Commons Sitting of 19 March 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Miscellaneous and other Services, appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES (NUMBERS). Resolutions [March 16] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£2,130,084 5s. 7d., Consolidated Fund; £10,804,750, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—East India (Loan).
Resolutions [March 18] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Cape of Good Hope (Advance) * [101].
Ordered—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* [100]; Church Boards * [102].

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—QUESTIONS—ORDER— THE NEWSPAPER PRESS-OFFENSIVE CARTOONS.
  MR. BERESFORD: I beg to give Notice that on to-morrow I shall ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the attention of the Government has been called to a most scandalous cartoon representing the death of Earl Spencer issued with the last edition of Untied Ireland; whether he does not consider cartoons such as that a direct incentive to outrage; and, also, whether the proprietors of that journal are not Members of the House of Commons; and, if steps will not be taken to prevent outrageous and cowardly attacks of this kind upon Her Majesty's Representatives in Ireland?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to give Notice, that when the hon. Member puts his Question, I will ask whether the cartoon does not represent the political death of Earl Spencer?
  MR. SEXTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you whether the Notice given by the hon. Member for Armagh can appear upon the Notice Paper in that form; and, whether it does not doubly violate the Rules by applying the terms "outrageous and cowardly" to Members of this House; and, also, whether it is not out of Order in expressing an opinion?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Notice given by the hon. Member will be revised and
  1680
  put into a proper shape before it appears on the Paper.
  MR. BERESFORD: Shall I be in Order, Sir, in submitting the cartoon at the same time as my Question, especially for your consideration?

  MINES, &c—THE DOROTHEA SLATE QUARRY (NANTLLE).
  MR. JONES-PARRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Inspector of Mines for North Wales has reported as to the causes producing, or to which may be ref err able, the recent floodings and loss of life at the Dorothea slate quarry, Nantlle, and the Llanengan mine, and as to the condition of those quarries and workings, and whether he will supply a Copy of that Report; and, whether he will appoint for North Wales an inspector of mines, or a sub-inspector to the inspector of mines, eminently competent to inspect and direct the working of quarries as distinct from mines, and with special regard to the safety and protection of the workmen?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas understood to say that the matter referred to in the Question had been often considered, and it was not thought expedient to place the mines under Home Office inspection.
  MR. JONES-PARRYgave Notice that he would bring the matter before the attention of the House.

  INDIA—THE BENGAL SETTLEMENT, 1793.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will cause to be presented to the House as brief a memorandum as the subject will allow, showing the main heads of the arrangements connected with the permanent settlement of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, entered into in 1793, so as to bring out the nature and extent of the promises made by Government to protect the rights of cultivators, and how far these promises have since 1793been fulfilled or left unfulfilled; also the money settlements between the Zemindars and the Government, as to the ratio of the sums collected from the cultivators to be paid to the Government, and the amount and the ratio to be retained by the Zemindar, with estimates of the then total revenue likely to be

  1681
  realised, and contrasting these estimates? with those of modern times so as to show the differences; further, information to be supplied, regarding all public works obligatory to be executed by the Zemindars, and how far these obligations have been fulfilled and works of a character beneficial to the cultivator have been carried out or neglected; the land rates levied from cultivators at the time of the settlement, as far as these can be ascertained, to be contrasted with the existing rates and with the land rates levied in other parts of India; and, generally, any other information which will make the permanent settlement as clear as it can be made, such as the areas of land cultivated formerly and at present, and uncultivated; the areas of Madras and North West Provinces with their land revenues to be shown in contrast with the area and land revenue under the permanent settlement?
  MR. J. K CROSS: After considering very fully the possibility of presenting to the House such a Memorandum as that indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend, it seems that, however interesting and instructive such a document might be, it would necessarily be of so controversial a nature as to be valueless, except as being the expression of the opinion of the person who had compiled it. In connection with the Bengal Tenancy Act, the India Office has received about 5,000 pages of printed matter, a selection from which will be presented. These Papers will, I hope, place hon. Members in possession of much of the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—SURPLUS FROM HERRING BRANDING.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any prospect of the Government placing at the disposal of the Scotch Fishery Board this year the £31,000 surplus brand fees, which the Treasury have received from Scotch herring curers since 1860, in excess of the actual expense incurred by Government for imposing the brand?
  MR. HIBBERT: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I can only say that I have no power to place at the disposal of the Scotch Fishery Board any moneys other than those appropriated for the
  1682
  service of that Board by Parliament. I have altogether failed to verify the figure of £31,000 which he has given; but, whether the real amount of the surplus in 25 years be more or less, this will not affect my answer.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE NATIONAL GALLERY—PURCHASE OF PICTURES.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that, consequent on the recent purchase of pictures from the Blenheim Collection, the customary annual grant to the National Gallery is to remain suspended for a term of years; and, if so, whether the Trustees of the National Gallery have addressed any representation on the subject to the Treasury; and, in the event of any such Correspondence having passed, whether there would be any objection to laying the same upon the Table of the House?
  MR. HIBBERT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, as in the case of the purchase of the Peel Collection, we have come to the conclusion that we should not be justified in including any sum for the purchase of pictures in the Estimate for the National Gallery for some time to come, in consequence of the magnitude of the grant recently sanctioned by this House for the purchase of pictures from the Blenheim Collection. But in making this decision known to the Trustees of the National Gallery, we added that, if any exceptionally advantageous opportunity should arise of acquiring works of a representative character, and of a school or period of which examples are wanted in the Gallery, we should be prepared to give immediate consideration to any proposal which they might submit to us. The Trustees have been in communication with my right hon. Friend on the subject, and he has told them that the time has not yet arrived for any reconsideration of this decision; but if they wish to discuss the question when the Estimate for next year is about to be settled, he will be happy to confer with them. At present, we see no reason for publishing this Correspondence. So far as finance is concerned, the Trustees are in the position of a department subordinate to the Treasury.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwished to know what was intended by the expression, "for some time to come?"
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he supposed that it meant until the amount was run off—the amount usually allowed to the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether he was to understand that some eight years were to elapse before Parliament would be requested to vote another contribution to the National Gallery?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the noble Lord would see by the answer he had given that the matter had been very much qualified.

  EGYPT—HIRED TRANSPORTS—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that the Transport Department have lately chartered vessels for the conveyance of navvies and other passengers to be employed on the projected railway from Suakin to Berber, and that such vessels are not certificated as passenger ships by the Board of Trade; and, if so, why the Law with regard to ships carrying passengers has not been complied with in this case; and, whether he will place upon the Table of the House a copy of the rules which shipowners are supposed to comply with before their vessels can be placed upon the Admiralty list for the purposes of transport?
  MR. CAINE: The Transport Department have lately chartered five transports, in which navvies and other passengers have been, or are about to be, conveyed. Two of them are passenger ships under the Passenger Act, 18 and 19 Vict. c. 119, the others are not passenger ships under the meaning of that Act, which exempts from its operations "ships in the service of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral." All these ships, whether passenger ships or not, have been duly surveyed and passed by the Surveying and Engineer officers employed by the Transport Department. There is no Admiralty list for the purposes of transport. The only Admiralty list is that prepared by the Controller of the Navy for other purposes.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— THE WIVES OE MARINES SERVING IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Lord HENRY LENNOX)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the wives of those serving in the Naval Brigade, including Marine Artillery and Marines, now incorporated in General Graham's Army in the Soudan, are not entitled to the increase of 8rf. per diem which has been sanctioned in the case of the wives of soldiers serving there; and, whether he will do his best to redress this grievance?
  MR. CAINE: The allowance of 8d. a-day, known as separation allowance, which is granted to the wives of soldiers, is not payable to seamen's wives, 'the conditions of service being different; neither is this allowance payable to the wives of Marines when serving under Naval regulations, but both seamen and Marines receive field allowance of 6d. a-day, which is not granted in the Army. The Marines serving in Egypt might be placed under Army regulations; but, on the whole, the Naval regulations are the more favourable to them.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—DISORDERLY LANGUAGE—CASE OF GEORGE BARKER, CLIFFONEY, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With regard to the case against George Barker, to be heard to-morrow at Clif-foney (county Sligo) Petty Sessions, whether the Government are aware that Barker is gamekeeper to a local landlord, and that he is in the habit of shooting and fishing in company with the local stipendiary magistrate; and, whether, with a view to an impartial trial, a stipendiary magistrate from another district will be sent to hear the case, and the local landlords in the Commission of the Peace will be requested not to adjudicate upon it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that Mr. Maloney, the Resident Magistrate, occasionally shoots with the gentleman in whose employment Barker is; but he informs me that he has never shot or fished with Barker alone. Mr. Maloney's duties require his presence at another Petty Sessions to-morrow, and Mr. Turner, R.M., will take his place at Grange Petty Sessions.
  The Government have no power to order the local magistrates not to attend.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—KILDARE AND CLARE COUNTIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who were the gentlemen lately recommended by the Athy (Kildare) and Killadysert (Clare) Boards of Guardians for appointment to the Commission of the Peace; whether the Lieutenant of either county supported, in any case, the recommendation of the guardians; and, if not, whether either the Lieutenant of Kildare or the Lieutenant of Clare communicated to the Lord Chancellor or to the Board of Guardians any reason for the refusal; whether the Lord Chancellor appointed any of the gentlemen recommended by the Boards in question; and, whether the intimation in his secretary's letter of the 10th instant, to the Killadysert Board, that, "in the absence of any recommendation from the Lord Lieutenant of the county," he rejected the application of the guardians, is to be regarded as conveying that the repeated declarations by the Government of the determination to appoint suitable persons, in the absence of recommendations from Lieutenants of counties, has no effective force?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must decline to state the names of persons who have not been appointed to the Commission of the Peace. It is true that the Lord Chancellor, acting not only on the opinion of the Lieutenants of the two counties but on his own judgment, has not seen his way to appoint the gentlemen recommended by these two Boards, but he has no intention of departing from the declarations which have been made on this subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)— MR. WILLIAM IVORY, SHERIFF OF INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to a letter of the Rev. Donald M'Cullum, of Waternish, in The Oban Times of the 7th ult., charging Mr. W. Ivory, Sheriff of Inverness, Elgin, and Nairn, with having, on the 2 9th of January last, at Glendale, in the presence of a crowd of people, used unbecoming language of a threatening and provocative character;
  1686
  and, whether the Government have made any inquiry to ascertain if Sheriff Ivory acted as described?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply, said, he had answered a Question almost identical with this some time ago, and he explained at that time that the Government had had a Report from the Sheriff in regard to this matter.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether five men had not made statutory declarations before Mr. M'Leod, a Justice of the Peace, charging this Sheriff with having publicly used threatening and blasphemous language; and, if so, would that alter the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views on the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)replied, that he was not aware that that was so. He had had no intimation.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had the declarations, and would show them to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he asked the previous Question to which the Lord Advocate referred. Had any inquiry been made as to the truth of the allegations?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)replied, that they had the statement of the letter in the newspapers on the one hand, and on the other the statement in the Sheriff's Report.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CONDITION OF THE UPPER THAMES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any action is contemplated, in view of the deputation from the Local Board of Twickenham, which recently waited upon him to call attention to the condition of the Thames between Richmond and Isleworth?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER,in reply, said, there was some conflict as to who was the responsible Authority in this matter; whether it was the Metropolitan Board of Works, which deposited the sewage, or the Thames Conservancy, who ought to have taken the mud resulting from the sewage away; and there was also some doubt as to what were the powers of the Secretary of State as to one or both of these Bodies. The matter was receiving the careful attention of the Home Office, which was doing all it could to remedy what he must call the

  1687
  very disgraceful state of the Thames at that point.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS— RETIREMENTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that numbers of collectors, supervisors, and officers of Inland Revenue, in various parts of the United Kingdom, have been called upon to retire on attaining forty years' service, or thereabouts; whether some of the chief officials at Somerset House who have to deal with such compulsory retirements are older men, with from forty-one to forty-seven years' service; and, whether steps will be taken to apply the same rule of compulsory retirement to all officials?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Board of Inland Revenue, having regard to the age and efficiency of the officers under their control, have, under certain conditions, called on some of those who have reached the age of 65 years with over 40 years' service to retire. None of the chief officials at Somerset House fall within similar conditions.

  POST OFFICE—MONEY ORDER OFFICE —PROMOTION.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the long-continued stagnation of promotion in the Money Order Officer; whether that is mainly caused by the transfer of a good deal of the "Money Order" business to the "Postal Order" Department, dealt with by a newly-created staff; whether since April 1873, that is, for nearly twelve years, there have been only two promotions from second to first class clerkships; and, whether, if this is so, as the clerks claim to be servants of the General Post Office and Civil Service generally, and not of a department, he will see that steps are now taken to secure to the officers of the Money Order Office the maintenance of the prospects with which they entered the service by giving them, if necessary, an adequate share of promotion outside their own department?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is true that but few vacancies have occurred in the upper ranks of the Money Order Office in recent years, and, consequently,
  1688
  the promotion has not been rapid. The number of clerkships in the upper ranks has not been reduced since the introduction of the postal-order system, and, therefore, the stagnation of promotion is in no way due to that measure. I have endeavoured to meet the case to some extent by granting appointments to other branches of the Post Office Service; but I will not pledge myself to follow that course in future, although I may, perhaps, do so.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF ATTENDANTS.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Executive has taken into consideration the claims of the attendants in the Irish Lunatic Asylums to be placed in a better position with regard to salary and superannuation, so as to be nearer to an equality in these respects with the attendants in the English Asylums; whether the Boards of Governors of several of the Irish Asylums have recently passed resolutions strongly recommending the case of the attendants to the attention of the Executive; and, what course he is prepared to take.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member put a very similar Question to my right hon. Predecessor in May last year. I can only repeat that the attendants in the district lunatic asylums in Ireland are the servants of the respective Boards of Governors, and that any recommendations which any of the Boards make in favour of increase of salary to members of their staff have always received and will continue to receive the most careful consideration of the Government. As regards pensions, they are given by the Boards of Governors, with the concurrence of the Inspectors, on the principles of the Super-annuation Act of 1859, which, I understand, receive a very liberal constructions in their application to the cases of officers and servants in lunatic asylums?

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—NON-RESIDENT ELECTORS.
  Mr. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at elections of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland, directions

  1689
  by non-resident electors to have voting papers left for them in certain houses must be signed by the voters themselves, or how otherwise; and, whether voters resident in the division can direct voting papers for themselves to be left at houses other than those in which the voters reside, or than those for which they are rated?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The usual and most accurate way for a non-resident voter to signify his wishes is to do so in writing; but if the direction is conveyed to the Returning Officer in any other way, he might act on it if satisfied that the communication correctly described the voter's wishes and instructions. The papers for resident voters can only be left at their residences.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS-LEGAL ADVICE.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, taking into consideration that in most cases the persons nominated for the office of Poor Law Guardian in Ireland and their nominators are utterly ignorant of matters of Law, he, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, will take care that they shall not, at the scrutiny of votes, be deprived of the presence and advice of their legal advisers, in order to support their rights; and, whether, as it is impossible to sufficiently inspect at the scrutiny the statements of claims lodged by owners, which are very long and contain complicated details, he will direct the returning officers to give, before the scrutiny, reasonable facilities to candidates and their legal advisers to ascertain the correctness of these statements of claim?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given to similar Questions recently.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRAWLING— REPORT—LEGISLATION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government intends to bring in a Bill, this Session, to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Trawling?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes, it is intended to introduce such a Bill.

  REGISTRATION ACTS CONSOLIDATION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will consider the possibility of preparing a Registration Bill consolidating existing legislation on the subject, into which the provisions of the new Registration (Occupation Voters) Bill could be incorporated immediately after it has passed through Parliament, in order that, at the approaching registration, the very numerous officials who will, for the first time, have to put in force provisions of a complicated character, may have the law upon the subject before them in a compact and intelligible form?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Government had already considered the best means, with respect to this very difficult question, of dealing with registration, and they had come to the conclusion that it would be scarcely worth while or practically expedient to consolidate all the Acts under the circumstances mentioned in the Question.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that some abstracts of the Acts were made, such as had been done in a somewhat similar case by the President of the Local Government Board?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the precepts they were bound to issue would very much assist the action of the overseers.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would take counsel with the President of the Local Government Board, he would find what very useful directions might be issued.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, WOOLWICH—GENTLEMEN CADETS—MEAL TIMES.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has made further inquiry, and has satisfied himself that there is an interval of 6 hours and 20 minutes, from 7.55 a.m. to 2.15 p.m., between the breakfast and luncheon of the gentleman cadets at Woolwich; and, whether he will either cause that interval to be shortened, or direct that a small intermediate

  1691
  meal be furnished to the cadets, with time for partaking of it?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As I stated the other day, I have been making inquiries, and when I receive the replies no time will be lost in coming to a decision.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUNTEER REGIMENTS.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that numerous regiments of Volunteers have applied for leave to increase their strength; and, if so, whether he will state the number of applications received, and the grounds upon which their proposals were declined?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Thirty-four Volunteer corps have applied for an increased establishment. Of these applications, 16 were granted and 18 refused, some on military and some on financial grounds. Each case was considered on its merits.

  THE ASSAY OFFICE, EXETER.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is not the fact that the Assay Office at Exeter, for the purpose of marking manufactured plate, has not been long shut up, to the great inconvenience of silver and goldsmiths in the West of England; and, whether he will take steps to obviate the inconvenience and loss which ensues from the present state of things?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Assay Office at Exeter was discontinued in July, 1883, in consequence of the small amount of plate which was sent there to be assayed and marked. Nearly the whole of the plate assayed at that office in 1882 and up to July, 1883, was sent in by a Bristol firm, and when they transferred their business to London the necessity for continuing the office at Exeter ceased to exist. The Company, therefore, passed a resolution to close the office, as they considered that the expenses of keeping it up would not be covered by the fees. I find it hard to believe that the business of goldsmiths and silversmiths in the West of England should have so considerably
  1692
  increased since the Exeter office was closed as to give cause for the complaint of loss and inconvenience to the trade.

  LICENSING ACT (1872)—THE MAGISTRATES.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a recent case before the Leeds Borough Justices, in which a licensed publican was fined; whether two justices had to retire from the Bench owing to their disqualification under the sixtieth section of the Licensing Act, 1872, leaving the case to be tried by two well-known temperance advocates; and, whether he is prepared to recommend an amendment of that section of the Licensing Act, so that a justice shall not be disqualified by reason of his being a shareholder in a Railway Company which may have a hotel or refreshment room within the district for which he sits as a magistrate?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have seen the account of the case to which the hon. Member refers. It seems to me to be a case in which a man was proceeded against for allowing gaming in a public-house. Two of the Justices, who are described in the papers as connected with the wholesale liquor trade, retired from the Bench, and very properly so, during the hearing. The case, I understand, is under appeal, and I see no ground for interfering.
  In reply to a further Question,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid: I know nothing of the case except from the papers which the hon. Member himself sent me, in which the case is described. The paper the hon. Member sent me says—
  "Before the hearing of the case, Messrs. Ewing and Walker were requested to retire from the Bench, it being considered that he-cause they are, or had been, in some remote way or other connected with the wholesale liquor trade, they were not in a position to exercise an impartial judgment."
  That is all I know.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—MR. POSNETT, OFFICIAL ARBITRATOR.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr.

  1693
  Posnett, the arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board in Ireland to value plots of land taken under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, has received his fee and expenses from the Guardians of the Kilmallock Union over a month since, to arbitrate in that Union, and that he has not yet taken any steps in the matter; whether this same arbitrator held an inquiry in the Limerick Union over a month since, on which occasion he promised to furnish the Guardians with the report of his arbitration in ten days, but which report has not yet reached the Guardians; and, whether he will take any steps to insist on the arbitrators doing their part of the work at once, so that the labourers throughout the country may get the plots in time to sow a crop in the land this spring?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As Arbitrators under the Labourers Act are appointed by the Board of Works, this Question would have been more properly addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. I understand, however, that the 1st of May has been fixed by the Arbitrator and the Clerk of the Union for holding the Kilmallock inquiry. The Arbitrator has not received, and cannot receive, any fees until his final award is sent in. As regards Limerick, I am informed that the Arbitrator's award has been furnished, and that in every case where the Guardians wished it he has granted certificates to take up the sites. The Act of Parliament requires notice to be given of inquiries; but Mr. Posnett states that in no instance has there been any unnecessary delay on his part.
  MR. O'SULLIYANasked, was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Kilmallock Guardians had paid £50 expenses some time ago, but that the inquiry had not yet been held?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I regret the delay; but I am informed on Mr. Posnett's part that he has not yet received the money.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any means can be employed to expedite the passage of the Labourers Bill? He knows as well as I do that it is greatly desired by the people. He could suggest action on this question by which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) might stop Supply in order to
  1694
  allow the Bill to be passed for one or two nights.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think I could act on the suggestion for some weeks. Just now there is little or no chance of doing anything of that sort.

