwilling to discuss them now, it would be for the House to say when further progress should be made with the Bill as amended. At all events, his hon. Friend might agree to allow the Amendments to be disposed of until those to Clause 9 were reached.
      EARL PERCYsaid, his hon. and learned Friend might be assured that neither the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) or anyone else had any

      1827
      desire to impede the progress of the Bill; but he imagined the reason for the Motion of the hon. Member was to give his hon. and learned Friend the opportunity to see if he could accept such modifications in the Bill as would make it satisfactory to those who complained of its present form. He was sorry his hon. and learned Friend did not now see his way to accept the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool; and he confessed he thought the hon. Member was, under the circumstances, justified in opposing the present stage, and he trusted that with some further consideration the Bill might be made more acceptable. He (Earl Percy) had received many communications on the subject, which showed there was a very strong fooling on the part of Managers of Savings Banks and Friendly Societies in reference to it; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would think it advisable to postpone this stage of the Bill, or assent to some amendment in the points in dispute on Clause 9.
      MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had given Notice in reference to the Bill a week ago, and he was quite ready to proceed with the consideration. But he thought it would be wiser on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to consent to the re-committal of the Bill. There was a great deal of apprehension in regard to the Bill on the part of Managers of Savings Banks, and he felt sure that if the Bill were re-committed there would be no desire to impede it. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would consent to the proposal, and he did not think time would really be lost by so doing.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it was rather to be regretted if the Bill were re-committed. The whole difficulty arose upon Clause 9, as to which there was a great deal of apprehension; but he thought that a little attention paid to the wording of that clause would remove all alarm. He observed that there were no Amendments directly attacking that clause; but the House might deal with the Bill until that clause was reached, and then adjourn further consideration until time had been given to draft Amendments.
      MR. WHITLEYexpressed himself as quite willing to agree to that proposition, and begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought it would be a good thing to carry out that suggestion, provided that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would not bring on the Bill for discussion at an unreasonable hour. The Half-past Twelve Rule could not, in this case, be applied by means of a Notice of opposition; so, before the House proceeded with the earlier clauses, the hon. and learned Member should give a pledge that Clause 9 should only be discussed at a reasonable hour of the night.
      MR. BUCHANANsaid, if the Bill were re-committed it would be a more convenient method of discussing the clause. In a discussion upon this stage the hon. and learned Member himself could only speak once in explanation of his measure; but, in Committee, the discussion would have much more freedom.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, only by the indulgence of the House could he speak again. He was willing to give the undertaking not to proceed with Clause 9 on the present occasion; but to comply with the demand of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would be almost to give an undertaking that the Bill should not proceed this Session. How would he define a reasonable hour? At the latter part of the Session, 1 or 2 o'clock was not an unreasonable hour. At all events, he would not discuss Clause 9 that night.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill considered.
      On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, after Clause 4, insert the following Clause:—
      (Nominations by Savings Bank depositors.)
      "A depositor in a Savings Bank, not being under sixteen years of age, may, by writing under his hand delivered at or sent to the office, nominate any person, not being an officer or servant of the directors (unless such officer or servant to the husband, wife, father, mother, child, brother, sister, nephew, or niece of the nominator), to whom any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds, which may remain due to such depositor at his decease, may be paid at such decease, and may from time to time revoke or vary such nomination by writing under his hand similarly delivered or sent; and, on receiving satisfactory proof of the death of a nominator, the directors shall pay to the nominee the sum duo to the deceased depositor, provided it does not exceed one hundred pounds."
      Clause 1 (Extent and short title of Act).
      On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 18, after "Britain," insert "and;" line 18, after "and," insert—
      "Except section nine of the same, and so much thereof as relates to Trades Unions to;"
      and in line 19, after "Islands," insert—
      "And except the said section nine and so much as relates to Industrial and Provident Societies, and to Trades Unions to the Isle of Man."
      On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 19, leave out "Friendly, &c. Societies Nominations," and insert "Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 2 (Definition of terms).
      EARL PERCYrose to ask the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield whether he would give the House some further pledge that he would not introduce the Bill for discussion at an inconvenient hour? His intention, doubtless, was fair enough; but he had said nothing as to the hour after which he would not bring on the Bill in future. They had a right to press the hon. and learned Member to name some definite hour.
      MR. SPEAKER: The noble Earl is not speaking to the Question.
      On the Motion of Mr. STUARTWORTLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 26, after "in," insert "and whose affairs are actively managed by."
      On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 2,5, after "bank," insert "and of a Post Office Savings Bank Insurance;" page 2, line 7, leave out "or 'The Government Annuities Act, 1882;" line 8, after "applies," insert "and a Post Office Savings Bank;" line 18, after "Bank," insert "and of a Post Office Savings Bank Insurance;" and leave out "the Post Office where the same is established," and insert "the General Post Office."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 4 (How a nomination may be made).
      On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment made:—In page
      1830
      2, line 30, leave out "of a society or registered bank."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 6 (Provision in case of intestacy and no nomination).
      On the Motion of Mr. STUARTWORTLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 8, leave out "trustees," and insert "directors."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be postponed to Monday week."—(Mr. Stuart- Wortley.)
      EARL PERCYsaid, he would now ask the hon. and learned Member to name an hour after which he would not bring on the Bill?
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, He was entitled to ask in return what, in the opinion of the noble Earl, was a reasonable hour?
      EARL PERCYsaid, 12 o'clock.
      MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, it was obvious that, to a private Member at that period of the Session, any time before 2 was reasonable.
      Motion agreed to.
      Further Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 9th July.