  POLICE EXPENSES (IBELANL)—INCIDENCE OF COST.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a large number of police was on Sunday the 1st March brought from various parts of the county of Down to Newcastle and Ballynahinch, under the command of several resident magistrates, and kept there under arms a considerable time; whether he can state what number of men, resident magistrates, &c. were engaged in this expedition, the purpose for which they were brought, and at whose instigation; whether the entire district was not very quiet on the Sunday in question; and, whether it is intended to levy the expenses of the expedition off a district in which there was no necessity for it, or in what other manner?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The police were assembled on the requisition of local magistrates in view of an apprehended disturbance. They were all of the county force, and any extra expense involved will therefore fall on the Constabulary Vote.

  ARMY—THE STAFF COLLEGE.
  COLONEL MILNE-HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, What opportunities, if any, exist at the Staff College for officers to be instructed in modern Oriental languages, and if it is proposed to modify existing arrangements so as to increase facilities in that direction?
  THE MAEQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No opportunities exist at the Staff College for officers to be instructed in modern Oriental languages. The time of officers while at the Staff College should be devoted exclusively to military studies. It is not, therefore, proposed to modify existing arrangements in this respect. The general question whether some encouragement should be given to officers to study Oriental and other modern languages is under consideration.

  LUNACY LEGISLATION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the promised Lunacy Bill will be introduced in the House of Lords?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, there were a good many details to be settled in connection with the Lunacy Bill; but he hoped the measure would soon be introduced by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Seats Bill contains adequate provision for the representation of the two million of the Irish minority in England; if not, whether he will consent to such modification of the boundaries in the centres containing a large Irish population as will give this adequate representation?
  MR. BRODRICK: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question I will ask whether such a Bill would contain adequate provision for the representation of the 1,500,000 Protestants in Ireland, and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to such a rectification of boundaries as would secure such provision?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can hardly reply to the last Question except by saying that I cannot enter into argumentative matter. With regard to the Question which has been put upon the Paper, I have to say that the provisions for the indirect representation of minorities by means of the single-Member district system are the same in the three principal parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORafterwards asked whether, under the Bill, as it at present stood, there was any prospect of the Irish minority in England and Scotland being represented by 28 out of the 570 Members which would be the same proportion for them as the Loyal minority in Ireland?
  MR. GIBSON: I would like to know whether there is any prospect of the Loyal minority in Ireland being represented by 33, which would be their proper number?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Twenty-three.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: These Questions raise matters of argument. It would be impossible for me to say how the Loyal minority in Ireland or the Irish minority in England and Scotland will be represented; but I believe that those best acquainted with the local circumstances of various towns in England say that some representation will be secured by the Irish minority, but I cannot say what.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—EXPEDITION TO BECHUANALAND—METHUEN'S HORSE.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Morning Post of March 17th, as to the treatment of Methuen's Horse; whether it is the fact that the trooper's pay only accrued from date of landing in South Africa and not from that of embarkation; what explanation he can give of the alleged shortness of rations; and, whether he will undertake that British troops on active service shall not be put in the position of having to buy food out of their own pockets to supplement insufficient Government supplies?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have seen the paragraph, in question. As regards pay, I would draw attention to a reply I made on the 20th November to the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), to the effect that the Irregular Force for service in Bechuanaland would be raised in South Africa, and that the journeys thither of young men desirous of there enlisting would be facilitated. Of course, pay would only commence from the date of enlistment. The ration authorized for Bechuanaland is a very ample one, and no complaint has been received of any failure in issuing it.
  In reply to further Questions,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not aware that the men were drilled while on board ship. He would cause inquiries to be made as to the alleged deficiency of rations.

  MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House the Report of

  1697
  the Commission with reference to the proposed incorporation of the Town of Tunbridge Wells?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have to state in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that the Report of the Commission is made for the information of the Lords of the Council, and is always treated as a confidential document.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—WANDERING LUNATICS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a case at the Westminster Police Court in The Times of March 17th, according to which an alleged lunatic was refused admission to the Workhouse—
  "A course which was adopted, it was stated, in consequence of a recent legal decision;"
  whether it is correct, according to the same report, that Mr. Partridge said—
  "It would be very inconvenient to send lunacy cases to the House of Detention, even if it were legal to do so, which he very much doubted."
  Whereupon Inspector Chisholm said—
  "It was even more inconvenient and apparently less justifiable to detain lunatics in the cells at Police Stations."
  And that Mr. Partridge remarked—
  "That it was to be hoped there would be fresh legislation on the subject before long. There must be an altered state of things;"
  whether eventually Mr. Partridge said he had not alternative but to send the man to the House of Detention, and said—
  "Magistrates at present did not know what course to pursue;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take immediate steps to prevent alleged lunatics being confined in prisons?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I entirely agree with the purport of the remarks of the hon. Member, and I think that Mr. Partridge came ultimately to a proper conclusion in sending a wandering lunatic to the infirmary of the workhouse, and not to a police cell. My view is unquestionably that the proper treatment for a wandering lunatic is to send him to the workhouse, and not to the prison. To send a lunatic to the police cell or the prison is very likely to increase his malady and to lead to his
  1698
  death. I may state that this has been the view for the last 40 years with reference to lunatics either before or after trial. According to this view, power has been given by statute, and the duty has been imposed on the Secretary of State, on a certificate that a prisoner is insane, to send him to a lunatic asylum. To my great surprise, when a few weeks ago this power was exercised in the case of Frederick Marshall, there was a most extraordinary outcry in the Press, and even in quarters which ought to have been better informed, and it was said that it was an illegal power, or that if it was legal it was inexpedient. I would point out that nothing can be more undesirable than that a man who is a lunatic should be kept for two or three months awaiting his trial in prison, where there are no means whatever of taking proper care of him; and that ultimately a man who is a raving lunatic should be placed in the dock at the Sessions or the Assizes. The law provides that a man who is a lunatic should be sent to a lunatic asylum.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a Board of Guardians in the West of London had come to the conclusion that they could not keep their lunatics in the workhouse, and that the consequence was that the lunatics were sent to prison?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas understood to reply that the Guardians referred to had acted in consequence of a supposed obscurity in the law. The statute to which the subject was referable was, however, sufficiently clear to make it obligatory upon them to admit lunatics. It was not that they could not admit them, but that they would not.
  In answer to Mr. M'COAN,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas understood to reply that, under a statute which had existed for 40 years, when a lunatic was commited to prison he could rightly be sent to an asylum?

  ARMY—ORDNANCE—THE EIGHTY-TON GUN OF H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is true, as reported in The Times of 18th March, that one of the 80-tun guns of H.M.S. Inflexible is unserviceable owing to the scoring of the steel lining; if he

  1699
  will state whether this gun is a muzzle or breech loader; whether it is a steel gun; whether it has an enlarged powder chamber; where it was manufactured, and the cost; what date it was first fired after being mounted in position on board ship; if he can state approximately how many rounds of powder and shot have been fired by this gun; if it is proposed to replace it by an 80-ton gun taken from Shoeburyness; and, if so, is this gun of the same design; and, how many of these guns are in use?
  MR. BRAND: One of the guns of Her Majesty's Ship Inflexible, as stated in The Times of the 18th of March, is unserviceable in its present condition, but it is repairable. It is a muzzle-loader. It has a steel tube with outer coils of wrought iron. It has an enlarged powder chamber. It was manufactured at the Royal Gun Factories. Its cost was £10,075. It was first fired after being mounted in position on board ship, I believe in 1880. It has fired 86 rounds up to date. It is proposed to replace this gun by the reserve—on loan to Shoeburyness for an experiment against armour plates. The reserve gun is of the same design. There are six of these guns in use; four in the Inflexible, two in Dover Turret, and beyond this there are two reserve guns.
  In answer to a further Question,
  MR. BRANDsaid that to re-line the damaged gun would not cost more than £400, as spare tubes were in hand.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND.
  MR. E. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a statement published in the Bechuanaland telegraphic correspondence of The Times on March 16th, to the effect that—
  "Montsioa's son showed a letter from Sechele to Mr. Upington, dated December 16th last, requesting permission to come under British rule;"
  and, whether Mr. Upington has sent a copy of this letter to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, what answer has been made to the chief Sechele?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have no knowledge of the letter referred to in the Question; but Sir Hercules Robinson was a short time ago informed by the Secretary of State that the Bechuana-
  1700
  land Protectorate extends up to Shoshong, and would, of course, therefore, embrace Sechele's country; and the High Commissioner was told to instruct Sir Charles Warren to communicate accordingly with both Sechele and Khama.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE ACT, 1881—THE COLONIAL CONTINGENTS IN THE SOUDAN.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Judge Advocate General, Whether he will be prepared to state, on consideration of Army Estimates (Votes for Military Law), Under what Act for Discipline the Colonial contingents serving in the field will be placed, and if care will be taken to prevent any conflict between the provisions of "The Army Act, 1881," and the Colonial Acts under which such officers and men are serving; and, whether clear instructions will be given to the officers in command of forces with reference to the point on which such Laws are dissimilar?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): By Section 177 of the Army Act, 1881, it is provided that, when any Force of Volunteers, Militia, or other Force is raised in a Colony, any law of the Colony may extend to the officers and men of such Force, whether within or without the Colony, and where such Force is serving with Her Majesty's Regular Forces then, so far as the law of the Colony has not provided for the government and discipline of such Force, the Army Act then in force shall, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the General Orders of the General Officer Commanding Her Majesty's Regular Forces with which such Force is serving, apply to the officers and men of such Force in like manner as it applies to the Regular Forces. As to any conflict between our military law and that of the Colonies, I do not apprehend that, as regards the New South Wales Contingent—whose services alone have been actually accepted for immediate operations—any such conflict can arise, because by the two Acts of that Colony under which this Force has been raised—those of the 9th of October, 1867, and the 10th of May, 1871—such Force, when called out on actual service, is made subject to our military law, with certain exceptions, the most important of which—

  1701
  namely, that which, exempts a volunteer from the punishment of flogging—has now, since the abolition of that punishment in our Army, become inoperative. Besides, I have seen a communication from the Agent General of the Colony of New South Wales, which has throughout met the Imperial Government in the most ungrudging and patriotic spirit, stating that, for more abundant caution, the Colonial Authorities propose by local legislation without delay to make their Contingent subject to Imperial military law in cases where the local law has not provided for their government and discipline; and I have suggested that, to prevent any possible conflict, they should be made unconditionally subject to such law. With regard to the other Colonies, I could not, within the limits of an answer to a Question, give the information which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman desires, as it involves the consideration of some 10 or 12 Colonial Statutes; but the subject is now before me, and I hope at the proper time to do so. Meantime, care will certainly betaken to prevent any such conflict as is suggested—if such a conflict be possible—and no doubt instructions will, if necessary, be given to the officers in command with reference to the points in question.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— PURCHASE OF CAMELS.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to The Daily Chronicle of yesterday, in which the special correspondent at Suakin states:—
  "To-day, out of a complete shipload of camels which came to hand not one was sound, and the majority were hopelessly mangy; all of them have therefore been sent hack to Suez. Each of these wretched brutes cost, so I am credibly informed, £25, and people are asking who is responsible for paying such an absurd price when Berbera desert camels, superb animals, can be bought for £20;"
  and, whether it be true that the purchase of camels for the troops at Suakin has been intrusted to a Cairo contractor, who is sending down only camels from the Delta accustomed to green food and water every day, and totally useless for the Suakin-Berber desert?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called
  1702
  to the subject, and on the 17th and 18th instant I called for special Reports by telegraph. The whole of the camels purchased in and from Egypt are purchased by, and under the responsibility of, the General Commanding in Egypt. In reply to a telegram of the 23rd of February, the General made, on the 24th, the following Report:—
  "Two thousand seven hundred camels have been procured from the Province of the Delta with the assistance of the Minister of the Interior. These animals are the ordinary camels of Lower Egypt, up to loads of about 400 lbs. weight. They have been obtained from the same districts as those used during the campaign in the Eastern Soudan last spring; but are, on the whole, of better quality, as they have been carefully selected by Commissariat officers deputed for that duty, and have not been sent in straight by the Mudirs, as was the case last spring, when time did not admit of other arrangements being made. It is impossible to report as to their suitability for work in the desert until they are actually tried; but similar animals at Suakin last year performed very severe journeys continuously, and stood the climate well. No doubt these animals will require more water than camels which have been accustomed to a desert life. Three hundred camels are coming from Aden; but these, although probably well suited to desert work, will not carry a heavier load than from 250 lbs. to 300 lbs. One thousand are to be delivered at Suakin by Mr. J. L. Rees, under contract. They come from the Berbera coast, and are to be delivered subject to approval by a board of officers at Suakin. They will, I am informed, be similar animals to those obtained from Aden."
  The detailed Reports as to contracts and prices have not yet been received; but the average cost of the Delta camels is stated to have been about £15.
  DR. CAMERONasked, whether it was true that a shipload of camels had had to be sent back to Suez?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That statement has also been referred to the General Officer for report, and he will report on the whole matter.

  RAILWAY RATES AND FARES BILLS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the arrangement he suggested has been now made with the Railway Companies, in reference to the Railway Rates Bills; and, whether it is now understood that these Bills are to be proceeded with, or withdrawn?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No Sir; I have not received any official reply from the Eailway Companies.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the statement of the Secretary of State for India, that the Zulfaga Pass, Ak-Rabat, and Pul-i-Khisti, recently occupied by the Russian Forces, are "within those portions which Her Majesty's Government have regarded as within the Afghan boundaries?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member asks me whether Her Majesty's Government agree to a statement made by Lord Kimberley, Secretary of State for India. I am bound to say that I do not think that such a Question ought to be put, and I must decline to answer it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the supreme decision on points of Order does not rest with you, and not with the right hon. Gentleman? I should like also to point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in quoting the Question, used the word "agree," whereas I asked whether the Government "adhere" to the statement of the Secretary of State for India. Since that statement was made many remarkable things have happened.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is entirely within the discretion of the First Lord of the Treasury to decide what answer he shall give.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Yes, Sir; but I think you have misunderstood me. I did not venture to dispute the right of the Prime Minister to refuse to answer a Question; but I asked for your ruling as to his right to decide whether a Question ought to be put or not.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the Question was out of Order I should not have allowed it to be put.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Permit me to say that I never suggested that the Question was out of Order. But there are many Questions which, in my opinion, ought not to be put, notwithstanding that they are not out of Order.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice—I do so with considerable regret—that, in consequence of the impossibility of obtaining any satisfactory answer from the Government to these important Questions, I shall feel
  1704
  it to be my duty to call attention to the discreditable surrender of the Government of all their demands, and of the rights of their ally, the Ameer of Afghanistan, in the only way at the present time open to private Members, on the first available opportunity.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any approximate date can now be fixed for the commencement of the proceedings for a joint delimitation of the Afghan frontier by Sir Peter Lumsden and the Russian Commissioner, or whether the arrival of the Russian Commissioner on the Afghan frontier is no longer expected.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to fix a date, and I think that it had better be understood that when we fix a date we shall communicate it to Parliament.

  SUSPENSION OF EVICTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce the promised Bill relating to the land question in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland before Easter; and, whether he will give facilities for the Second Reading of the Suspension of Evictions (Scotland) Bill since, under the present Law, tenant, may be dispossessed of their holdings in May, whether they are in arrears with their rent or not?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he was afraid he could give no other answer than that which was given some time ago—namely, that in the present state of Public Business, he feared there was no chance of introducing this Bill before Easter, and that exactly the same reason would prevent the Government from giving facilities for proceeding with any other measure.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the House a few minutes at the end of Supply, in order to take the opinion of the House on this important question.
  [No reply.]

  PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have given the right hon. Gentleman

  1705
  the Prime Minister private Notice that I would ask him to-day what the arrangement for the holidays will be, and also that I would appeal to the Government to put off the discussion on the important question on the Financial Agreement for Egypt until after the holidays, because we have not yet got, and shall not have got until the beginning of next week, the numerous, voluminous, and important Papers upon which that Agreement is founded. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it would be reasonable that that discussion should be put off until after the holidays.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the best answer in my power; and I think, perhaps, it would be well that I should not make a final answer to-day, but reserve my final answer until to-morrow, when I shall have had the opportunity of consulting my Colleagues, and when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have had an opportunity of looking into certain matters of procedure connected with the subject. First, Sir, with regard to the holidays. Considering that we did not meet until the 19th of February, and that Easter is not at a very late date, I have arrived at the conclusion that the most convenient arrangement, and the most acceptable to the House, would be to rather narrow our measure of Recess at Easter, and to take more liberal holidays at Whitsuntide. My intention was, presuming that there would be no Egyptian Question to consider, to ask the House to adjourn on the Tuesday in Passion Week, and to meet again on Thursday, April 9. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether we will agree to postpone the discussion on the Egyptian Question until after the Easter holidays, and he urges that there will be but limited time between Monday and the day alluded to yesterday by my right hon. Friend near me—namely, Thursday in next week—for the discussion of Egyptian affairs. I admit that I was disposed to hope, from the small stress the right hon. Gentleman laid upon the production of Papers at the commencement of the Session, when, I think, they were only produced on the day on which a Vote of Censure on the Government was moved—I was disposed to
  1706
  hope that this difficulty might not have arisen. However, I quite admit it is a serious question, and that the House is entitled to time to consider it. That is one side of the case; but there is another side of the case, which is this—that many postponements have taken place in the operations and proceedings in Egypt with reference to this subject; and any considerable further postponement at a time when practical relief could be granted to Egyptian finances would, I am afraid, be attended with very serious public inconvenience. I would point out this, Sir—that under the arrangement which is proposed by the Government for an international guarantee, as might be expected, the principal part, the leading part—although I do not mean that there is a difference in liability—the leading part, the operative part, falls to Her Majesty's Government, and consequently the proceedings of the House of Commons will be looked to, as I anticipate, by the Legislatures of other States; and I am afraid that a serious postponement by the House of Commons of the decision on this question would cause considerable further delay in consequence of the likelihood that other States will in some degree wait upon our proceedings. Of course there is another alternative, and that is that the discussion might be postponed until Monday in Passion Week. That, at the worst, would give a week for the consideration of Papers, and so far I am able to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks it desirable to press those views upon us; but, if he asks anything more than that, out of respect for him and those for whom he acts, I will take until to-morrow to consider the question; but with the view, as at present advised, I entertain of the interests involved, I am bound to say I cannot give anything like a pledge to agree to the postponement of the definitive Vote until after Easter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to substitute Monday for Thursday will not meet the case. It seems to me that this is a matter which really requires fair and full consideration. And, looking to all that has passed during two or three years now and the short interval suggested, I think what I hare asked for ought to be granted.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE SUSPENSION OF MR. O'BRIEN.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the Resolution as to the conduct of the Speaker with regard to the suspension of Mr. O'Brien was on the Paper for Tuesday, the 31st, on which day he proposed that the House should adjourn; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would regulate his Motion so as to admit of the Resolution being brought on?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had already been obliged, with great reluctance, to state to several hon. Members that the Seats Bill did not admit of any delay to allow of other matters being proceeded with. The present intention of the Government was to move the adjournment of the House at 2 o'clock on Tuesday, 31st March.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— GENERAL GRAHAM'S ADVANCE.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had received any information from General Graham with regard to the reported advance to-day of the Forces under his command?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; I have received no information at all to-day from General Graham.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for War, What proportion of the Railway plant taken over from Messrs. Lucas and Aird for the Suakin and Berber Railway and shipped respectively from Hull and London was new plant, and how much of it had already been used in the construction of the Hull and Barnsley Railway, or of the London and Tilbury Docks; and, whether, and by whom, it was valued for the War Office before shipment; if so valued, on what abatement on manufacturer's prices for new plant of the same description; and, if not valued, how was its "fair and reasonable price" ascertained?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: About two-thirds of the plant referred to is new. The remainder has been
  1708
  previously used. It is carefully inspected by military officers with technical knowledge before shipment, and on the report of such inspection the abatement to be made from the price of new plant is determined.