    TITHE RENT CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.— [BILL 119.]
    (Mr. Stanley Leighton, M. Cropper, Mr. Pell, Mr. Bulwer.)
    TITHE RENT CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.— [BILL 119.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONcalled the attention of the Speaker to the Notice of Amendment to the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill, which stood in the name of the noble Lord (Lord Burghley). The Amendment was in these words—
      "That it is inexpedient, in the opinion of this House, that any Bill should he proceeded with until a better system is arrived at of obtaining the average value of corn grown in this country."
      Such an Amendment as that, if carried, would stop further legislation in the House, and the point upon which he desired to have the Speaker's ruling was the use of the words "any legislation." As a precedent in point, he would refer to the debates upon the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill in 1873, in the

      1831
      course of which an Amendment was given Notice of by an hon. Member, worded in a similar manner—"That the House declines to entertain any legislation affecting the burdens upon the ratepayers, &c." This was held to be out of Order, the Speaker deciding that it could not be put to the House. It would be observed that he raised the very same point which had already been decided by the Speaker ipsissimis verbis. If that was so, then would not the same objection apply to the Motion of the noble Lord, and would not the Bill stand as an unopposed Order of the Day?
      MR. PELLsaid, he would also direct the Speaker's attention to what took place on May 18 last year, upon the second reading of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) moved an Amendment which the Speaker ruled was not relevant to the Bill before the House, and thereupon refused to put the earlier part of the Resolution, only permitting the latter part, which was relevant, to be discussed. The present Amendment of the noble Lord would touch every Bill before the House; and if the House accepted it there would be an end of legislative work for the Session.
      MR. SPEAKER: I understand the contention to be that the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord the Member for North Northamptonshire is irregular and irrelevant, and therefore does not apply in blocking the Bill. The Amendment appears to me to be relevant to the Bill. I cannot rule it out of Order. I think his intention might be more correctly expressed by the noble Lord, yet I cannot say the Amendment is irregular.
      Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, there was another point to which he wished to call the Speaker's attention. The Amendment opposed the progress of the Bill—
      "Until a better system is arrived at of obtaining the average value of corn grown in this Country."
      Now, the Bill had nothing to do with corn averages.
      MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say I think I have already answered the Question.
      Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

      PUBLIC BUILDINGS (DOORS) BILL.
      (Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Beresford Hope, Viscount Folkestone, Mr. W. Fowler.)
      PUBLIC BUILDINGS (DOORS) BILL.

        [BILL 239.] SECOND READING.
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Coleridge Kennard.)
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this was not a Bill he could recommend the House to accept. No doubt, the subject-matter was of considerable importance; but he did not think that an Act of Parliament simply enacting that doors should open outwards was at all adequate, or the proper way of dealing with a matter of this description. Without going further, he would advise the House not to read the Bill a second time.
        MR. ONSLOWsaid, he quite understood the feeling that prompted the hon. Member in introducing the Bill, and it dealt with a matter in which he was interested, since his attention was drawn to it while serving for two years on the Committee on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. At the same time, he agreed with the Home Secretary, and did not think the subject could be dealt with by the Bill before the House. A clause in the Bill provided that doors should be—
        "Hung or placed in any public building in such a manner as to open outwards."
        But what was a "public building?" According to the Bill, a "public building" meant—
        "Any building used as a place of public amusement or entertainment, or for the holding at one time of one hundred persons, or a larger number of persons, for any purposes whatsoever."
        Would that include public-houses? Was the door of every large public-house to open outwards to the road, for many of them were capable of holding more than 100 persons? Did his hon. Friend mean to say he would have this stringent rule applied to every public· house in the Kingdom? He hoped the Home Secretary, after what had happened at Sunderland, would see the necessity of providing in some manner for better exits from theatres and public halls. But this Bill did not meet the exigences of the case, and the House should not be called