  OXFORD UNIVERSITY—EXAMINATION IN DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that it is the practice of the University of Oxford to subject all candidates for a degree thereat to an examination in Dogmatic Theology, with the alternative of declaring that they have a conscientious objection to submitting to it; and, whether, if this does not constitute a violation of the letter of the 34 Vic c. 26, s. 3, he will consider whether that Act should not be amended?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that though he had not had an opportunity of referring to the authorities, he was aware that the University of Oxford, compatibly with the law, had determined to continue the old examination in theology; but he was not aware that it was correctly described as dogmatic. As to the second part of the Question, it was a little difficult to have Questions of this nicety and importance propounded for the decision of the Cabinet with only 24 hours' Notice. On the part of the Cabinet he could give no answer to the Question; but his own opinion was that it was extremely improbable that the Cabinet would ask the House to legislate upon the question at the present time and under present circumstances.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTONasked, Whether it was intended to introduce to-night the three Irish Bills on the Paper [the Constabulary Redistribution Bill, the Registration Bill, and the County Courts Officers Bill); and what had become of the National Teachers Bill, or would it be introduced to-night as promised?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he intended to move two out of the three Bills on the Paper to-night, as they would not require any lengthened statement, and he had put the National Education Bill down for Tuesday.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  POST OFFICE—PARCEL POST HORSES.
  MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that on Monday he would ask the Postmaster General, "Whether his attention had been called to the disgraceful condition of many of the horses used in the Parcels Post vans; and what was the system employed by the Post Office for a proper periodical inspection of these horses?
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

ARMY—ARTILLERY AND RIFLES—THE GARDNER GUN AT ABU KLEA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,in rising to call attention to the jamming of the Gardner machine guns at the battles of Tamai and Abu Klea, and of the Martini-Henry rifles during the late campaign, said, that the information which had been received as to these matters showed that they were not satisfactory to the country or to the Army. Of course, it was possible that the failure of the Martini-Henry might be put down to the bad shooting of the soldiers; and there could be no doubt that the skill in firing of our men was not what it ought to be. That was probably due to the mistaken economy which was shown in the matter of rifle practice, for he knew he should be supported by the great majority of the skilled officers of the Army when he said that the number of rounds our soldiers were allowed to fire each year was not one-half what it ought to be. As had been stated by the Commander-in-Chief last year, shooting was greatly a question of expense. The number of rounds that soldiers were allowed to fire each year was not sufficient, and their lack of skill might therefore be traced to mistaken economy. That, however, was a general question well worthy the attention of the War Office; but they had definite statements with regard to the firing in recent battles.
  1710
  More than one correspondent had mentioned the jamming of the cartridges; and he would especially ask the attention of the noble Marquess who represented the War Office to the statement of the Special Correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. He was not going to say that they should accept the ipse dixit of the correspondent of a newspaper as absolute proof in a case of this kind; but the correspondent of The Daily Telegraph—he would by no means say the same of all the correspondents—was a gentleman of remarkable experience, of great judgment and accuracy. The name of Mr. Burleigh was well known; he had been through several campaigns, and they might fairly assume that nothing which he deliberately stated was to be altogether disregarded. This correspondent had written that the wild-ness of aim which enabled the attack of the Arabs to be successful was caused by the fact that hundreds of cartridges jammed after the second or third shot. It was a very serious matter, when a small body of men were sent on a difficult and dangerous march through the desert in the face of thousands of savage foes, that their principal arm of defence should be practically useless after the second or third shot. The correspondent went on to say that officers had informed him that this year their mongrel cartridges stuck worse than ever, and that at Abu Klea he had seen scores of weapons rendered temporarily useless. This statement was worthy the attention of the War Office. If it had not been for the sticking of the cartridges and for the jamming of the Gardner guns it was more than probable that the British square would never have been reached by the Arabs, and some 150 gallant soldiers who were killed would still have been alive, to say nothing of the brave officers who rallied the square. He had himself received confirmation of the correspondent's statement from several officers. Referring to the action of the Gardner gun, under Lord Charles Beresford, at the battle of Abu Klea, Mr. Burleigh stated that during the advance of the Arabs it had been fired occasionally and had performed good service. When, however, it was most wanted—when the Arab attack reached within 300 yards of our square—before three rounds had been fired the cartridges stuck, and the gun was rendered

  1711
  temporarily useless, an accident to which Lord Charles Beresford declared all machine guns were perpetually liable. The same thing occurred at the battle of Tamai last year. On that occasion one of our squares was broken, and the fate of the Army was imperilled; and he believed those who were on the spot attributed the misfortune mainly to the fact that the Gardner gun got jammed after the second or third firing. The fact that this jamming happened at two of the most critical periods deserved consideration. If these defects could not be remedied in the Gardner and Nordenfelt guns, it was time that the War Office adopted some other system of machine gun which would obviate these dangers. The jamming of these guns could not be due to inexperience or mismanagement, as possibly that of the Martini-Henry rifles might be, because they were under the charge of skilled men—the Naval Brigade and Lord Charles Beresford. The fault must have been either in the machinery of the gun or in the cartridges. This was a very serious matter, for it was above all things necessary that our soldiers should be provided with arms of the most approved and precise character to enable them to cope with their foe in the Soudan. He did not propose to proceed with the Motion for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into these facts which he had placed on the Paper, because he did not doubt that the War Office would be willing to look into the matter, and because he did not wish to stand in the way of the important Motion which stood next on the Paper.
  MR. CARBUTTexpressed his gratification that this subject had been brought forward by the hon. Member. There was no doubt that machine guns would play a most important part in the wars of the future, and it was most important that they should adopt the best that could be devised. Machine guns were worked by a handle, and so long as that was turned the theory was that the gun would go on firing. But if some of the cartridges were not very well made, or were a little moist, they would not go off with the same speed as other cartridges, and so remained in the chamber until the next cartridge entered, and either remained in the chamber and exploded, or hung fire sufficiently long to be thrown on to the
  1712
  ground and there explode. Every machine gun yet introduced was liable to this hanging lire; but the Maxim gun, recently invented, was far less liable to this very serious inconvenience. It was an automatic gun, which utilized the recoil, and could fire 600 bullets per minute, and only required the attention of one man. It was an arm of the Service as to the importance of which he believed the Government to be fully alive. With our small Army we were becoming more and more dependent upon mechanical inventions, and there was no arm the Government ought to give more attention to. He, therefore, hoped they would put pressure on the manufacturers and send out a few of these guns to Egypt for the Autumn Campaign.
  MR. BRANDsaid, he had the pleasure of informing the House that the Maxim gun had already been brought to the notice of the Department, and one was being built for trial. He found some difficulty in dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett), so far as the guns were concerned, because he had not given the House any authority for his statement.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I quoted the statement of Mr. Burleigh, the correspondent of The Daily Telegraph.
  MR. BRANDsaid, he was aware that the hon. Member had quoted a statement from the public Press; but he desired to have a stronger authority as to the facts. Since the Motion of the hon. Member had been placed on the Paper he had made inquiries as to this matter, and he found that neither at the Admiralty nor at the War Office had a Report been received to the effect that the Gardner gun had jammed. Indeed, the contrary was the case. A Report had been received by the Admiralty from their officer commanding at Tamasi, and his Report with regard to the action of the gun was highly satisfactory, no mention being made of the jamming of the gun in that action. He could not say anything with reference to what had taken place at Abu Klea, because no Reports had been received as to the Gardner guns in that action. If, however, the hon. Member would favour him with any other authority, besides the statement of The Daily Telegraph correspondent, he would be happy to make

  1713
  further inquiries on the point. As to the Martini-Henry rifles, the War Office had received a communication from the General Officer commanding at Korti that, in some cases, the cartridges for the Martini-Henry rifle got jammed at Abu Klea. He had only one remark to make with regard to the letter of The Daily Telegraph correspondent to which the hon. Member had referred. If he remembered rightly—quoting from memory—that correspondent stated that hundreds of cartridges got jammed; but in the next sentence he said that there was a "continuous roll of fire," so that the case could not have been so serious as represented in the quotation by the hon. Member. There was no doubt that the jamming took place to a certain extent. The present Martini-Henry cartridge was introduced by a Special Committee, over which Lieutenant Colonel Fletcher presided, in 1871, and it had undergone only slight modifications since then. It had been used since that year in several small campaigns, in not one of which had any complaint been made with respect to the working of the roll cartridge in the Martini-Henry rifles. He thought, therefore, it was reasonable to suppose, until detailed and written Reports were received from the front, that some very special and exceptional conditions affected the Martini-Henry cartridge at Abu Klea. For his own part, he could quite imagine that the sand of the Desert might have had a considerable effect in bringing about the jamming referred to. He could only say that the War Office was fully alive to the importance of this subject. Lord Wolseley had suggested a certain course of action, and his recommendations were now under the consideration of the professional advisers of the Secretary of State on this question. If his recommendations were considered by them to be feasible and desirable, he could assure the House that no time would be lost and no necessary expense would be spared in giving effect to them.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— ARMY IN EGYPT.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,who had on the Paper the following Motion:—On Army Estimates, to call attention to the suffering and loss which must result from keeping British troops in the Soudan; and to move—
  1714
  "That it is not proper that Her Majesty s soldiers should he exposed to the deadly Summer climate of the Soudan and Upper Egypt, and that Her Majesty's subjects should be taxed to protect Egypt, not for Her Majesty, nor for the Egyptians, but for the bondholders foreign to Egypt, to whom the revenue is assigned,"
  said, he desired to confine himself specially to the second portion of the Motion. He considered that under all the circumstances it was neither right nor proper that the blood of the people of this country should be shed, or that they should be heavily taxed, in order to protect Egypt for the bondholders. Proceeding to discuss the climate of the Soudan and Upper Egypt, he said the locality in which our soldiers were at present was one of the hottest places in the world, and as a consequence they would be much exposed and suffer very greatly indeed. There were several circumstances which were likely to make exposure of English soldiers in the Soudan more fatal than were the risks encountered in the hot climate of Mooltan. The English troops now in the Soudan were very much exhausted, and they were unprepared to stand a terrible trial. The troops which went to Mooltan were under the excitement of active service; but the troops in the Soudan would have to wait a very long time before being engaged in active service. It appeared that already they were suffering from fever, ophthalmia, and other diseases. We did not know what was really the extra cost of our troops in Egypt and the Soudan, because that extra cost was mixed up with the ordinary cost of the Army. The sum of £100,000 or £200,000 was a mere bagatelle, and it only professed to cover what were called the extraordinary expenses. The average cost of a British soldier, all charges included, he estimated at about £180 per man per annum. In India the cost was about £200 per man per annum. A startling statement had been made by the Under Secretary of State for India, which was that the extraordinary expense for each Native soldier employed by the Government in Egypt was at the rate of £66 per month per man. It certainly seemed extraordinary that a White soldier should cost 1–16th of what a Black soldier cost. There were expenses to be incurred in Egypt which had not to be incurred in India. What number of soldiers were we contributing to the protection of Egypt? He found in The Times a tele-

  1715
  gram from Cairo, which stated that, exclusive of the Expedition at Suakin, we had 6,800 men in Egypt Proper. At £200 per man the cost of this number of soldiers would be £1,360,000. If the total number of troops, exclusive of those at Suakin, were taken at 10,000 men, the Expenditure would exceed. £2,000,000 per annum. The House had been already told that it had been necessary to increase the Army by 15,000 or 16,000 men. It was certain that we were incurring an expenditure of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 per annum, and it was our being placed in this position which led to our difficulties with Russia. He gathered that the Government had practically bound themselves to the protection of Egypt for the next two years.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was not touching on any subject appropriate to the Motion to go into Committee on the Army Estimates.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was venturing to submit that the Army Estimates ought to be reduced, because a large part of them was due to the employment of our Forces in Egypt.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member would not be in Order in pursuing that line of argument.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he would confine himself as closely as he could to the argument embodied in the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, and which he presumed was in Order, or it would not have been allowed to be printed there. It was apparent on the face of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that Egypt had been surrendered by Her Majesty's Government to the bondholders, to be treated as a sequestrated country, and that consequently neither the people of this country nor the people of Egypt had any direct interest in those finances which were to be protected by our troops. He admitted there were certain common European interests in Egypt apart from the interest of the bondholders, and apart from the interest of the people of Egypt; but what he said was that it was not a question peculiar to England. It was a question of common European interest, and why should we pay for all? Why should we pay for the interest of European nations, and not for ourselves alone? It seemed to him that was in reality a price we paid for
  1716
  the privilege of going to Egypt. We went to Egypt at the expense of the lives, of the blood, and money of the people of this country; and it seemed to him that the Government had practically told other nations that this country would protect their interests at the expense of British taxpayers if those nations would allow them to occupy Egypt. Not only were they not called upon to offer this protection, but no one was grateful to them for it. On the contrary, nearly every European nation was more or less hostile to this country for the course we had adopted in Egypt, and at least one European nation—Russia—had taken advantage of our entanglement. He could not hope to carry his Amendment, but he ventured to submit it by way of protest.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not proper that Her Majesty's soldiers should be exposed to the deadly Summer climate of Upper Egypt, and that Her Majesty's subjects should be taxed to protect Egypt, not for Her Majesty, nor for the Egyptians, but for the bondholders foreign to Egypt, to whom the revenue is assigned,"—(Sir George Campbell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped the House would excuse him if he did not follow the hon. Gentleman at any length in the speech he had just made. He must say that he had had very considerable difficulty in following the arguments of his hon. Friend, who seemed to have altogether mixed up in his mind the Estimates which they were about to discuss in Committee and the Supplementary Estimates which it was proposed subsequently to ask the House to agree to. The hon. Gentleman had not only mixed up the Estimates on the Table, which contained nothing whatever relating to the Soudan, but he had also mixed up the question of the Financial Arrangement which had been lately concluded by Her Majesty's Government. A good portion of the hon. Member's speech referred to the object for which Lord Wolseley's Force was now at Korti, and he expressed the opinion that it was not with the view of an ultimate advance to Khartoum, but for the protection of Egypt. He (the Marquess of

  1717
  Hartington) denied that; but even if it were so the House was not called upon that evening to express an opinion upon it, because the Estimates on the Table did not contain any item of expenditure relating to the occupation of the Province of Dongola or of the Upper Nile. All the operations there would be made the subject of debate on the Vote of Credit, and it could hardly be in Order to discuss them now. He understood the hon. Member to protest against any expenditure on the British garrisons in Egypt being charged to the British ratepayer; and he also understood him to contend that the whole cost in respect of that garrison would be very much larger than what was expected. As to the first point, it seemed to him to be one that could not be conveniently discussed on that occasion. There would shortly be an opportunity of discussing the whole question of Egyptian finance, when the arrangement of the International Agreement was brought before the House. The question then to be discussed was whether the Financial Arrangement was equitable to Egypt, to the bondholders, and to the ratepayers of this country; and whether the Revenues of Egypt were capable of defraying the whole of the expenditure on the British garrison. It would also be considered whether a larger sacrifice in respect of the charge to be made on the Egyptian Revenues on account of the British garrisons ought to be called for from the bondholders. The hon. Member, in his calculations with respect to the cost that would be involved by the British occupation of Egypt, seemed not to have taken into account the difference between men being engaged in active military operations where a very large amount of transport was involved, and the case where men were simply in garrison. The hon. Member spoke of the addition of 15,000 men; but they were not tonight discussing anything about 15,000 men. The addition of 15,000 men, if that was the number they proposed to add, would be for the distinct purpose of carrying on the military operations in the Soudan with the object announced to the House. The Army was not increased last year or the year before on account of the occupation of Egypt; it was not proposed to be increased this year on account of the occupation of
  1718
  Egypt. Therefore, it was absurd to argue that the whole cost of 6,000 men was the proper charge to be made against the Egyptian Revenue. The finances of Egypt could be discussed when they were regularly brought before the House; and he trusted the House would not be disposed to wander from the proper and very important subject they had to discuss in connection with the Estimates that evening. He perfectly understood that the hon. Member, and a few others who had from the first been opposed to the occupation of Egypt by British troops in any form, should take this opportunity, among others, of making their protest; but he did not think his hon. Friend himself desired that the House should now take up its time in reviewing the whole subject of Egyptian finance.
  MR.LABOUCHEREinferred from the remarks of the noble Marquess that there was nothing in the present Estimates connected either with the Soudan or with our occupation of Egypt.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the hon. Member misunderstood him. He would explain, when they were allowed to go into Committee, the way in which the Estimates related to the occupation of Egypt; but he might say that they had no reference to the operations in the Soudan.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he understood that his hon. Friend wished simply to protest against the expenditure of money in Egypt, and he had struck out of his Amendment any reference to the Soudan, so that he was not only in Order, but justified in objecting to this expenditure. It appeared that there was something in the Estimates which related to the garrison in Egypt, and the contention was that the cost of that garrison ought to be borne by Egypt, and not by this country. That was a fair contention, and it was only reasonable that his hon. Friend, and those who thought with him, should raise the question. Under the circumstances, however, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment; or, if the House declined to grant that leave, that he should not go to a division, but in Committee move a reduction of the Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARMY—THE SEAWARD DEFENCE OF THE MILITARY PORTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in rising to call attention to the inadequacy of the defences of our military ports, said: I do not desire to exaggerate the importance of this matter; but if I refer to the language held by the First Lord of the Admiralty, I think I shall show it is one which deserves and requires the very serious attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War and of this House. It will be in the recollection of the House that I asked the noble Lord, two or three days ago, whether it was his intention to make provision for the seaward defence of Portsmouth, Plymouth, Gibraltar, and Malta. I confine myself to these ports, because they were mentioned by Lord. North-brook. That noble Lord, in his speech in the House of Lords, December 2, 1884, said—
  "The other important question is, whether it is not necessary, in consequence of the increased power of guns of late years and the changes in that respect, to make some alteration and improvement in the seaward defences of our great military ports at home and ahroad—I mean such ports as Portsmouth, Plymouth, Malta, and Gibraltar. That subject has also been under the consideration of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War; and it is probable that he will have proposals to bring before Her Majesty'sGovernment."—(3Hansard, [294] 413.)
  In the position which the noble Lord occupies in the Government, the language which he has used is a distinct recognition of the importance of the subject. I think the statement is strong, because of its moderation; and therefore I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take steps to improve those defences? This is not the first time that I have drawn attention to the necessity of doing so; and if I have refrained from insisting on the weakness of particular places, or the insufficiency of the means used for defending them, it has been from a desire to avoid anything which would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government in the discharge of their duties, and also from the desire which everyone of proper feeling would have not to give occasion for panic or alarm. There is no occasion for panic or alarm if we exercise the
  1720
  common prudence, judgment, and energy which I ask for from Her Majesty's Government. The interpretation which I put on the answer of the noble Lord to a Question which I put to him the other day on the subject is that there must be delay, that of two things this is of the less importance, and that the energies of Her Majesty's Government must be devoted to a great extent to strengthening the defences of the coaling stations, and, therefore, that they are unable to take the steps recognized as necessary for the seaward defences of our military ports. I do not think that is a sufficient answer. If the military ports are insufficiently defended, the admission that our coaling stations should be better protected appears to me to be an argument that the military ports should be adequately defended. I understand the statement to be that we are justified in leaving half our defences unprotected, because a certain expenditure is to be incurred for outlying stations. I shall be told that we have gone on for several years, and that there has been no danger. My answer is, Why have we forts or other means of defence unless there is danger? But again I fall back upon the statement of Lord Northbrook as to the necessity for improving the defences of our military ports. Perhaps I shall be told that I am doing injury to the public interests by what I am about to say. I do not sympathize with the view held by the Department, and probably by the Government, that injury would be done by stating plainly the circumstances of the case. I believe the very reverse. Just consider what we are. We are servants of the Crown and the country; and if it is contended that it is our duty to withhold from the Crown and the country the simple facts of the case in which the country is so deeply concerned, I do not agree with that view of the case. If there is sufficient defence the country ought to know it. If the defence is insufficient, the country ought to know it too, because it is absurd to suppose that those abroad who take an interest in the matter are unacquainted with the facts. Everyone who reads the newspapers, and every Member of the House, is well aware that there are naval and military officers, some attached to Embassies, others not so attached, whose duty it is to keep Foreign Governments informed as to the

  1721
  condition of our defences and of our military and naval power. Therefore, to say that we should be giving information which might be injurious to the country in the event of a war is to keep up a delusion injurious to the public interests. But I will so far respect the position maintained for a great many years as not to state precisely what I know of the weakness and strength of particular ports. I will call them A, B, and C. I have information as to the calibre of guns, the number of guns not mounted or not having carriages, where the amount of recoil is greater than the space behind the guns, and a vast amount besides, which any man or any newspaper may get that chooses to take the trouble, and that without any breach of confidence or betrayal of trust by those whose duty it is to take charge of such places. I will now speak of A. No further steps whatever have been taken to organize the submarine mine and torpedo defence. Very weak in sappers (one weak company), who would require weeks instead of days to lay out these mines. Torpedo boats are necessary; but in the absence of the Fleet—and it would be at sea in time of war—there are no trained men capable of working them. I hear that representations on the subject have been made to the authorities; but nothing has been done. B.—The stores are incomplete, and the trained men could not lay the mines in less than three weeks. The ground to be defended has not been determined upon. C.—No boats. No station fixed or plans decided upon. No Royal Engineer torpedo officer here at present. No torpedo depôt yet established. In fact, if a war suddenly broke out with a Naval Power, this port would be quite unprepared with regard to the submarine defences. I mention these three ports out of six or seven of which I have information. If the noble Marquess wishes it, I will give him much more accurate details and complete information which will satisfy him that I am speaking with full knowledge of the facts; but I can say something more. As to mercantile ports, there has been a proposal for several years to make use of and train local Volunteer Engineers; but as yet no stores have been furnished for practice, nor any serious steps taken to train the men, although the artizans who constitute these corps are in some cases par
  1722
  ticularly well adapted for the work, and anxious to take it up. Proposals have for several years been in existence for creating submarine defences; but they have never gone beyond proposals. There are plenty of men, not necessarily Royal Engineers, who would be glad to submit to the necessary discipline, would be always found on the spot, and would be anxious to take up the work. There is no cause for alarm if we set to work at once; but it is to be regretted that schemes that have been on paper for years should never get beyond paper. We cannot afford to be less than ready with our materials for warfare. Is it to be supposed that a Foreign Power intending to make war upon this country would have the courtesy to postpone offensive operations until we could overcome every difficulty that might impede our action? The greatest security for peace is the fact that a nation is prepared for war; and I believe that we can only insure peace by making the best use of the materials and organization at our command. I trust that we shall receive some assurance from the Secretary of State for War that the work which ought to be undertaken in connection with our military and mercantile ports shall be taken in hand at once. A large expenditure is not required; but a very great responsibility will rest upon the Government if they fail to avail themselves of the means now at their disposal for the successful prosecution of this work.
  THE MARQUESS OF HABTINGTON: I have no complaint to make of the manner in which this subject has been brought before us. On the contrary, I think the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the careful, moderate, and guarded statement which he has just made. I gather that the chief subject to which he desires to call attention is what he considers to be the condition of unpreparedness of our submarine mining defences. The House will not expect that I should follow closely the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms upon the subject, because by the very proper mode of description which he has adopted in his references to our forts he has put it out of my power to correct any mistakes into which he may have fallen. However, if the right hon. Gentleman will give me privately the information which he has received in

  1723
  regard to any deficiency in the submarine defences of any forts I shall be very happy to inquire into the matter, and to give the House such further information as may be in my power when we come to consider the special Votes. I may now mate a few general observations which I think will be thought to a certain extent satisfactory. Three extra companies for the protection of submarine mines of the principal military stations are being formed. Although this has been effected at some sacrifice of the strength of some branches of the Corps of Royal Engineers, yet the importance of the branch is considered so great that no consideration can be allowed to interfere with the formation of these companies. Local aid is being developed in the formation of Militia companies for Submarine Mining Companies in Devonshire and Kent. The wants of coaling stations are being met by the formation of a special battalion for training the men. A sum is being taken in the present Estimates for raising a native battalion which shall take part in the submarine mining defence of Singapore, Hong Kong, and other important coaling stations, and some of these stations have certainly been very much strengthened. At Chatham the Submarine Mining School has been formed into a separate battalion. To obtain the advantage of having a Submarine Mining Company, a large number of intelligent boatmen and other intelligent men have been employed, and recruiting is going on at seaports. At present the Corps of Royal Engineers labour under a certain disadvantage compared with other corps in the absence of any chance of promotion from the ranks. This will for the future be remedied by the formation—for which some provision is made in the present Estimates—of a Coast Corps of Royal Engineers on lines similar to those upon which the Coast Corps of Royal Artillery was formed. The Corps will take charge and superintend the submarine mine defences of important stations, and take part in the recruiting, drilling, and training of Militia and Volunteer Submarine Mining Companies. The plans of the defences of the principal forts have been lately revised in consultation with the Naval Authorities, in order to obtain unity of action between them and the Military Authorities. I am not able
  1724
  to state what has been actually expended on the preparation of submarine mines; but very considerable expenditure has been, and is still being, incurred. The right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, see that the subject is not being neglected. I should like to say a few words upon the more general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the Motion which he has placed upon the Paper—namely, the question of the defences of our principal military stations. When the fortification of those stations was provided for by Lord Palmerston—by the raising of a long loan for between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000—it was intended that the cost of the necessary armaments should be defrayed out of the annual Estimates; and in 1860 it was estimated that £5,250,000 had been employed for this particular purpose. From 1860 to 1878 £3,250,000 were expended, leaving a balance, according to the original Estimate, of£1,750,000 still to be provided. About £750,000 has since been spent, so that about£1,000,000 is still due on the original Estimate; but the increased cost of heavy ordnance, although, of course, the number of guns required at the works has considerably diminished, has considerably increased the total cost of the necessary arms, and it is now considered that about £1,250,000 are still due to complete the approved defences of the principal military stations at home and abroad. The alterations in the character of ordnance have also rendered necessary certain structural alterations in the works themselves, and also, in some cases, the construction of new works, and works in new and more advanced positions; and for these purposes, and for the completion of preparations for the new mode of defence, it is estimated that something like £1,000,000 will be required in addition to the works for submarine mining. There is, therefore, about £2,250,000 to be expended before the defences of the great military ports at home and abroad can be considered completely satisfactory. I am very far indeed from saying that this expenditure ought to be very long delayed; but the question of how and when, and in what mode it should be proceeded with is one of very considerable difficulty and embarrassment. Certainly it is no Party question, because both Parties in the country have acquiesced in the delay that has been in-

  1725
  curred. The difficulty is not only the very great difficulty common to all Governments of finding the money, but it is necessary that we should be satisfied that we had got something which, if not absolutely final, presents a reasonable prospect of being satisfactory for a very considerable number of years before calling upon Parliament to make a great effort in the matter. Up to the present time I am bound to say no such stage of finality can be said to have been reached. Then, Sir, the question of the time when we ought to make a great effort is one that requires a great deal of consideration; and, above all things, we ought to avoid by a hasty expenditure making the country indisposed subsequently to make those efforts and sacrifices which it may ultimately have to make. If these ports and military stations are defenceless, we should not be justified in acquiescing in any further delay; but that is by no means the case. Although the armaments have not been completed up to the approved scale, the defences are exceedingly strong. The opinion, I believe, of military authorities derived from recent experience—from experience such as that gained by the attack on the forts at Alexandria, and from the still more recent experience gained from the attack by the French Fleet on the Chinese forts—the opinion is that the defence of fortifications is gaining ground in comparison to the power of the attack; and both at Alexandria and the Chinese forts I believe that the general opinion is that the forts, if defended by a resolute garrison, would have been able to offer a very successful resistance to the attack of even a powerful fleet. I believe that our forts at any rate, even in their present position, are exceedingly strong. It is extremely doubtful whether any Power or combination of Powers would venture to attack them, unless they were assured that they would not themselves be exposed to the possible attack of our own Fleet. They are, I think, strong enough to make a successful resistance, except under a combination of circumstances almost impossible, if not utterly out of the question. There is, therefore, no cause whatever for a panic—there is no cause for alarm, or for a hasty and ill-considered expenditure. We have upon our hands at the present moment an expenditure of a very heavy
  1726
  nature, not only in connection with military expeditions, but also for Imperial defences. We have also undertaken to protect a number of Colonial coaling stations; and that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, is a service of a most urgent nature. We have also undertaken and are making provision for an expenditure of more than £1,500,000 in the next five years in an addition to the naval guns, and we have also to make some provision for replenishing military equipments and stores. These services tax severely, I will not say the resources of the country, but certainly to a very considerable amount the resources of the Military Departments, both engineering and manufacturing. The Engineering Department at the present moment is occupied almost to the utmost in connection with the Expeditions that are in hand, and also in connection with the works in progress at the coaling stations; and I doubt whether it would be in the power of this Department to undertake any very heavy expenditure at the present time. The House, however, may rely upon it that as soon as there is any reasonable prospect of a finality in these matters being attained, and that as soon as we are convinced that we can assure the country that it will have its money's worth, we shall not hesitate to make such proposals as will provide for the complete security of these important stations, and to call upon the country to make such sacrifices as may be necessary for the purpose.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he agreed with the noble Marquess that this was no Party question; but it was very desirable that it should be discussed apart from other questions of Army administration, and in such a manner as would show to the House and the country that the Government were keeping themselves in accord with the general desire that these stations should be strengthened. There was only one point in the speech of the noble Marquess with which he should have found fault, and that was contained in almost his last sentence. The noble Marquess said the House might rest assured that whenever the Government saw a reasonable prospect of finality they would take such steps as they might deem necessary to complete the defences of the country. That was just laying down the one condition that was most difficult of fulfil-

  1727
  ment. There could be no such thing as finality in these matters. What the country was fairly entitled to ask was that the Government, without committing themselves absolutely to the expenditure of money on schemes which might be valueless before the time came for their completion, should yet make such preparations as might enable them in the event of any emergency to meet it without delay. Over and over again it had occurred that before schemes for forts and other extensive works were completed a great change in the original plans had had to be made at great expense owing to various circumstances. The noble Lord had overlooked the fact that his right hon. Friend was well within his right in making the observations that he did, having regard to the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, who, in "another place," gave as a ground for showing that the ships of the Navy were sufficient for the calls that might be made on them the fact that—
  "This subject was also under the consideration of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War; and it was probable that he would have proposals to bring before Her Majesty's Government."—(3 Hansard, [294] 413.)
  The House and the country were very anxious to know what these proposals exactly were. When they came to discuss the Votes themselves the Government would have to be pressed in greater detail on these matters. There certainly was an impression abroad that there was not quite that state of preparedness at some of these ports which the country had a right to expect. It was not enough to have the materials on the spot. There should be in the hands of the authorities some intelligible plan as to the means by which they would carry out their system of defence, and from time to time this system ought to be tested. He believed that when the late Government left Office there were very ample and carefully worked out plans for the defence of some of the principal ports of the Kingdom. Of course these plans required revision from time to time; but it was most important that such plans and schemes should be brought up to date, and kept in a condition to be worked efficiently without delay.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILdesired to know whether any progress had been made to find out whether the large ports
  1728
  were willing to contribute themselves towards their own defence? The time for action had now come; and he hoped that the noble Lord would, in the statement he was about to make, re-assure the country by making it feel that no step would be left untried to settle this most important question upon a sound and adequate basis.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he had never heard such an idea expressed in the House before. In his opinion, the whole country was equally interested in the defence of the various ports; and it was altogether out of the question that the inhabitants of places like Plymouth and Portsmouth should be called upon to contribute specially to their defence, as the noble Lord opposite suggested.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, it was not his suggestion. The Secretary of State for War had stated, in reply to a Question last year, that the matter was under consideration how far a locality should contribute to its own defence.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the subject under discussion last year was that of commercial harbours as distinguished from military ports, and he had thrown out the idea whether commercial harbours should not contribute towards their own defence; but his remark did not apply to naval ports like Portsmouth and Plymouth.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that was a very different thing. He should like to know whether the guns were ready for the forts if they were required to be used?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, there was a part of our Dominions in North-West America which possible contingencies might render it desirable for us to look after. The coast of British Columbia, for a distance of several hundred miles, was absolutely without a harbour. During the months that preceded the ascent of our Fleet to Constantinople, Russian ships of war were cruising off the coast of British Columbia. There were two powerful Russian ironclads, but no British Force at all. The strength of our squadron on this coast was one iron-clad and three corvettes, a force which was totally inadequate to protect the enormous range of coast, practically speaking, extending from Australia in the South to Behring's Straits in the North. Russia,

  1729
  no doubt, was fully alive to the importance of those possessions, and her first step, in the event of war with this country, would probably be to seize the principal harbour, which commanded the whole coast of British Columbia; and if they did this the whole of the North-West Coast would be at their mercy. He desired, however, to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given Notice—namely—
  "To call attention to the dissatisfaction caused by certain conditions of Army service as at present regulated; and to move, That, instead of the system of stoppages under which the soldier is called upon to pay for certain indispensable articles, these should he supplied free of charge, and the scale of pay altered, if necessary, in consequence."
  He believed that there was no point in the Military Service which caused such widespread dissatisfaction as the system of stoppages of pay. In the proclamations by which recruits were attracted to the Army certain attractions were held out for military service. There would probably be no dissatisfaction on the part of non-commissioned officers and men were the terms of the proclamation adhered to; but there was no reason why the War Department should enlist soldiers under what were practically false pretences. A short time ago there was placed at the door of the Horse Guards a proclamation which contained a direct mis-statement. It contained the catalogue of supposed advantages which men obtained on enlistment, and among them there was a statement that free rations were supplied. In the official paper it was true that a free ration of bread and meat was stipulated for. That was, no doubt, correct, because the soldier received 1 lb. of bread and three-quarters of a pound of meat per day. But he asked the House whether, if they enlisted a soldier on condition of his receiving free rations, and then gave him only 1 lb. of bread and three-quarters of a pound of beef, they were fulfilling the spirit of the proclamation under which they had attracted the soldier to the Service? He said they would not be fulfilling its spirit. The soldier got what was barely sufficient to maintain him in life, but not sufficient to maintain him in health. He received 1s. a-day, which, no doubt, he calculated upon having to spend; but, as a matter of fact, he had to supply himself out of this 1s. with certain necessaries,
  1730
  such as tea and other groceries, and vegetables. When he enlisted he was said to be supplied with a free kit, and that was to last him for the whole time of his service—namely, seven years. In this kit he was supplied with two shirts, and if they did not last for the seven years, as he was obliged to wear a shirt under his tunic, he was obliged to supply the deficiency out of his 1s. a-day. By the Regulations the soldier was bound to pipeclay his belts—the pipeclay he had to provide himself. Then, again, he was compelled to have the articles in his kit marked, and he was charged 1d. for each article marked. Indeed, the deductions from the soldier's pay, consequent upon and inseparable from the conditions of his service, amounted from 4d. to 7d. per day. In addition to the Regulation stoppages, there was a form of stoppage which came under the head of barrack damages. It was unfair and unjust that men should be charged for the inherent defects of articles supplied by the Government. As an instance of what he said was of daily occurrence, he mentioned that a soldier in a certain barracks in London was ordered to affix to the chimney-piece of the barrack-room a board with certain Regulations upon it. The board was supplied by the Department duly marked. In order to hang up the board the soldier had to bore two holes in it, and he was assured by the superior officer of that soldier that it was absolutely impossible to bore the holes without splitting the board. There was no cause for surprise, therefore, that the board in the course of being fixed was split; but there was considerable cause for surprise to find that the soldier was charged 10 d. for a new board. Also with regard to brushes, they would not last for seven years, and the soldier had to supply new ones at his own cost, the result being that the cleanest soldier suffered the most in this respect. Then, again, a soldier was compelled to shave, and yet he was only supplied with a 1s. razor, which certainly would not last for seven years. The whole system of stoppage out of pay was a bad one, and the first Secretary for War who devised a means of putting an end to it would deserve the thanks of the Service. He asked the noble Lord the present Secretary for War to satisfy himself by personal inquiry as to the justice of the complaint of the soldiers upon this point.

  1731
  If he found that they had a real grievance, he was bound to devise some means for remedying it. With regard to the question of deferred pay, he might say that there was a very strong inducement to the soldier to draw his £21 at the expiration of his first term of seven years' service. Many soldiers married without leave, and at the expiration of their first term of service they felt themselves compelled to draw their deferred pay. He suggested that at the expiration of the first term of service a soldier, upon re-enlisting, should be allowed two or three months furlough. If this course were adopted, they would keep many good men in the Service, and should induce them to re-enlist at the expiration of their first term, and thus we should greatly increase the efficiency of the Army as a whole.
  MR. GOURLEYremarked, that what was required for the better defence of our commercial harbours was an organization of all our available Forces on the spot, whether Regulars or Volunteers.
  COLONEL MILNE-HOMEalso desired to impress upon the Secretary for War the necessity for taking steps in order to prevent in some instances the calls which were now made upon the soldier for providing part of his kit out of his pay. He should do away with some of the stoppages; but before going into that he wished to say a word as to free rations. He considered it most desirable to increase the meat ration. Three-quarters of a pound of meat was absurdly little—hon. Members would not dare give such a quantity to their own servants. The ration might be free, but it was not a "ration." As to the constant re-issue a free kit, he thought that was out of the question, some men being much more careless than others. He had seen soldiers lose everything in a few weeks, whereas others could keep their kits for months most economically. There were, however, exceptions—such as the Autumn Manœuvres—where he should make special allowance. The question of deferred pay was most important. It was, indeed, highly important to see that everything was done to induce good men to stop in the Army. He was afraid, however, some Regulations had gone against that, short service being so much encouraged.
  CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONurged that they should do away with the stoppages altogether. He would rather see the British soldier have some defined pay and no stoppages at all. He knew from experience that men entered the Service thinking they had Is. a-day, whereas they soon discovered how false their hopes were. There was an important leader in The Times last year on this subject; and he thought it could not receive too much consideration, and he hoped the Secretary for War would not allow it to escape his attention. A reform in the direction would very much stimulate recruiting and increase the popularity of the Service. As regarded the deferred pay, he had always been against it, and he believed it interfered with the desire of soldiers to re-engage. He considered that soldiers, at the expiration of their term of service, should be allowed some more on leave. If this were done he believed many would rejoin the Service, and would prove very valuable additions to it.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the House would not expect him to make a lengthy reply to speeches which, although of an important character, might, he thought, have been better delivered on the same points in Committee. He could assure the hon. Baronet that this subject had been fully discussed by the Royal Commission for Recruiting; and General Peel, in introducing that Report, said that in order to make the Service more attractive it was better to increase the pay than make any alterations in the stoppages. He held that 2d. a-day would be more attractive. That was at a time when it was desirable to obtain more men for the Service. He thought hon. Members could hardly be aware of the enormous amount of money involved in this question of the stoppages. They must do one thing or another; they must leave the pay intact or reduce it pro tanto. The amount, if they were to concede this to the soldier, would be £400,000, if valued at 2d., and £80,000 was the sum estimated for stoppages for necessaries. If, on the other hand, the pay was to be reduced pro tanto, they should have to reduce the daily pay below 1s., which was the proverbial sum always recognized by the recruit. He believed this would be most unpopular in the Army and prejudicial to recruiting. Some system of

  1733
  stoppages for necessaries was obviously required, for otherwise the public would not be protected against the improvident soldier. They must also have stoppages for barrack damages, or great harm might be done. On all occasions on troops marching out or marching in two officers attended—one belonging to those going out and one to those coming in, and the damages were assessed in their presence. This was done in order that nothing but what was really fair should be assessed against the troops going out. There was great variety in the stoppages as between different ranks and different regiments. On active service the soldier had a free ration, and allowance was made for the wear and tear of his clothing. Having regard to the fact that the ranks were now full, and that they were under no necessity for holding out extra inducements, and considering the enormous sums involved in the stoppages, he could not, if it had been made, agree to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell).
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES (NUMBERS).

  DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  The MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir Arthur Otway, in moving the Estimates which have been laid upon the Table, or rather in moving the first Vote for Men, and making the general Statement which is usual on these occasions, I regret that I have to say that the Estimates which we are now considering cannot be treated as final Estimates—they are rather of a provisional character. They do not represent the full demands which will have to be made upon the country for the Military Services of the year. The Estimates were in course of preparation—in fact, they were almost complete—before the catastrophe took place which we heard of in February, and, consequently, before the measures which were decided upon by Parliament, and which were subsequent to that event. The full demands which we shall have to make upon the House for the Military Services of the year cannot, therefore, be made known until a Vote of Credit
  1734
  is asked for after Easter. We are obtaining, as quickly as we can, the information and collecting the materials upon we hope to be able to lay before the House a full statement of what the other demands for the Military Services of the year will be; but until we have obtained that information it would be impossible, I think, and it would be inconvenient, to enter into any discussion at the present time as to what will probably be required for the Expedition in the Soudan. I will first state to the Committee the basis upon which these Estimates are framed. In addition to the ordinary Home and Colonial requirements, and for keeping 6,000 men in Lower Egypt, they also provide for an estimated expenditure of £500,000 on account of the Bechuanaland Expedition; and, as I have already stated, they provide nothing either for the Nile Expedition, or for the Suakin Expedition, or for the Suakin and Berber Railway. The original Estimate presented in the present year for the Military Services of 1884–5 was £15,930,600. In August last we obtained a Vote of Credit for £300,000 on account of the Nile Expedition; and in the course of the Autumn Session we obtained a further Supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000 for the Nile Expedition, and £675,000 for the Bechuanaland Expedition. These additions to the ordinary Estimates of the year amounted to £1,975,000. Since the Estimates we are now discussing were laid upon the Table we have had to ask for a Supplementary Estimate for £942,000, of which £672,000 were for the expenses connected with General Graham's Suakin Expedition, and £270,000 were Supplementary Estimates in respect of the ordinary Services of the year. Therefore, we have thus had £2,917,000 voted in addition to the ordinary Estimates presented last year. That brings up the total sum voted for Military Services for 1884–5 to £18,847,600, as against £17,820,700 for 1885–6, being a difference of £1,026,900. But the whole of the Supplementary Estimates to which I have just made reference, with the exception of £270,000, were for special war expenditure, these Supplementary Estimates providing a special war expenditure of £2,647,000. Therefore, the sums Parliament voted for what may be called the ordinary Military Ser-

  1735
  vices of the present year is £16,200,600. Of the Estimates I am now moving only £500,000 is for special, or war expenditure in connection with the Bechuanaland Expedition. We ask for £17,820,700 for the ordinary Services of the year, which is an excess over the amount voted for the ordinary Service of the previous year of £1,120,100. The occupation of Egypt accounts for £150,000—that is to say, the estimated additional cost of the Army of Occupation in Egypt is £250,000, of which only the sum of £100,000 is estimated to be borne by Egypt. Since these Estimates were laid upon the Table a slight modification has been made in the Egyptian financial arrangements, by which a larger sum than £100,000 will be paid by Egypt; £70,000 more will be paid by Egypt in aid of the Army Estimates; and the charge, therefore, in respect of Egypt, will be £70,000 less than that which is shown on the Estimates. To that extent the £150,000 required will be reduced. There has also been a considerable reduction in the military contributions to be received from the Ceylon Government, owing to a smaller part of the garrison being regarded as necessary for Colonial purposes. This, and some minor items of loss by exchanges in other Colonial military contributions, will entail an additional charge on the Estimates of £46,700. The increase of regimental and other establishments of the Army, to which I will refer by-and-bye, will cost £65,000. There is an excess in addition to the Store Vote of £680,000, and also an addition to the Works Vote of £98,300. I may state, however, that these figures do not precisely agree with the statement of the differences that was circulated to Members with the Army Estimates, because the accuracy of the statement has been affected by the circumstance to which I have referred—that since these Estimates were presented, and since the statement was made showing the difference between these and the provisional Estimates, other Supplementary Estimates have been voted containing charges for ordinary expenditure amounting to £270,000. The additional cost of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces amounts to £79,000; and there is an increased charge for deferred pay of £30,000, and for the Clothing Vote of £17,500. The last item is, I believe, caused by the issue
  1736
  of additional clothing to the troops. The sum of £22,000 is required, in addition to that taken in last year's Vote, for rewards to inventors. There is also a miscellaneous increase of £7,600, causing a total increase of £1,195,700. On the other hand, it is subject to a decrease, owing to a larger estimated receipt from India and from the Non-Effective Vote of £75,000, making the total increase in ordinary expenditure of the present over the past year of £1,120,000. It is right that I should now give the Committee some explanation as to the progress of recruiting and the proposed Establishments for the year. Last year I stated, in moving the Estimates, that the large deficiency in the number of the Army which existed in 1883 made it necessary to amend, in certain respects, the term of enlistment, and steps for that purpose were being taken at the time I presented the Estimates. Up to that time the result of recruiting had been satisfactory; but the deficiency had not been materially restored. The experience of the present year has justified the anticipations which were formed as to the effect of the measures taken with regard to recruiting. The result of these measures is, that we have raised in the past year—I speak of the real, not the financial year—35,653 recruits. That addition to the number of recruits not only met the loss of the year itself, but has also given us a net gain of 7,500 men serving with the Colours. The number of effectives on January 1, 1884, including rank and file and noncommissioned officers, was 173,529 men; on January 1, 1885, it was 181,000, or an increase of about 7,500. This rate of progress in recruiting has been maintained during the portion which has elapsed of the present year. We have raised, up to March 1 in the present year, 7,442 recruits, and the number of effectives on that date was 184,209. In comparing the actual numbers with the Establishment, as voted by Parliament, I may remind the Committee that unless some such special measures had been taken as have been taken in the present year to enable us to recruit over the Establishment strength—unless this strength is exceeded at some time or other, there must be a deficiency at the time of the season for relief and for some time afterwards.

  1737
  The loss of the Army in India is concentrated in the months in which the reliefs are effected, hut the gain to the Army is only caused by a gradual process of recruiting, which goes on during the year; and therefore, unless arrangements are made by voting an excess of 2,000 men this year to enable our Establishment to be in excess of the number agreed to by Parliament, there must be a normal deficiency at this time of the year. In March, 1884, on the Establishment of 165,386 rank and file, there was a deficiency of 2,846 on the British Establishment, and 3,570 on the Indian Establishment, or a total deficiency of 6,416. In last year's Estimate 2,600 men were added to the Establishment. With this increased Establishment of 167,986 rank and file, we have now an excess of 1,903 men on the British Establishment, and the deficiency has been reduced to 1,459 on the Indian Establishment, leaving a total excess of 450 men. The increase in the numbers to which I have referred has been mainly, though not entirely, due to the recruiting of the year. To a certain small extent it is due to other reasons, as, for instance, to the measures which were taken in August to meet the requirements of the Expeditionary Forces. In August, under the 87th section of the Army Act, men were detained with their battalions who were actually serving in South Africa or in Egypt. We cannot at present state the exact number of those who were so detained, and who, in the ordinary course, would have been passed into the Reserves; but it is not very large. Further, in August, an order was issued enabling men who had joined the Reserve previous to August 10 of last year, and who had three years' service to give, to rejoin the Colours. Up to the 1st of January in the present year 1,455 Reserve men had so rejoined. I have already stated the measures taken in February upon the receipt of the news of the fall of Khartoum.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: What is the number of men who have rejoined the Colours?
  The MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Between the 10th of August, 1884, and the 1st of January this year, 1,455 men have rejoined; but I may add that our offer was to a certain extent a limited one. No man was allowed to rejoin who had not got three years still to serve. I
  1738
  have already stated, in moving the Supplementary Estimates, the measures that were taken in February on the receipt of the news of the fall of Khartoum in connection with the larger military operations which, in our opinion, then became necessary. I will not repeat a statement of those measures, for it would be partly a repetition and partly an anticipation of what further measures we may have to state when we make our proposal for a Vote of Credit; but on this occasion I may add that the Reserve men who have volunteered to rejoin the Colours will, on their discharge, receive deferred pay from the date of their transfer to the Reserve, and not only from the date of their rejoining the Colours. The scheme of Establishment which was laid down in 1881 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which a large increase was made to the Establishment, has to a very great extent been disturbed by the exigencies of the Service, and has never had an opportunity of coming into real and normal operation. Notwithstanding the difficulties, however, under which this scheme has suffered, it has nevertheless worked, as far as it has had a chance, exceedingly well. The object of the scheme was to enable us, without delay, and without having immediate recourse to the Reserves, to send abroad a few battalions in the event of a small war, such as had frequently occurred. That object has been attained, and, I think, something more than attained. We have been able to despatch and maintain for a considerable time abroad 16 Infantry battalions of the Line in addition to three battalions of the Guards, those being the battalions which practically formed the First Army Corps spoken of by my right hon. Friend. The 1,400 Reserve men, of whom I have spoken as having joined the Colours, were not until February necessarily appointed to the battalions serving abroad. We have now, in addition to the ordinary Colonial battalions, eight battalions with Lord Wolseley on the Nile, besides two battalions on the line of communication. General Graham has three battalions of the Guards and three of the Line, and we have also four-and-a-half battalions in Egypt. In Egypt and the Soudan at present there are 20½ battalions, numbering 16,400 men, and by the last Return the efficient

  1739
  strength of these battalions was 15,900. We have also in South Africa 4½ battalions of 3,490 effective strength. All this force has, therefore, been despatched practically without having recourse to the calling up of the Reserves, or even the detention of the Reserve men by Her Majesty's Proclamation, but only to such measures as are provided by the Army Act. The operations, however, which are about to be undertaken amount to more than a small war, and for the operations of the year now in progress other measures will have to be resorted to; but it must be said that there never was a time before 1881 when it was possible to send out and maintain for a considerable time so large a force as has been sent on this occasion, without any delay, and without any confusion or dislocation of the Service. We have in no instance had recourse to the practice which on other occasions has been so justly deprecated of calling for volunteers from one regiment to another. I should like, without going into any details, to call the attention of the Committee to the Appendix C of the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, showing the increase and decrease of the present year, and also to the interesting and new Appendices L and M, showing the strength of the Army Reserve and Auxiliary Forces for the last 10 years, and the increase and decrease of the Army in the two periods during the last 20 years. I will not trouble the Committee by going into any details; but they will see that the waste of the Army for last year through death, invaliding, discharge, and desertion, is a little under 14,000, as the 9,784 who were transferred to the Reserve, and the 706 who were transferred to the Auxiliary Forces, cannot be considered waste. These Returns also show that the loss by death, invaliding, discharge, or misconduct last year is the smallest that there has been for 21 years. That fact is sufficient to show that there is an improvement in the health and also in the general character of the Army. With regard to the growth of the Army Reserves, of course, it has been slightly checked by the measures to which I have alluded. But notwithstanding there has been an increase last year of 4,700, and the number is now 39,244. In the course of the past year, therefore, there has been a total increase of the fighting strength of the Army with the Colours
  1740
  and with the Reserve by 12,134 men, and we have now more than 40,000 in excess of what we had 10 years ago. Besides the First Class Army Reserve I have referred to there is the Militia Reserve, the strength of which is 30,803 men. In addition, therefore, to the effective strength of the Array with the Colours we have 70,000 Reserve men, liable to be called out at any moment. As to recruiting, the number of recruits in 1884 exceeded those of 1883 by 2,557. The Cavalry continues to be a popular service, and it is now 519 over its Establishment. The system of three years' enlistment that was adopted in 1883 for the Guards continues to attract a very large number of recruits. In July, 1883, the brigade was 739 below its strength; it is now 326 in excess of its strength, which is more than sufficient to form the Camel Corps now serving on the Nile. The service of the Guards has become so popular under the new system that it has been possible to raise the standard of height from 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 8 inches.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: Will the noble Marquess say what number is likely to leave next year under the operation of the three years' system?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It will only be a small number. The hon. and gallant Member says, "who are likely to leave next year," but none will leave before the end of next year; and the time has not arrived when it is necessary for them to decide whether they will extend their service or will leave; but I am informed that many of them have already extended their service. In the Infantry, exclusive of the Reserves, that have rejoined the Colours, the net gain is nearly 4,000. In the Artillery the recruiting has also increased, the net gain this year being 220; but there is still a deficiency of 900. It is probable that some of the men who would have enlisted in the Guards, but who are excluded by the raising of the standard from 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 8 inches, may join the Artillery in consequence of being unable to join the Guards. The system of localization continues to have an increased hold on the country, and the territorial districts supply annually a large number of recruits to their own regiments. This can be shown from the figures in the Inspector General's Report, which I need not now quote. The

  1741
  officers commanding the depôts also say that the regiments are more closely identified with their own districts. As to the quality of the recruits, that is, of course, a matter on which there would always be room for difference of opinion; but last year there were only 371 passed by the medical recruiting officers who were objected to by the commanding officers of the regiments to which they were sent. They are now under examination. There is no doubt that a large number of the recruits are enlisted young. That, as has been explained, is almost inevitable in the case of an Army raised entirely by voluntary enlistment and with a period of short service. It would be impossible, under such circumstances, to secure the men you require at all unless they were enlisted comparatively young. There is, however, no reason to believe that these men are deficient in physique as compared with the recruits obtained on other occasions; and although some who are enlisted at an early age may at the date of their enlistment be apparently somewhat deficient in physique, yet it is found that in a great number of cases they rapidly improve after a short period of service. There is no doubt that the large number of recruits that we obtained in the course of last year has been to some extent due to the depressed condition of trade and the want of employment. But there is, I think, reason to believe that the Service is becoming more popular, and that a great many of the prejudices that formerly existed, not altogether without foundation, against the Army as a Profession are now disappearing. Every effort is being made to render the Service more popular, and also to make the condition of the Reserve men who are leaving the Army a better one. Two Registers have been established, which we suppose will be found useful in this respect. The first is a Register of Recruits belonging to each parish in the district; and the next—which is one of some importance—is a Register of Applicants for Civil employment. I am glad to say that some assistance is being given in many regimental districts by persons of great influence, with the object of securing employment for Reserve men on leaving the Service. Nothing can be of more advantage to the Army than assistance of that description, because nothing can
  1742
  tend more to raise the character and increase the popularity of the Army than assured prospects of obtaining employment on their discharge from the Colours by men of good character. The permission to extend service, which was applied tentatively in 1883, has been made permanent. Experience has shown that there was no risk that so large a number of men as to cause a serious burden to the country would desire to extend their service, and we now no longer apply the system tentatively, but have made it a permanent one; so that a considerable step has been made in a direction which many hon. Members desire to see taken—namely, that of giving, as far as possible, free play to recruiting and allowing the men to enlist for a short time; or, if they desire it, to make a Profession of the Military Service. It is, as I have said, premature to form any estimate yet of how far the men enlisted for short service in the Guards will desire to extend their service. As to the Establishment, the net increase in the Regimental Establishment provided in these Estimates is 1,665 men. The principal items are an increase in the Infantry Establishment of 1,015; in the Medical Staff Corps of 222; in the Royal Engineers of 144; in the Ordnance Staff Corps of 82; and for the Submarine Mining Corps, of which I spoke a short time ago, 252 men are taken. The Infantry Establishment will be so modified by the subsequent arrangements which it will be necessary to explain in connection with the operations in the Soudan that it would be useless to enter into details now of measures that were intended for the ordinary Estimates of the present year, but which will be altogether modified by subsequent arrangements. All that I need say at present on that point is that in consequence of the difficulty experienced in providing drafts for battalions for Indian and Colonial service, the lowest Battalion Establishment will be again raised, so that no battalion will have an Establishment of less than 650, including the depot. As to the Militia, during the year 1884no lessthan41,980 recruits were enlisted, including reengaged men. The number of recruits enlisted between the trainings of 1881 and 1882 was 23,432; between the trainings of 1882 and 1883 they were 32,049; and between the trainings of

  1743
  1883 and 1884 they were 36,067. The Committee will see that there has been a gradual and steady improvement during the last three years. Of those 36,067, 27,000 elected to drill on enrolment. In consequence of the new system of training and the abolition of bounty, absence without leave has greatly decreased. Between the years 1876 and 1881 the percentage of recruits absent without leave from preliminary drill varied from 24 to 12. In the years 1881 to 1883, when the 10 s. bounty on enlistment was partially abolished, the percentage of absentees dropped to 3·9 and 4·7. And last year, when the bounty was entirely abolished, it dropped to 1·4. I have already stated, and need not now repeat, that measures have been taken for the embodiment of a certain number of Militia regiments. All I would add is that the Returns show that the regiments selected for embodiment have responded to the call made upon them in the most creditable manner. With regard to the Yeomanry, there is nothing that I need now mention except that £3,500 has been provided to allow 3s. 6d. for two extra troop drills, the condition for the issue of this allowance being that at least two-thirds of the enrolled strength of the troop are present at the drill. As to the Volunteers, the reports are also most satisfactory. The number of efficients has increased from 199,000 in 1882 to 208,000. There is a proportionate increase in the number of officers and non-commissioned officers who have become proficient, and also of officers who have passed in tactics, the latter now numbering 627. The Force is now being armed with the Martini-Henry rifle; and, as has been stated on previous occasions, it is under consideration whether, in consequence of being supplied with a more accurate arm, some amendment might not possibly be made in the qualifications for efficiency. The change that is being made seems to offer a good opportunity for this improvement. A sum of £40,000 is provided for the camping out of Volunteers, an addition of £8,000 upon the Vote of last year. Last year the number of Volunteers applying for the privilege of going into camping training was so large that the Vote was inadequate to camp out more than 80 per cent of the applicants. Eventually, I believe the sum allotted
  1744
  allowed every man who attended the camp to receive an allowance. The next point to which I think I ought to call the attention of the Committee is the Vote for Military Stores. There is a large increase in the Vote upon last year, the increase being £680,000, exclusive altogether of what was granted as the sum necessary for war service. But in addition to that amount, as I have already stated, £235,000 has been voted for the ordinary service for the past year. This Vote, therefore, standing in the Estimates for next year, shows an increase of £915,000 over the original Estimates presented to Parliament for the present year. The Vote of £235,000 on a Supplementary Estimate this year was practically obtained because it was found that for many years past insufficient provision had been made for some portions of the Service. The constantly increasing demands for Naval ordnance virtually starved the provision for the Land Service. There has been a constantly increasing charge for gunpowder for the heavy guns, and there has also been an increase in small arms and ammunition in consequence of the increase of practice on the part of both the Regulars, the Militia, and the Volunteers. All these things have had the effect of reducing the amount which has been available for other purposes. The £235,000 for the present year, or the greater part of it added to the Supplementary Estimates, has been spent in making a larger addition to the provision for cocoa powder for the heaviest kind of guns. It has also been voted in part for bringing up the reserve stores which I have mentioned. It is estimated that an annual addition to this Vote of £115,000 for gunpowder and for small arms ammunition will be required; but in addition to this increase for which we ask this year it will be necessary, in my opinion, for some years to come to increase by about £150,000 the Votes for the general reserve and for necessary equipment, accoutrements, and miscellaneous articles. The subject of ordnance both for the Land and Sea Services has been sometimes dealt with in the general statement on this subject; but, in my opinion, it is at present much too large and important a question to be dealt with in a general statement. The Report of the Ordnance Select Committee to which reference has been made in a