        1833
        upon at that hour to give it a second reading.
        MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDsaid, he was disappointed that his Bill did not meet the views of the Home Secretary. He was not aware that there was any objection in his mind. He well remembered that when the question was asked whether the Government had any proposal in view to meet the admitted danger, the Home Secretary said he had no intention of submitting any measure on the subject, and therefore he (Mr. Kennard) had prepared this simple Bill, to which he hoped the House would give a second reading. In Committee he would be quite ready to take into consideration such Amendments as would make the Bill useful; but, of course, the Bill was at the mercy of Her Majesty's Government, and theirs must be the responsibility of rejecting it.
        MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he thought that the Government should give some assurance that they would in serne way deal with the subject by enforcing regulations dealing with what was a very serious matter.
        SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if a pledge were required that the Government were addressing their attention to it, he would give that pledge; but the proper way of dealing with it would, he thought, be under the Building Act. This Bill would condemn the Houses of Parliament, and provide that the doors of the Division Lobbies should open outwards, and the responsible official of the House would be subject to a penalty, for the House was unquestionably a public building. He did not think this was a serious manner of dealing with a serious question.
        MR. W. H. JAMESobjected to legislation in a panic. The accident at Sunderland occurred only 10 days ago; an inquiry was to be held in a few days—on Monday; and it would be an extraordinary proceeding for Parliament to legislate upon a matter of this kind before that inquiry had been hold. He bad an opinion as to that disaster in a direction towards which the attention of the House had not been drawn, and he should move that the Bill be read that day three months.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the
        1834
        Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
        Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
        MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought the principle of open doors might be modified in Committee. The statement that this was legislation in a panic was groundless, and he hoped the Government would not oppose the second reading, but would be content to move Amendments in Committee.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he thought it was necessary to watch the Homo Secretary's words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said the attention of the Government was directed to this subject; but there was no pledge that they would take any action upon the matter. The Government ought to do something in the matter; and unless a pledge to that effect was given the House ought to pass this Bill.
        MR. WHITLEYsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be withdrawn. The Government had said their attention was directed to the subject, and he had no doubt they would do something.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        Bill withdrawn.

    MOTIONS.
      DETENTION IN HOSPITALS BILL.

        LEAVE. FIRST READING.
        THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for extending to certain hospitals the provisions relating to werkhouses which enable the detention therein of persons affected with diseases of an infectious or contagious character, said: Although I have no doubt that the amendment of the law which I ask leave to introduce may give rise to a good deal of opposition, I hope the House will be disposed to allow it to be introduced without opposition this evening, and be content to take the discussion on the second reading, which I will undertake to move at a time when it can be conveniently and adequately discussed. It may, however, be appropriate that I should say a few words as

        1835
        to the object of the Bill. It is simply for the purpose of carrying into effect the proposals of the Government which I have already stated in answer to Questions in this House, proposals which they have to make in consequence of the Resolution arrived at a short time ago by the House. Hon. Members will recollect that the House passed, by a considerable majority, a Resolution con·demning the compulsory examination of women under the Contagious Diseases Acts. It appeared to the Government that, although they were perfectly aware that no Resolution of one House of Parliament could alter the law, this was a matter which, through the structure of the Acts, was unquestionably within the power of this House to decide upon; because the Acts depended for their operation entirely upon the action of the Metropolitan Police and certain surgeons, the expenses of whom were met by Votes of this House. The House of Commons, therefore, had the power in their own case to give effect to the Resolution at which by a large majority they had arrived. Well, Sir, the Government, holding as they did that the powers conferred upon them under the Acts were unquestionably mainly of a permissive character, proposed at once, when the Resolution of the House was passed, to give effect to that Resolution by withdrawing, as soon as possible, the Metropolitan Police from the districts dealt with, and thereby put an end to the compulsory examination of women. At the same time, the Government stated that, in their opinion, no time ought to be lost in making the law conformable to the new state of affairs. They, therefore, undertook to bring in a Bill to give effect to the Resolution of the House, upon the line which I have already indicated. It is with the object of fulfilling that pledge that I ask leave to bring in this Bill. It will proceed upon the analogy of the Poor Law. Under that law the workhouse authorities are enabled to detain persons affected with contagious diseases in workhouses, and this Bill proposes that similar powers be conferred upon the chief medical officers of certain hospitals under the Acts. The Bill also contains provisions for maintaining order in hospitals, for empowering magistrates to order the discharge of women from the hospitals, and for the payment of the expense of conveying
        1836
        women to their residences, when those residences are situated within the limits defined in the Bill. These are all the provisions which we believe will be necessary. The provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts which relate to the compulsory examination of women, to the registration of women, and the so-called voluntary submission to examination may, in our opinion, safely be repealed. I do not think it is desirable that at this hour I should detain the House by any further explanation of the Bill. I need not repeat that the House has the perfect right to decline to continue longer the experiment, conducted as it was on a very partial scale, which was long tried under these Acts. I cannot disguise from myself the very strong opinion that exists in a large part of the country against these Acts; and I cannot disguise from myself that it is impossible to hope that anything in the nature of this legislation could ever have been extended over the whole country. I do not believe that any very great or satisfactory result could have been expected from the operation of a law confined within the very limited area which the Contagious Diseases Acts covered. I cannot say that I speak with any great confidence or hopefulness as to the future use of the hospitals maintained by the Admiralty or the War Office under the system simply of voluntary admission. At the same time, there is one way in which it will be possible to have these women treated in the hospitals. Under the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce, the medical practitioners generally will have inducements held out to them by the Admiralty and the War Office to persuade their patients of the class in question to enter the hospitals. Thus without any police warning, without being made marked women as it were, women of the town who are affected with these diseases may be induced, possibly in larger numbers than at present, to repair to the hospitals where they will be treated without having fixed upon them the social and moral stigma which attached to any woman who was known to be subjected to periodical examination and the supervision of the police. There is some hope that in this way, where these hospitals exist, a number of women, perhaps not smaller than those under the Compulsory Clauses, may be induced to go into the hospitals,