  1745
  question put by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and answered by my hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand), has not yet been presented; and I think it would be well, before any statement is made on the subject of the naval guns or of heavy ordnance generally, that we should have that Report, and should have time to look into it. It would then be possible to make a fuller statement than can be made now.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: When will the Report be presented?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Report itself has not been received, and it would not be convenient to say anything about laying it on the Table until the Report has been received by the Department. There will, no doubt, be opportunities for discussing it either upon the Naval Estimates or upon the Vote itself for heavy ordnance. All I need say with regard to the question now is that the increase of the Vote will provide £75,000 for additional plant at Woolwich for the manufacture of heavy guns for the Navy. It will also provide £350,000 for the manufacture of additional guns for the Naval Service, which it is expected will have to be continued for five years. It also provides £155,300 for the commencement of the armament of the Colonial coaling stations. The work at these stations was commenced last year at Aden and Hong Kong, both locally and in the provision of ordnance, and steps have been already taken which have materially increased the strength of these stations pending the completion of new works. In the Supplementary Estimates £35,000 was provided for the works which are in progress at these two stations, in addition to £9,000 which has been provided by the Colonial Government or the Government of India. Next year a commencement will be made at Trincomalee, Singapore, Simon's Bay, Sierra Leone, St. Helena, the Mauritius, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Port Elizabeth. The sum which is provided in these Estimates for submarine work and armament stores and vessels is £198,000, in addition to £67,000 which we anticipate will be provided by the Indian and the Colonial Governments. The pressure at the present moment, as I have already stated in a previous discussion on the Engineers' Department, is very great. A large number of officers are on active
  1746
  service in Egypt and the Soudan, or in South Africa, and a large number are always employed in India. In consequence of the strain upon the Department there has been some greater delay than was anticipated in providing for an accurate plan and survey of these works. In addition there has been, or there may be, some delay in consequence of those everlasting changes which are brought about in the progress of Artillery science which so constantly occur. This delay has necessarily at the present time interfered with final decisions as to the best modes of mounting the heaviest guns. I may add that experiments are in progress which will finally decide the question. Until it is decided progress can only be made to such an extent as is not likely to be affected by the changes required by the advance of Artillery science. On the whole, looking at the state of pressure in the Engineers' Department, and at the uncertainty which attends the question of mounting the heaviest artillery, we are of opinion that the Votes I have already referred to, and which will have to be provided in the present Estimates, will make a sufficient provision for the year. The noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) asked what progress has been made on a subject which was discussed last year—namely, the Defence of Commercial Harbours. Now the subject of the defence not only of coaling stations, but of military ports and commercial harbours, has received a great deal of attention in past years. For reasons, however, which I stated in the course of a previous discussion, we do not think it desirable to push forward these works with greater rapidity than we are doing. We believe that the energy of the Engineering and Manufacturing Department may be for the present year advantageously applied to the construction of the defences of the Colonial coaling stations, and the pressing forward of the supply of heavy guns for the Navy. What our views are with regard to the defence of commercial harbours I think will be more conveniently and fully discussed when we come to the Vote for Fortifications. There is a good deal to be said upon it, but it would be inconvenient to include it in a general statement. I believe I have now referred to most of the principal points which are contained in the

  1747
  Estimates. I feel very much indebted to the Committee for the attention with which they have listened to me, and I beg to move the first Vote for Men.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 142,194, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  COLONEL STANLEY: I think all the Committee must have followed with great interest the Statement of the noble Marquess; and I feel that, on the whole, so far as he has spoken of the operation of the measures which have been taken, and especially of recruiting, his Statement is one which, on the face of it, must appear very satisfactory to the Committee. I only hope that the noble Marquess is not led away entirely by the mere Reports made to him of the numbers and of the general disposition of the men who enlist, but that he will also take some means of personally acquainting himself with the general appearance and character of the recruits whom he gets in that way. I know a very striking instance in which this was done, and it shows that the difficulty existed then as now in the matter of recruiting, and that it is not a difficulty of the present day only. Some few years ago, when an unusually large number of recruits had been obtained, and it was naturally supposed that recruiting was going on satisfactorily, I remember my then Chief and Predecessor, Viscount Cranbrook, going down to one of the large camps and asking that the men who had enlisted in the current year, the year before, and the year previous, should be put into different lines. When this was done the effect was very striking, and it showed that we were getting recruits capable of a good deal of development. Each year showed a difference in the height and development of the men. Those who had only been in the Service for one year were the shortest and least developed; those who had been in two years were taller; while those who had been in three years were taller still. The inspection showed that during the whole of the three years the men had been only developing, which indicated what the real difficulty is in all these
  1748
  matters. I must say that the noble Marquess has very frankly recognized that difficult. In this country, I suppose, as matters now stand, considering the state of the labour market, and the conditions of the voluntary service, you must expect to get a large number of very young men; and if the authorities receive them with their eyes open, and are prepared with measures to meet the difficulty that arises in consequence, then well and good. The Service under such circumstances is, perhaps, not more at a loss now than it was in former times. I have ventured to point out the difficulty; but I do hope that the noble Marquess and the officers immediately responsible to him are not led away merely by Reports of mere numbers, but that they really look to see for themselves what kind of men they are getting. What the noble Marquess has said tends to confirm my belief that we were right in 1879, and in the case of the Army Act in 1881, in laying down the principle of free trade in recruiting. The noble Marquess has gone further in that direction, and has seen his way to allow the men to extend their service still longer. The only way that we can deal with the voluntary service of this country is to make it a free service, and to allow men to extend their time by their own free will, and not by entering into arbitrary engagements. Get the best men you can get, and when you have got them, do the best you can to keep them. If that is done with due regard to the interests of the men on the one hand, and the good of the Service on the other, I am quite sure the voluntary service may be made to succeed in this country. I join issue with a good many of my military friends who find fault with the statement in the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, which, however, the noble Marquess did not refer to, as to the number of men who take advantage of the liberty they have in the first month of their service to purchase their discharge. That number is increasing, and a good deal of inconvenience is thrown upon the Service in consequence; but I believe that more good is done by allowing men to go freely and honestly than by keeping them against their will, and tempting them almost to desert. On the other hand, the point, I think, deserves the attention of the Secretary of State for

  1749
  War and the Military Advisers of the Crown. Allowing for all the freaks which bring men into the Service in ignorance of the sort of life they are going to lead, it does not seem to me to be right; but, on the contrary, it seems to me that there must be something wrong when the percentage of men who get their discharge so very soon is so large, and when so large a number of men who take to a soldier's life get tired of it so very soon. It is not easy to say where the fault exactly lies; but the fact does appear to me to be something rather odd, and I think something might be done, without any undue relaxation of discipline, to make the first month of a soldier's life a little more pleasant than it now is. What with drill, school, and the variety of things which he is obliged to be taught, I think very judicious arrangements are required, and we have a good index afforded in the circumstance that so large a proportion of these young men purchase themselves out of the Service alter the first month. My hon. and gallant Friend sitting near me (Sir Robert Loyd-Lindsay) says that 1,751 men have bought themselves out within the first three months. That is, of course, a very large number; but it is very much better that they should buy themselves out than that they should go without leave or without any repayment to the public. Still, it is a circumstance which is not altogether satisfactory. Then, when we come to the noble Marquess's Statement, I find after all that it is a little difficult to do what is usual—that is, enter into criticism—because, as my noble Friend, with his customary frankness, told us, neither the Establishments nor the Estimates which we are now asked to vote are, in point of fact, really the Establishments and Estimates for the year. On both sides we are told that the real Estimates for the year and the number of men are to be dealt with on a future occasion, and I presume upon a Vote of Credit, which will form the subject of a future discussion. If it is understood that the discussion, whenever it comes on, is to be a real discussion, and one which will give all the proper opportunities for criticism, I think there is nothing more to be said upon these points now. But there are certain other questions upon which I observe the noble Marquess would also like to defer the consideration
  1750
  until a future occasion—questions relating to guns and works. There is no doubt a disposition to agree that as all the information is not before us, these matters should not be discussed at present, as we are hardly in a position to discuss them; but although inconvenient, it would be better to discuss them now, and would be even less inconvenient, than to be placed in the position we once found ourselves in of being called upon to discuss them upon Votes which may be brought forward and forced through under pressure of time in the month of August. If that is going to be the case, then I say, whatever the inconvenience, let us discuss them now, because otherwise the postponement of them until a future occasion would virtually be the putting off of any discussion whatever. I need not say that the noble Marquess did all in his power to bring on the discussion; but that was the result, and if we consent now to postpone the discussion, it must be with the distinct understanding that a reasonable and fair opportunity, in the full sense of that term, is given to us, and that we shall not be put off, as on a former occasion, when we made a similar request. I should like to say that I hope the attention of the noble Marquess has been directed, as I think it has been, to the double recruiting which will be necessary two years hence, when the Re-serve men of two successive years are going down from the Colours at the same time. The Reserve men who have continued with the Colours now for certainly another year will, when they claim to leave the Colours in order to go into the Reserves, produce an abnormal drain upon the Regimental Establishment, and a consequent strain upon the recruiting. There will not only be the ordinary demands of the year to meet, but the extraordinary demands occasioned by the rolling up of arrears which are being saved now by the men remaining with the Colours. That is a point which the authorities will do well to look to, if they have not already done so, in order to guard against the battalions being suddenly depleted. I am glad to hear, although I can only discuss it in the absence of positive information, that the noble Marquess is going to bring up the strength of the lowest battalions to 650. I think I am responsible for the provisions by which

  1751
  the lowest battalions were brought up to 450; but still I am free to admit now that that was by no means a satisfactory arrangement, for the tendency of small battalions is to throw a very undue and, in many cases, a cruel amount of hard work on the very few men left in the battalion to perform it. And everyone knows that there is a good deal of work to do, whether the battalion is large or small; and when you come to small battalions, and more than the ordinary duty has to be done from day to day, the work becomes very oppressive. The addition to the Store Vote—I have no doubt the noble Marquess will be able to defend it—but it certainly seems to have been very large and considerable. I noticed one expression? which fell from my noble Friend with regard to the Ordnance Vote. He said that the Army Vote in some years had been a good deal starved for the sake of the Navy. I am very sorry to hear that that has been the case. Of course, we know that there always has been in connection with the Ordnance Vote an increasing pressure on the part of the Navy; and it seems to me that the time is very fast approaching when it will become a question for consideration by the authorities, partly for the sake of independence, and partly for the sake of the Votes, whether the Naval Service relating to naval guns will not have to be altogether separated from the Army Service. I suppose that it is pretty generally known that the Army in all these matters, as far as I am aware, endeavours to be loyally subservient to the more pressing wants of the Navy. If there are any guns to be made, it is the Navy and not the Army that gets the best guns. It was so when the 35-ton gun was first designed. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right when I say that the 35-ton gun was designed for the Army; but the Navy having found it a better gun than their own, the guns were handed over from the Land to the Sea Service. And so it has always been; and although I speak with great respect of the authorities, and only express my own opinion, I cannot help thinking that practically what the whole thing will come to before long is this—the Army will manufacture its own field guns and small guns specially for the Land Service, and the naval guns, with all their compli-
  1752
  cated fittings, will become, as they ought properly to become, part of the Naval Service, and be voted in the Naval Estimates. There always had been, and there always must be, a great deal of friction in matters of detail between two great Departments. It was so in the case of the gun carriages. When they were on four wheels there was very little difficulty; but when the carriages became part and parcel of the ships, and were worked by hydraulic machinery, it became an almost imperative necessity that the Navy should be consulted about the fittings which had to be provided, and the result was that the gun-carriages for the Navy were transferred to the Naval Votes, and ever since that arrangement has been carried out. That was so even in my time, when the arrangements were not so elaborate as they are now. It think it was a step in the right direction, and now that new problems and complicated questions have sprung up in connection with naval gunnery another move in the same direction will very likely have to be made. When that is done, I hope we shall not have the Secretary of State for War getting up in his place and saying, what I am afraid many other Secretaries of State might with truth have said before him, that the Army Votes, for some years past, have been starved on account of the Navy. There are many other questions which I might ask, but they may, perhaps, be more fitly asked when we come to the Gun Vote; for I have every confidence that the noble Marquess will give the Committee an assurance, and will fully carry it out, that there shall be a real discussion, and not a sham one, on the question of guns. I should like to know what further trials have been made with respect both to machine guns and the repeating arms of our troops in the field? I know that other Services have been making experimental trials in those things, and I should like to hear whether the War Department have got beyond experiments upon a small scale with one or two guns, and whether they are trying repeating rifles and field guns of various kinds upon a larger scale? We had an interesting discussion a short time ago upon machine guns, and I think the question is one which the country is watching with considerable interest, and one in which a general hope is expressed

  1753
  that Her Majesty's Government will be fully alive to the advantages and value of these guns; and, while they have their own patterns already tried and approved, that they will not entirely lose sight of the newer inventions which are springing up from day to day. The noble Marquess told us about the Votes for the coaling stations. I was especially glad to hear that at last something is going to be done for Simon's Bay. Probably there is no station which, under all conceivable circumstances, is more important to our trade. There may be circumstances in which even Aden might become of less importance than it is, and in that case Simon's Bay would, of course, become still more important than it is at present. Without going into these matters—for it would be obviously inexpedient to enter into details—I do hope that the question has been looked to from the point of view of maintaining coaling stations which will enable a main route, both in regard to commerce, and, if necessary, in connection with a military force for the protection of commerce, to be kept open under all circumstances, at all seasons, and at all times. There are a good many minor matters which I might refer to; but it is hardly expedient that I should dwell upon them now. There are two or three questions, however, which I may reserve for the discussion when the Vote of Credit is asked for; but before I pass altogether from the general question, there is one thing which I omitted just now, and that is to ask a question. There is an impression—I do not know the details, and I am not in a position to state the matter as a matter of fact—but there is a very wide impression that the Cavalry squadrons which have been sent abroad have been made up, to an undue extent, by contributions from other squadrons at the expense of the efficiency of those which have been left behind. I do not know from what causes it proceeds, whether the demands of foreign service have been of a more than usually rigid character than formerly, or that the class of horses has deteriorated, or that there are not horses enough in the ranks which are fit for the work they have to undertake. But whatever the cause, it is a matter of notoriety that the Cavalry regiments have to be made up to a far greater extent than was formerly the case, and nothing can be more painful
  1754
  to an officer in command than to find his men asked to volunteer from the regiment for service in another. No officer likes to see his best men going away, though it may be for the public service that they should; and when the horses have been well trained and well looked after to see them taken away at a moment's notice and drafted into another squadron or another regiment to which they do not properly belong is certainly not pleasant. If this complaint is well founded, I hope that special attention will be paid to it, and that greater care will be taken, either as regards the purchase of horses, or, in keeping up the number of the establishments, to keep up also the number of horses required, and to keep them in a state of efficiency. There are several minor questions upon which I may ask for information at some future time, but I do not think it worth while to take up the time of the Committee with them now; but I do hope that the noble Marquess, when he rises to reply to all the questions that may be put to him in the course of the discussion, will be able to assure the Committee that if this Vote is, as a matter of necessity, to be passed to-night, we shall have a real and ample opportunity of discussing the great and important questions connected not only with gunnery, but the defence of our coaling stations, and the other questions to which I have referred. I do not wish to say that there is any undue suspicion on this side of the House; but the very fact of our having been cut off from such an opportunity once before obliges us to exercise the caution which proved experience renders necessary. These are all the remarks I have to make. I think the Statement of the noble Marquess, on the whole, is highly satisfactory; but I hope that in all these matters he will not be satisfied with the mere numbers given to him, but that he will look into the figures himself.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he was sorry that the noble Marquess, in the course of his very interesting Statement, had made no reference to the Staff Clerks, to the question of whose position he had kindly said, on a former occasion, he would give his consideration; but he took that to have been an unintentional omission, and hoped that in the course of the evening either he or the Financial Secretary (Sir Arthur Hayter)

  1755
  would make some reference to that deserving body of men. When he put their case before the House last year, he took the opportunity of paying? what he considered a just tribute of gratitude to the noble Marquess, when he said that the Quartermasters highly appreciated what he had done for them. But unfortunately he had since then received several communications from Quartermasters intimating that he was under a delusion, and that all the benefits, which he was under the impression that they had received, were nothing but myths; and, rightly or wrongly, the Quartermasters thought that they were the most friendless body of officers in the Army. They considered that they were slighted at Head Quarters, and that their services were hardly appreciated. He was glad to hear that evening, from the noble Marquess, that every effort was being made to render the Army more popular. He was sure that the noble Marquess had every desire to include in that statement a body of men who had always been regarded as a useful body, and who had now the feeling he had described; and he hoped that something would be done to redress the grievances of which they complained. The few remarks he should make on their behalf that night he proposed to divide into two parts; he should refer to their financial grievances, and to their grievances of a more sentimental character. His remarks applied not only to the Regimental Quartermasters, but to those of the Commissariat, Ordnance, and Medical Departments. They considered that during the past 40 years their duties had considerably increased, and that they were considerably more important—in other words, that their duties had really doubled; and they considered that during that time, instead of having gone forward in the way of promotion or money, they were in a worse position now than they were 40 years ago. One of their grievances was that, by the re-organization of the Militia, Quartermasters were deprived of their chance of serving with the Militia and of receiving what they had been in the habit of doing before—namely, their pensions from the Army and pay from the Militia. They also alleged another grievance to be that they were the only soldiers who could not get any paid promotion for services in the field;
  1756
  and—although they performed many important field duties, and had recently shown this in the Soudan, where they ran the risk of losing their lives, and where they had lost a greater proportion of men than any other class of officers, comparing numbers—they said they were treated not as combatant officers but—he did not want to say with contempt—in such a way that their claims and services had been quite overlooked. Another grievance which they put forward was, that whereas before the establishment of the Army Clothing Department Quartermasters had been in receipt, in connection with the clothing arrangements of regiments, of an annual sum of something like £150, and whereas the Colonels of regiments had been compensated for the loss they had sustained by the establishment of that Department to the extent of £500 per annum, the loss of the Quartermasters had been recognized to the extent of £30 per annum only, by Royal Warrant dated 28th of January, 1875, in place of the amount which they had generally received. He knew that he might be told by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Arthur Hayter) that this £150 had never been paid direct from the War Office, but that it had been received direct from the Colonels of regiments; but the case of the Quartermasters remained substantially the same. Again, by the formation of the Army Pay Department they had been deprived of their chance of becoming Paymasters, with the very great and largely increased advantages attaching to that position. Those advantages had been considerably increased since the Quartermasters had been refused admission. The Regimental Quartermasters could formerly succeed to Paymasterships, and the Commissariat and Ordnance Quartermasters used to be assistant and sub-assistant Commissaries, and could rise to the highest grade of Commissaries. In January, 1876, before the Army Pay Department came into operation, there were no less than 24 ex-Quartermasters fulfilling the duties of Paymasters, and their grievance on this point was that the remaining and future Quartermasters were made ineligible for the Pay Department, and that the full pension which they could now obtain was £200 instead of £450 granted to Paymasters. Therefore, a great grievance had to his mind been inflicted on

  1757
  the Quartermasters, especially those who were serving at the time when the Army Pay Department came into operation. He would say no more in regard to the financial side of that question, on which he thought he had dwelt at sufficient length, than that he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would consider that the Quartermasters had a substantial financial grievance. He would now touch on the sentimental grievance.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that without saying the hon. Gentleman was out of Order, he thought he was pursuing a course exceedingly inconvenient in Committee. The hon. Gentleman was going into details on that Vote, which would come under discussion hereafter. It would be impossible to say when the Vote would be got through if the hon. Gentleman pursued that course with regard to it.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he was, of course, desirous of falling in with any suggestion that might come from the Chairman, and he was taking the present course with the object of putting the Committee to as little inconvenience as possible; because otherwise he should have placed a Motion on the Paper with regard to the grievances in question which would have come forward on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Therefore, unless the Chairman desired him to abstain from further remarks upon that subject, he should prefer to continue.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he was not prepared to say that the hon. Gentleman was out of Order, but that the course he had been pursuing, of entering into all the details of the question now, was inconvenient to the Committee.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, that, under the circumstances, perhaps, of having gone so far, he should save the time of the Committee by proceeding. With regard to the sentimental grievances, he might remark, as apart from the financial grievances, that they would, if redressed, benefit the Quartermasters' position much, and cost the country nothing. In the first place, the title of Quartermaster was originally intended to indicate the individual who carried out particular duties; but the Quartermasters were under the impression that the title was now used as a brand upon those officers who by merit and experience had risen
  1758
  from the ranks. ["No, no!"] He did not profess to have any great technical knowledge on this point, but he was in a position to state that the opinion was that the title of Quartermaster was a brand; and those officers said that those who rose from the ranks by merit should have the rank of Lieutenant or Captain, as other officers had, and that the title of Quartermaster should follow as a matter of course. The honorary and relative rank of Captain given to Quartermasters after 10 years' commissioned service did not raise them from the lowest rank amongst officers in their regiment or Department, and their names appeared at the end of The Army List. Therefore, it appeared that promotion from the ranks, instead of being what he was sure all desired it should be—a reality—amounted to what might be called a sham; and the Quartermasters objected that, having risen from the ranks, they, as officers, were unfairly branded by that fact. The noble Marquess a short time ago had been good enough to grant him a
  "Return of all the officers commissioned from the ranks of the Regular Army since 31 at January 1880, exclusive of Riding Masters, Quartermasters, officers of the Coast Brigade of the Royal Artillery, officers of the Army Hospital Corps, Sub-Inspectors of Army Schools, and those who were commissioned for bravery in the field."
  Now, he was not going to say one word disrespectful of those men who had been promoted from the ranks; but he wished to point out that of the total number of 58 men so promoted 44 were promoted after a service of less than 10 years. One had been promoted after from two to three years' service; 10 after from three to four; 12 after from four to five; eight after from five to six; six after from six to seven; two after from seven to eight; three after from eight to nine, and two after from nine to 10 years' service: the total number of men promoted after between two and ten years' service being, as he had stated, 44, out of a total of 58. He was not going to ask why they were promoted, or make any observation upon their promotion at all, because he was delighted to see men rise from the ranks; but the Quartermasters did feel it a great hardship that, having obtained their commissions after long, good, and faithful service, they should remain stationary with regard to rank. He would point out to the Committee

  1759
  that, in respect of the last 100 Quartermasters appointed, the average service in the ranks had been 18 years and nine months. He said it was—and the Quartermasters thought so—a great hardship that others should, after such short periods of service as he had mentioned, take precedence of Quartermasters in the matter of promotion. For whereas the 58 men included in the Return quoted had promotion and pay open to them to the fullest extent, the Quartermasters were blocked at the honorary rank of Captain, and, as he said, after longer and probably more important service. He thought after those remarks it was unnecessary for him to detain the Committee at greater length; but he might express the hope that he had made out a case for the Quartermasters by showing that they had both a financial and a sentimental grievance. The noble Marquess had told the Committee that evening that every effort was being made to render the Army Service more popular; and he thought he had brought before the Committee the case of a body of officers which, in the interest of making the Service more popular, was deserving of favourable consideration.
  GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he had certainly expected that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) would have brought forward this question on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, which he thought would have been the more convenient course. However, as the hon. Gentleman had raised the question in Committee, and as he (General Alexander) took a great interest in the subject, the Committee would perhaps allow him to refer briefly to one or two points which the hon. Gentleman had not alluded to. It was true that by a process of giving a little here and taking away a little there in 1881, the magnificent result had been achieved of giving Quartermasters an extra 4d. per day. There was also a slight pension increase; for whereas up to that time they had pensions of £182 10 s., in 1881 they obtained £200 a-year. At the same time, the rank of Captain was given to Quartermasters who had served 10 years as such, and the rank of Major on retirement. He believed that this advance in rank was appreciated very much, and he would remind the Committee that it was a boon
  1760
  which cost the country nothing. But the Quartermasters would prefer to be made Captains after seven years, instead of after 10 years, as arranged in 1881. He would like the Committee to hear what was the position of a noncommissioned officer accepting the position of combatant officer, and what was that of a non-commissioned officer accepting the position of Quartermaster. While the combatant officer might, and of ten did, rise to the highest ranks in the Service, of Quartermasters it might be said—"Once a Quartermaster, always a Quartermaster." He had himself known some non-commissioned officers who had risen to the very highest positions in the Service. After 10 years' service Quartermasters attained the rank of Captain, with 12 s. a-day. Then, comparing the position of Quartermasters with that of Paymasters, he pointed out that, whereas the Paymaster received on appointment 15 s. a-day, the Quartermaster only received 9s. a-day, and whereas the Paymaster, after 10 years' service, received £1 a-day, the Quartermaster only received 12 s. a-day. Again, on retirement, the Quartermaster received a pension of £200 a-year, while the Paymaster received no less than £350 a-year. And there was another grievance of which the Quartermasters oomplained—namely, that only one-half of their service in the ranks was allowed to reckon for pensions. Then, whereas the duties of Paymasters were light and intermittent, and were often performed by clerks, those of Quartermasters were extremely laborious and constant. It might be said that the Paymaster had more responsibility. But that he (General Alexander) entirely denied. The Quartermaster had in his possession a greater value in the shape of stores than the amount which the Paymaster could hold at any particular time. Then, as the hon. Member for Colchester had said, they felt very much their exclusion from the Paymastership in 1877. That was the work of Viscount Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who was at the time at his wit's end to obtain promotion for officers, in consequence of the unsatisfactory abolition of purchase, and who induced combatant officers to leave the ranks for the position of Paymasters. The Quartermasters were then excluded from becoming Paymasters. In 1882 the noble Marquess was kind enough,

  1761
  at his request, to move the Government of India to give Quartermasters serving with the rank of Captain in India the allowance of Captains; and he would now appeal to the noble Marquess not to allow a well-founded and well-ascertained grievance on the part of those most meritorious officers to remain unnoticed at this particular period. He would like to make one or two remarks with respect to the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and he could not help expressing his regret that this was the last Report they would receive from that excellent officer (Major General Bulwer). Whatever differences of opinion might exist, and whatever views they might take of long and short service, they could not fail to acknowledge the distinguished ability and impartiality which had always characterized his Reports. There was one portion of the Report in which he was happy to say all could agree—namely, that in which the Inspector General especially condemned the system of attenuated battalions, of which there were no fewer than 35 last year. He would not refer to this subject minutely, because the noble Marquess had said, that these battalions were to be got rid of, and that battalions of 650 rank and file were to be established in their place. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: Including depôts.] The Inspector, General of Recruiting, in condemning those attenuated battalions, spoke of the way in which they were hampered in the performance of garrison duties; and those garrison duties were very important at the present time, for they could not, in these days of dynamite outrages, dispense, as they had hoped to do, with a certain number of sentries, and trust entirely to the police. He found, in the Report, that not only did the Inspector General condemn attenuated battalions, but he condemned also the frequent change in the establishment of battalions; he wished that the establishment of battalions at home should be of more uniform, strength, as in that case a supply of recruits would in time become annually more equal, and thus a certain proportion of the battalion would be composed of men fully trained and available for duty. In other words, the Inspector General thought, as he (General Alexander) did also, that there should not be a great variety of battalions,
  1762
  and that their present system was too complicated. He (General Alexander) thought, if they had one peace establishment and one war establishment, it would be sufficient. Why should they not content themselves with a peace establishment of 750 rank and file, and a war establishment of 950 rank and file? The battalion of Grenadier Guards sent out the other day was a fine battalion, because it contained the pick of three battalions. Therefore, he would take that opportunity of asking the noble Marquess to consider whether it would not be advisable to add at the present time another battalion to the Coldstream Guards, and another battalion to the Scots Guards, because he was satisfied that by doing so their efficiency would be greatly increased. He did not see why the battalions of the Guards, which, as an hon. Gentleman pointed, out the other day, went so frequently abroad, should not be increased in number, and why those three regiments should be of unequal strength. He would also like to say a few words with regard to the new system of recruiting adopted in the Guards—that was to say, the three years' system established in June, 1883, and for which the Inspector General claimed that it had been a great success. But it must be remembered that this experiment was tried under exceptional circumstances. They were told by the Inspector General that all the agencies of recruiting were set to work in every district, in order to obtain recruits for the Guards, and to make known throughout the country the great advantages of that service. But it appeared to him to be a little premature to say whether the system had or had not been a success, for they must remember that there still existed in the battalions of the Guards a considerable number of old soldiers, and a good deal would depend on the circumstance as to whether a considerable number of men enlisted under the three years' system were induced to prolong their service with the Colours. He might inform the Committee that up to the 28th of February, 1,163 men had enlisted in the Grenadier Guards under the system of short service, and that out of that number exactly 173 men, or 14-84 per cent, had consented to prolong their service with the Colours. That, the Committee would

  1763
  admit, was not a very large number, and he was afraid that unless they obtained a greater number there would be some difficulty in obtaining a supply of good non-commissioned officers. With respect to the men, the numbers obtained were considered by the Inspector General to be exceedingly satisfactory. But what about the quality of the men; what did the General Officers of the district say in their Reports with respect to the quality of the recruits? There were 13 of these Reports, and only three of them were distinctly favourable, and they came from the Home District, from Scotland, and from Jersey. Jersey, he thought, they might leave altogether out of account, as coming from a not very important recruiting district. The general tenour of all the other Reports was that the recruits were a great deal too young, and that their appearance ought to show those who enlisted them that they were too young. The Inspector General (Major General Bulwer), when quoting the Reports, urged, with perfect truth, that provided time was given young men would ultimately become the best soldiers. But the question was would time be given? Time, no doubt, was a very important factor in the case. For instance, they heard a great deal the other day about the 3rd Battalion of the Rifle Brigade, that went out to Gibraltar with half its battalion consisting of boys, and more than 200 of them had not gone through any course of musketry. If time were given—if the Mahdi or the Russians would give them time—no doubt, that battalion would prove a very efficient battalion. He was glad to see that the Military Authorities were at last becoming alive to the circumstance that it was necessary to institute, at any rate, a partial return to the system of long service, because, instead of, as formerly, doing their very best to induce soldiers to enter the Reserve, they were now doing all they could to induce men to prolong their service to 12 years; nay, more, he was informed upon the very best authority that a man having served 12 years and wishing to prolong his service to 21 years, and thus get his pension, was scarcely ever refused. That was a very important point, and it was a most valuable testimony on the part of the Authorities to the advantages of long service.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he thought it might be convenient to the Committee that he should state what the views of the Department were with regard to the two classes of men the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) had alluded to. First of all, as to Military Staff Clerks. He had made a very careful analysis of their pay, and he found that they received on appointment 3s. 6d. a-day, and they ranked with sergeants, who received only 2s. 8d. a-day. They then rose 6d. a-day every three years to 5s. a-day, and at each step they received a very considerably higher rate of pay than the sergeants with whom they ranked. For instance, the Colour Sergeants with whom they ranked after three years' service received 3s. a-day, and they received 4s. When they rose to the highest grade they were paid 5s. a-day, as against 4s. paid to Quartermaster Sergeants; therefore, with regard to pay, they received in all the ranks in which they served considerably more than the regimental men. Now as to pensions. They received 3s. 6d. a-day pension after 12 years' service, and 4s. 6d. a-day after 21 years' service, whilst the maximum amount of pension paid to a non-commissioned officer was 2s. 9d. It had been said that there was no opportunity for these men to rise in the Service; but he found that posts open to regimental sergeants were open to them, and that if they obtained Quarter-masterships they received a Quartermaster's pay. The Department were, however, making some changes this year, which it was hoped would even improve the position of the men. Well, then, with regard to the Quartermasters. He was obliged to trouble the Committee with a few figures, because he had had to compare the present position of the Quartermasters with their position before the Warrant was issued in 1881. Now, the advantages they had received were these. Before the Warrant was issued a Quartermaster of Infantry received 8s. 2d. a-day, rising to a maximum after 32 years' service of 13 s. 2d.; after the Warrant the Quartermaster received on appointment 9s. a-day, and after 20 years' service (commissioned) 15 s., rising by successive increments after five, 10, and 15 years' service. With regard to his pension. Before the Warrant a Quartermaster received 5s. 6d. a-day

  1765
  after 15 years' service, and 10 s. a-day after 30 years' service; he now received after 15 years' service £150 a-year, after 25 years £180 a-year, and after 30 years £200 a-year. As regarded pay and pension, therefore, the Quartermaster's position had been improved by the Warrant. He was also given by the Warrant after 10 years' service the honorary and relative rank of Captain, while formerly he did not obtain that rank until retirement—and the rank carried with it widow's pension and increased allowances. Something was said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Causton) with respect to promotion. Article 60 of the Warrant provided—
  "A Quartermaster or Ridingmaster who may be recommended for promotion by our Commander-in-Chief, and who shall have passed such a professional examination as may be fixed from time to time by our Commander-in-Chief, with the approval of our Secretary of State, may be granted a commission as a lieutenant in our Cavalry or Infantry, provided he shall not exceed the age of 32 years."
  And Article 7 provided—
  "A Lieutenant shall be eligible for promotion to the rank of Captain after two years' service in our Army."
  Of course, it might be said that very few accepted this promotion, or would be likely to. The reason, probably, was a financial one. The pay of a Lieutenant was only 5s. 3d. a-day, while that of a Quartermaster was 9s. a-day; and in addition to that, a Lieutenant, even if he rose to the rank of Captain, had to leave the Service at 40 years of age, but a Quartermaster was able to stay on full pay until he was 55 years of age. Well, then, something was said about the rank service. Rank service was reckoned for combatant officers, and for all officers appointed to Departments of the Army at half the service in the ranks (Article 425). Thus Paymasters had no advantage over Quartermasters. He heard that one of the grievances of the Quartermasters was that they received no increase beyond the maximum after 30 years' service; but neither did Lieutenant Colonels, Commissariat or Ordnance Store officers, or Surgeon Majors, or, he believed, any rank. If half the claims of the Quartermasters were granted, £40,000 a-year would be the charge—£80,000 for the whole. No doubt, Quartermasters did not now so frequently obtain Paymasterships; but
  1766
  that was in consequence of the change which, after very full consideration, was adopted by Mr. Secretary Hardy. He (Sir Arthur Hayter) thought it would be a very bad step for them to raise the age for promotion, because in all probability they would fill the higher ranks of the Army with old men. Considering the immense expense which it would involve, and considering that the men whose case his hon. Friend (Mr. Causton) had taken up were in all respects better off than they were before the Warrant of 1881, it was not possible for his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) to entertain the request which had been made.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) had done good service by bringing the case of the Quartermasters before the Committee, and he also thought that the clear way in which his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) had stated the case of these men deserved somewhat more consideration at the hands of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) than it had received at the hands of the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Arthur Hayter). He also agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) that they were deeply indebted to General Bulwer for the Annual Statement he had made since he had occupied his present position; that Statement was clear and explicit, and gave them every detail and every information; and they would indeed be sorry to lose the services of General Bulwer, which had been of great advantage to the public. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) desired at that moment to call the attention of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to the peculiar position in which they were now placed. They had had already presented the Supplementary Estimates for the Army, and they had now received the Army Estimates themselves; but these Army Estimates were not the Army Estimates which they would have to deal with presently. A very large increase was to be made in the Army, and the noble Marquess considered that the proper time to discuss this increase would be when the Vote of Credit was brought on. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) ventured to

  1767
  say that no fair or proper discussion could be raised when they came to the Vote of Credit, because that Vote of Credit would be taken more upon political issues than upon military issues. The Vote of Credit would be debated, and debated most keenly, no doubt, from both sides of the House, and, in his opinion, very little of the real question—that was the increase of the Army—would enter into view, because all the many considerations connected with the occupation of Egypt would chiefly occupy the attention of hon. Members. He asked them, was it not fitter that some opportunity should be afforded for discussing the Estimates proper, because it would be quite impossible to discuss the Vote of Credit upon its merits? He also desired to remind the noble Marquess that when they came to discuss the Vote of Credit, it would not be the ordinary Members who usually took part in military discussions who would speak; it would not be those alone who, perhaps rightly or wrongly, thought they knew something about military matters; but the discussion would be carried on chiefly by all those hon. Members who were interested, on one side or the other, in the occupation of Egypt by an English Army; therefore, he thought he and his hon. Friends had some right, before the Vote was passed that night, to demand that they should have a proper opportunity of discussing in detail the proposals which the noble Marquess had to make. Now, there was one remark which the noble Marquess made which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was exceedingly sorry to hear. The noble Marquess said they were only going to increase the Army simply on account of the present war in the Soudan. Now, there was no man who had had such an opportunity as the noble Marquess of knowing the exact position and condition of their Army; and, therefore, if the noble Marquess were to get up in his place and say that the position of their Army was satisfactory, or had been satisfactory during the time he had been in Office, ha (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would be very much astonished. The noble Marquess knew perfectly well that there was a great want of men to do duty in the Home Army. If there was one thing more patent than another it was the want of men of sufficient age to send out to the Army
  1768
  abroad, and that whenever they were occupied in any war, however small, they were completely put upon their beam ends, and were obliged to go to the utmost of their resources to fill up the Army abroad. He knew it would be said that they had a Reserve which they could always fall back upon; but he thought the Reserve had been very much damaged of late by being called upon to serve at times when it never expected to be called upon. The men had been taken away from Civil employment at home so frequently that those who willingly employed them at the outset, believing that they were not going to be employed abroad again, were often bound to refuse to re-engage them when the necessity for their employment was over. It was because he had felt so strongly on this point, and because he had always felt that the depletion of the regiments at home to send out efficient men to the regiments abroad had made their Army at home so inefficient, that he had always urged a considerable increase of the Army. That was a question which was raised when short service was introduced. It was never supposed for a moment that the Army was to remain as it was, but it was always understood there was to be an increase in the number of men. But they had a Government pledged to retrenchment, and the bottom of the whole mischief, both in regard to the Navy and the Army, and their foreign coaling stations, and their home defences, was that it was very difficult to get the money. It was because the Government did not like to raise the money that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War was obliged to resort to the expedient of saying, with regard to the two latter questions, that when a proper and mature plan was presented the Government would be ready to take it into consideration. But, supposing they were attacked in the meantime, where would they be with their great Arsenals undefended, where would they be when their Fleet was engaged elsewhere? Their preparation at home was to be delayed until some maturity was arrived at. Of course, half a defence was better than no defence at all, and he hoped the noble Marquess was entertaining the matter more seriously than he had shown in his speech that night when he said the Government could not consider the

  1769
  question until there was something more definite upon which they could act. Now, he would like for one moment to turn to what was an old Army Return, but, after all, the newest with the exception of the monthly. In the Army Return for last year very valuable information was given with regard to the waste that took place amongst the recruits. The waste was still great; it had not stopped, though at some times it was considerably less than at others. In the years 1881–2–3, he found there were no less than 83,156 recruits enlisted, and that the total falling off or waste in those years was 15,579, leaving only 67,577; therefore, that confirmed what his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) said—that they had not yet found any means of stopping the waste in the Army. He was glad to find that this year 35,653 recruits had joined the Service; but he would like to know how many of those men were still in the Service; how many had left? He remembered very well the occasion on which the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Wolseley), who was now commanding so well out in the Soudan, boasted that they had enlisted upwards of 33,000 men in the year; but it must be borne in mind that at the very moment the noble Lord was speaking between 3,000 and 4,000 of those recruits had wasted away and were not to be found. There was no doubt that this year there had simply been a repetition of the past, and it would be for the noble Marquess to see if he could not find out some means by which men might be prevented from leaving the Service. Surely there ought to be some means of preventing the great waste which now went on. As a general rule, if recruits got over the first six or eight months they continued in the Service, and made most excellent soldiers; it was the first six or eight months of service that broke them down and cooled their zeal for Her Majesty's Army. In regard to stoppages, there was great room for improvement; free rations, too, might be given. Of course, with regard to the kit, it was impossible to give everything that was asked; but more might be done in that direction than had been done hitherto, and at no very great cost. When they took a recruit and worked him as he was now worked, when they forced him into a position for which he was unfit, when
  1770
  they put him on sentry and to do duty before he was really half-drilled, the man found he was in a position he did not expect to be in. Men were forced on at an unreasonable rate because there was a scarcity of men in the regiments; and, therefore, it was a satisfaction to hear what the noble Marquess said the other day—though he was rather inclined to go back from his statement to-day—that there was to be a considerable increase in the depots. How was it that the Guards and Rifles and Marines were in such a good position? It was because the men, at the outset, were properly drilled, and were not sent away to go upon duty until they were fit to be put in the ranks. Was that so with Line regiments? Could it be expected that the discipline of a regiment would be perfect if men were sent to join them before they were properly drilled? He noticed that the desertions had been 4,478—rather more than they were last year; but into that question he did not propose at that moment to go. There was, however, one question which he was in hopes might have been touched upon that night—namely, the increase of the regiments serving abroad and those first for duty at home, and the depots of those regiments which had both the battalions abroad. Into that question, too, he would not go further, except to say that he did hope that a substantial increase in the Army would be made, because it was impossible, without such an increase, for the duty of the Army in their garrison towns and elsewhere to be carried on, except under great privations to the men who had to perform it. An increase of the Army was not alone required for warlike purposes, but simply to insure the proper protection of the nation. With all their interests, not only at home but abroad, and considering the vast amount of money which the country was called upon to expend, no reasonable man could admit that their Army was in a proper and fit condition. He had a few words to say about the Cavalry, because he could only compare the proposed increase in that branch of the Service to a drop in the ocean. He was speaking in the presence of a most distinguished Cavalry General (Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram), and if he therefore said anything which was not absolutely correct, that hon. and gallant Gentleman would, he was