        1837
        and the good intentions of the Legislature may not be frustrated. I move for leave to bring in the Bill.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for extending to certain hospitals the provisions relating to workhouses which enable the detention therein of persons affected with diseases of an infectious or contagious character."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
        MR. PULESTONsaid, he thought that in moving to introduce this Bill the noble Marquess had clearly shown that the Bill would be worthless; and he wished to submit to the House the question whether it was worth while to occupy time in discussing the Motion when the Bill was, of necessity, introduced by words which clearly indicated that there was little prospect of its being of any use? It would repeal the present Acts, and thereby do great national as well as local harm. When these Acts were put in force in garrison towns, it was done for Imperial purposes; and it was not too much to ask that those towns should have the protection which those Acts afforded. Nobody knew better than the noble Marquess, and the Chief Secretary, and the Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Judge Advocate General, who had to administer these Acts, how valuable they had been; they were unequivocally in favour of the Acts, and yet the Government brought in this Bill. The Home Secretary had told a deputation that the condition of things before the enactment of these Acts in the localities for which they were intended was simply shocking. He quite concurred in that, and he thought the House ought not to give leave for the introduction of this Bill.
        MR. WARTONsaid, that contrary to their convictions the Government had yielded to an agitation against Acts which they knew had done good. He did not rise to reproach them, but to make a suggestion, which might have some effect on this important Bill, and that was that a provision should be inserted making it a misdemeanour for any person knowingly or negligently to communicate this disease to another. The effect of that provision would be to induce woman to go into hospital; and he thought that suggestion would assist the Government. He was convinced that until such communication of disease was made a misdemeanour, women would
        1838
        not feel a sufficient stimulus to enter the hospitals; for in their unhappy trade their disposition was to go on as they were.
        MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, that with all deference to his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, he thought the hon. Member was premature in condemning this Bill. The Goverment had simply fulfilled the pledge they gave in regard to this matter, and it remained for the House to deal with, and if necessary amend, the Bill in Committee. He thought it would be well to pass the first reading of the Bill.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Secretary Sir -WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Sir ARTHUR HATTER.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 247.]

    MARINE POLICIES (COLLISIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. KENNARD, Bill to render damages under the Collision Clause in Marine Policies of Insurance irrecoverable in so far as regards the ship proved to have been in fault, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KENNARD, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, and Mr. HUBBARD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]

    PRISON SERVICE (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to explain and amend the thirty-second section of "The General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. TREVELYAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 248.]

    COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Companies Acts 1882 and 1867.
    Resolution reported:— Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN JENKINS, Mr. DILLWYN, and Mr. STUART-WORTLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 276.]

    HOUSE OF LORDS (CONSTRUCTION AND ACCOMMODATION).
    Lords Message, this day, requesting the attendance of The Right honourable George John Shaw Lefevre, considered:—And Mr. Shaw Lefevre, in his place, having consented,—Leave given.
    House adjourned at Two o'olock,