  1771
  sure, correct him. He knew that he and his hon. and gallant Friend did not agree on all military questions; but as to the necessity of keeping up the most efficient Cavalry Force they certainly were agreed. There was a most remarkable statement made the other day in the papers by an hon. and gallant Gentleman of 30 years' service. He did not know whether the attention of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had been directed to that statement. Looking at the use of Cavalry in the present day, looking at the number of Cavalry they had at home, if there was one thing they ought to be more particular about than another it was that their Cavalry regiments should be efficient. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War could not possibly say that it was a wise or prudent thing to pick all the best men out of the Cavalry regiments and send them, as they had been sent recently, to the Soudan to form Lord Wolseley's Camel Corps; such a thing could not possibly contribute to the efficiency of the Cavalry regiments left behind. Whenever it suited the convenience of right hoc. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, they were apt to say they liked to imitate what was done abroad. Let them, however, follow the foreign Armies with regard to their Cavalry and with regard to their Artillery. The Cavalry regiments in foreign Armies were always kept up to war strength, and our regiments ought always to be kept up to that strength. They were constantly reading in the papers of some new organization being required for the Cavalry. Now, if there was one thing more mischievous than another it would be to make the organization of the Infantry applicable to the Cavalry; for this country a Cavalry regiment must be complete in itself. It ought to be of such a strength that it could easily be increased when sent abroad, and it ought always to be 600 strong. Let them see how the regiments stood at that moment. He noticed that there were 10 regiments stationed in Great Britain from October 15, 1883, to October 14, 1884, and their establishments, if complete, were eight regiments of 469, and two regiments of 600, making an aggregate of 4,952. Now, in this one year, looking to the various losses from all causes, without particularizing
  1772
  such losses, they amounted to the very large number of 1,745. He admitted that 430 were sent out to form the Camel Corps in the Soudan; but they were lost to the establishments at home, and could not be considered to add to the efficiency of the Home regiments. When it was borne in mind what heavy work that of a Cavalry regiment was, what fatigue duties the men had to perform, what guards the men had to do, it was unwise that the regiments should be burdened with young and untrained soldiers. It would be well if the noble Marquess were to inspect the Cavalry regiments, for then he would see in what an inefficient state they were. Why, there was one Cavalry regiment of 469 men who, within the past 18 months, had received 255 recruits: another regiment within the same period had received 244 recruits, and a third 252 recruits. He would take two regiments with regard to which the noble Marquess had spoken as having sent two squadrons of each with the Force sent to Suakin under Sir Gerald Graham. The Hussar regiment which was first for duty, which consisted of 600 men, had sent two squadrons to the Soudan, and yet it had received 310 recruits during the past 18 months. The 5th Lancers, which were on a lower establishment, had received 254 recruits during the past 18 months, and had sent two squadrons to the Soudan. Now, he would put it to the noble Marquess whether it was possible that recruits could do their duty under such circumstances as those? He saw his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) smile at that statement. He should like to see the hon. Gentleman himself do the duty of one of those men—just for a week. If the hon. Gentleman knew anything of the circumstances, he would know what hard work those men had to do. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would go the length of saying that at the present time if there was one arm of the Service which ought not to be neglected it was the Cavalry. There was one other matter which the noble Marquess had said little or nothing about—that was the question of Mounted Infantry. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was glad that the Mounted Infantry had not been turned into Cavalry regiments. He was convinced that the best men they could find in the Infantry regiments,

  1773
  given proper opportunities for instruction, and whose officers were encouraged to learn their duties, were the best men who could be found for a certain class of service. They ought to have every opportunity for becoming proficient, and facilities ought to be given at Alderehot and elsewhere. He would ask the noble Marquess whether he had turned his attention in that direction, and whether he had done anything to help, establish, and foster the idea that that branch of the Service was one which required development? The point was one which would commend itself to everyone interested in the Service. And now just one word with regard to the Reserves. He admitted, and admitted freely, that the Reserve stood far better than it had ever done—that was to say, they had 39,244 men in the First Class Army Reserve, and he supposed they had something like 30,813 in the Militia Reserve, making a total of 70,057. The noble Marquess had kept in the Army a certain number of men who should have passed into the Reserve, and he had also asked for volunteers from the Reserve. He thought that was a wise course to take in both those cases; but he should like to know how many men had volunteered from the Reserve to serve again in the Army? When the noble Marquess replied, perhaps he would be able to tell them, because it would be interesting to know how many men had volunteered since the order was first given.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have told the hon. and gallant Member how many men there were up to the 1st of January.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The noble Marquess gave us so many figures that I could not understand from his speech how many men there were. No doubt, he gave as a figure——
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I said that 1,400 men had volunteered up to the 1st of January.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The noble Marquess said 1,400. Well, he was very glad to think that that number had volunteered; but he would like to ask the noble Marquess whether he considered 1,400 volunteers, out of 39,000 men, was satisfactory—whether he thought it satisfactory that only 1,400 men should volunteer from the Reserve at such a time of emergency as the
  1774
  present? The country asked the Reserves to volunteer, and only 1,400 responded to the call!
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I say up to the 1st of January; I do not know how many have volunteered since.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that if the noble Marquess declared that he did not know how many volunteered since the 1st of January, he would say nothing further about it except to continue in this way, that why he had urged so strongly an increase to the Army itself, and why he should always continue to do so, was because he thought that when emergencies arose, unless they were very great ones, they had no right to trench upon the Reserves. The Reserves were all they would have to depend upon in the case of the greatest emergency, and if they used them up on the first blush in all these small wars, where would they be when they had to face some great European complication? Why, they would then have nothing to fall back upon; and he ventured to say that by relying upon the Reserves as they were now doing a great mischief was done to that arm of the Service itself. When the Reserves were taken out for occasions that were not of the first magnitude, civilians would cease employing them in proportion as they knew their services were not to be relied upon for any length of time. Ordinary employers of labour would have nothing to do with these men when they knew they were liable to be taken for service in the Army on the smallest provocation, and when it was known also that there were plenty of means of increasing the Army in other ways. The men themselves must be dissatisfied, seeing that when they enlisted it was on the understanding that they should not be called out as Reserves except in case of a great National emergency. No doubt, it might be argued that a great emergency now existed; but the other wars into which they had entered were not cases of such emergency; therefore he urged, and urged most strongly, that the case of the Reserves was a peculiar one, and one that did deserve far more consideration than what had yet been given to it. Look at the cost of increasing the Army. The cost to this country of the Army itself was not to be measured by the number of pounds,

  1775
  shillings, and pence that was paid for it. Their Army was a voluntary one—look at the class of men they got into it. It was the making of many of them taking them into the Army. A very large proportion of them would have done nothing else if they had not enlisted; and yet even many of those who had been the very worst, when they got into civil life after their service in the Army, proved to be most valuable servants to those who engaged them. If they looked abroad they would see that the men in the Army were taken from various occupations—many of them were skilled artizans who earned large sums of money for their country. Many of the men serving in Continental Armies had been capable, before enrolment, of earning eight or 10 francs a-day, whereas their pay when in the Army was only one franc a-day. Could they compare the case of those countries with that of England? Certainly England was in the best position she possibly could be in in that respect. They were giving employment to men who probably would not otherwise be employed, and at the same time saving the nation from using higher skilled labour which could be turned to better account than employing it in the Army. He had only one word more to say, and that was with regard to a Force with which he had had a great deal to do—namely, the Volunteers. He was sorry to hear that the noble Marquess, though he was going to do something, was not going to do as much as he thought the circumstances of the case required. They might depend upon it, it was a most desirable thing to encourage the Volunteers to go into camp; and to his mind it would be most advantageous to set aside a certain amount of camp equipment for the men. All the expense that it cost the battalions when they got into camp should be paid for them. If they wanted that Force to be efficient and well-disciplined, that was the way to bring that desirable state of things about. The Volunteers were becoming a highly valuable Force to the country, and the more the Authorities tried to instil into them the principles of discipline, so much the more would they be of use to the nation. He would, in conclusion, say they would have an opportunity later on of talking about the two Army Corps, which he hoped the noble
  1776
  Marquess would tell them were to have all their transport and commissariat, and all that which was so essential in warfare, attached to them. Up to the present the arrangement of those Army Corps in that respect—namely, with regard to commissariat and transport, had entirely failed. He hoped the noble Marquess would be able to say that those Army Corps were to be completed in every sense and in every way. One more word. He, for one, was rejoiced to find that their Colonies had shown such a determination to come to the succour of the Mother Country. He only hoped that the Mother Country would extend to them that good feeling, and that friendly hand which at first he was afraid they had given grudgingly, because he believed the safety and security of the Empire depended upon their being a united people.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that that was the time to discuss questions connected with the financial part of these Estimates, because the future occasion for the discussion of Army matters promised by the noble Marquess would be occupied, by very different matter. If the Committee was to have any control whatever over these large Estimates, now was the time to go into them. He must thank the noble Marquess for having framed the Estimates this year with the addition he had asked for last Session, by separating the Supplementary Estimates from the original Estimates of the year. In that way the Committee was able to see at a glance the increase which they made in the normal Estimate of the year. But there was one thing he had suggested which had not been done. He had asked that the estimated increase and decrease should be made on the current Estimate each year, with the original Estimate of the past year; not on the original Estimate of one year, with total Estimate, original and supplementary, of the past year, because it was impossible to form a fair Estimate in that way. He would like to give an illustration of what he meant. In this year's Estimate they had an increase on the Establishment of £722,000, and parallel to it were the decreases upon last year's Estimates amounting to £732,000. Those amounts nearly balanced themselves, and no great damage appeared to be done; but if the Estimates

  1777
  were prepared in the way he asked, showing the real increase of the Estimate now asked for, and the real Estimate asked for that time last year, a very different state of things would be found to exist. He did not understand why the Committee should not have placed before it, in clear figures, the increase they were asked to vote, that they might know year by year the increase that was made in the Estimates. As the Estimates were now framed they saw in large figures a net decrease of £84,900, whereas in reality there was an increase of £1,890,100. He was aware that the matter was explained at the end below the big figures; but it did not catch the eye, and they were flattering themselves that they were voting a decreased sum this year, when really they were voting an increase, and in that way the Army Estimates mounted up year by year to a very large sum; the Estimates of the country were increasing £1,000,000 a-year steadily. During the last 10 years they had increased at that rate, the increase having been for that period £10,000,000 by this system of preparing the Estimates. His contention was that they did not know what they were doing, and, therefore, as the noble Marquess had complied with half his request, he would strongly urge him now to comply with the other half. The plan he proposed would make the plan very simple, and would not cause any official inconvenience. Beyond that he wished to draw attention to one point, and to one point only. It was a mattter to which he had drawn attention last year on these Estimates. It was with regard to the great falling off of the Militia of the country. He forgot the exact case he quoted last year, but the falling off had been very large, especially in regard to the officers; but he would draw attention to the matter as it stood this year. There were of officers enrolled now 2,777, whereas in 1883, or two years ago, there were 3,290 enrolled. That was to say, the country had 513 Militia officers fewer this year than she had two years ago. Then, if they took the number of officers in training they would find that though the number of the Establishment was 3,579, there were only 2,347 at training, or a difference of 1,232. Out of the number enrolled, small as it was compared with what it was two years ago, no less than 395 were absent on
  1778
  leave. He could not think there was any energy in the Service and any real desire on the part of officers to do their duty when they saw such a large number of officers on leave of absence and away from training. Then, with regard to privates, he found the Establishment was 121,000 odd privates—the figures were so small in the Estimates that it was almost impossible to read them, and he was not sure, therefore, that he was quoting correctly. Last year the number was 122,629, showing a difference of nearly 1,000 less this year on the Establishment than last. How it was that the Militia had been reduced in that way he did not know; but, as a matter of fact, the number required to complete the Establishment were 2,000 more this year than they were last. The noble Marquess told him last year that he had taken steps to deal with this matter, and hoped that the Militia would rally, and that they would find that the difficulty under which they were suffering would be removed, and that additional Militia would be added to the Establishment. He (Sir Alexander Gordon) was sorry to say, however, that if these figures were correct—and he had no reason to doubt them—the depletion of the Militia was going on very rapidly. With regard to the Adjutant General's Return, dealing with recruiting in the Army, he was struck by the reference to the large number of men who obtained their discharge by purchase before the expiration of three months' service. Some hon. Members would remember that the clause bearing upon this matter was inserted in the Act of 1881 for the first time. Instead of a recruit being able to pay £1, he thought it was, of "smart money" within 24 or 48 hours of enlistment, that privilege was taken away, and it was enacted that a man had first to be enlisted, was to be attested immediately on the same day, and to have no chance of escape unless be paid £10. According to communications received from officers in the recruiting service, it was clear that large numbers of men tried to get off, but were unable to obtain the money. On page 22 of the Report it would be found that no less than £76,490 had been paid into the Exchequer by poor lads who had enlisted in order to get out of the Service, into which they had been inveigled, within three months of their taking the shilling. That seemed

  1779
  to him to be a great hardship. Another point was with regard to recruiting officers being allowed to act as magistrates and swearing in the recruits. That system had been forbidden up to 1881, and it was only then that these officers were allowed to act in the capacity of Justices of the Peace for the purpose of administering the oath. The recruit was made in the street and taken into the barracks; the commanding officer swore him in at once, and the man was fixed, and unable to get off without paying £10. He had protested against that system when the clause was put into the Act, and he was sure that all officers who had ever had anything to do with the recruiting service knew how unjust it was. In 1880, 1,400 men purchased their discharge; in 1881, 1,400; in 1883, 1,500; and last year, 1,751. The number of young men who acted in this way seemed to be increasing, and that, as hon. Members would see, did not tend to make the Service more popular. For the Service to be popular young men should enter it and remain in it willingly. At present it was evident that a great number of men were unwilling. He thought this matter was worthy the attention of the noble Marquess. The system seemed to be one of forcing young lads to take the shilling, and them compelling them, by the alternative of this £10 fine, to remain in the Service.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, that after listening to the speech of the noble Marquess, it was impossible not to lament that the Statement made by the Minister for War differed very materially from the opinion of all officers who were at present serving in the Army, and from all those who had any knowledge on the subject. Indeed, he believed that it also differed very much from the real opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers themselves. They were invariably told that the Army was in a most efficient condition, and that they were capable of despatching a large Force at a moment's notice to any part of the Empire, and were able to meet any emergency that might arise; whereas it was perfectly well known that the real facts of the case were very different. The noble Marquess had prided himself a good deal upon the fact of the despatch of a Force to Egypt the other day without any delay, and he thought the noble Marquess said without any
  1780
  dislocation of the Service. Well, he (Lord Algernon Percy) would deal with that subject in a few minutes. He believed that, although there was no delay, the dislocation in the Service was very considerable, and he could not help feeling that it was rather a pity that Ministers for the time being did not meet the case boldly and state what they really knew to be the fact—namely, that the Service required a great deal to be done to it in order to render it efficient, because he was convinced that the House and the country would be willing to vote any sum that was absolutely required to bring about that efficiency. As it was, the country was paying a large sum of money for the Army, and was not really getting the article it ought to possess. They were told that a certain number of regiments were to be so many strong—were to be increased to 650 strong, and certainly the officers in the Army had thought that that would be a great improvement; but their joy was at once damped when they learned that the number was to include the depots. That made a great difference, and made the increase to the regiments very small indeed. People who knew very little about these matters—probably the House generally—would think, when they heard of a regiment being 650 strong, that it implied that the regiment contained that number of fighting men; but such was not the fact. He would undertake to say that if the noble Marquess were to take the trouble to go down and attend a parade unexpectedly—because if his coming were known an effort would be made to get together a large number of men, and a great many who under other circumstances would be employed in other duties would be brought to parade—he would find a regiment of, perhaps, 600 strong, parading 100, or not 150 men. He would find that at least half the men were recruits, who had lately learnt their drill, and not one of whom had ever fired a shot out of a rifle, and the remainder would be composed of men on garrison fatigue, on duty as orderlies or cooks, or in the other casual duty that had to be performed in every regiment. The few men left on duty would be old soldiers who were feeling extremely dissatisfied with the amount of extra work thrown upon them. The recruits of which such a large number would be

  1781
  found, would be men incapable of doing a great many things that old soldiers had to do, such as guard duty. A letter which had been written by General Fraser to The Morning Post on the 10th of this month, had been referred to. That officer had pointed out that many of the Cavalry regiments had had half their number recruited within the last 18 months. That was the case also with regard to Line regiments. It was impossible to describe regiments so incomplete and so unfinished as efficient. They were not efficient at all, and certainly were not prepared for any service that might be required of them. With regard to the question of fatigues, he must submit it would be a good thing if a system could be arrived at by which fatigue duty could be lightened. At all quarters and camps throughout the Kingdom, the amount of Government fatigues, as they were called, was very large indeed. All the work of the different stores was performed by privates who were taken out of the camp when they ought to be employed in drill. The period of service was short enough, Heaven knew, and it ought not to be wasted in this manner, but should be employed in teaching the men their duty as soldiers; it should not be frittered away by this fatigue duty, gymnastics, and every sort of work except that of learning the duty of a soldier. On this matter he was not speaking from his own experience solely, but he was fortified in the opinion he was expressing by such an eminent and distinguished officer as General Eraser. The fact was, that the more the present system was tried the more it was proved to have failed. The noble Marquess had expressed the opinion that the Guards' system of enlistment had worked admirably. The noble Marquess prided himself upon its success; but the fact was that that system tended rather towards long service than anything else, and certainly not towards short service, for the idea was that a man would reengage for nine years. Their system was copied from Germany; but the reformers of the Army, when they adopted it, seemed to have entirely forgotten two very important circumstances, one being that the German Army never left its native shores, and the other being that in Germany they had compulsory ser-
  1782
  vice, whereas in England they had to find troops to serve in every quarter of the globe, and their service was voluntary. He thought there could be no greater proof of the failure of their system than the circumstances attaching to the despatch of troops to Egypt and South Africa this year. In order to equip Lord Wolseley's Force every single Cavalry regiment in the Service had been injured, irremediably injured. From every Cavalry regiment a great number of the best men had been taken to make up the number required, and everybody knew that to take a large number of well-trained soldiers out of a Cavalry regiment damaged that regiment for a very considerable space of time. Then the noble Marquess had said that no volunteering had been necessary to fill up the regiments that had been sent out. No doubt, that was perfectly true; but then they must not lose sight of the fact that there had been considerable drafting, and that in order to send out the Guards battalions, other regiments had been obliged to give a number of their best men. When it became necessary for them to put a large Force in the field, as in the case of the campaign in the Soudan—and after all a little over 20,000 men was not a very large Force for the English Army to put in the field—they had the pleasure of knowing that the Army at home was in an utterly disorganized condition. With regard to the Forces in South Africa, they were actually employing civilians to take part in the war, and he regarded it as a most extraordinary circumstance that a country like England with a large standing Army should be compelled to have recourse to civilians for the purpose of placing so small a Force in the field. He was not going on his own judgment alone as to the failure of the present system, because he found that at the anniversary meeting of the Royal United Service Institution on February 28, the subject of the essay for the prize was—"Can the European Army in India remain as at present constituted, or should it be in whole or in part a local force?" There were 16 essays submitted, and every one of them expressed a decided opinion that short service as enforced in their Army was inapplicable to the Forces in India, and that it was impossible to maintain in India an Army that could take the field

  1783
  under the present system. If there were two things which militated against the efficiency and popularity of the Service at the present moment, it was the constant changes among the men in the battalions and the constant stoppages, to which allusion had been made. General Fraser, speaking of the great unrest there was in the Service, had pointed out that of 278 men discharged by purchase 175 had less than three months' service, and that in the case of one regiment, out of 169 men, enlisted from November, 1883, to November, 1884, 75 men had in that time left the regiment. It was impossible that a regiment could have any solidarity about it under these circumstances of change. Again, with regard to stoppages, there was no doubt that a recruit from the moment of engagement to the moment of leaving the Service considered himself to be fraudulently treated in this respect. He was promised that he should have a free kit. Well, he had a free kit, but he was told that it was to last him longer than it was possible for a kit to last any man; he had to replace the articles when worn out, and the whole of the articles had to be kept in order at his expense. And, again, although his clothing was worn out in the performance of his duties, he was made to put it in order at his own expense. He (Lord Algernon Percy) thought it would be well that a certain number of canvass working suits should be kept in barracks and served out to the men, and that the repairs in these suits should be made good and paid for by the regiment in the same way as other barrack damages were paid. He believed that such an arrangement would be exceedingly popular with the men. Then with regard to orderly duties, which took so many men out of the ranks, he thought it would be a popular thing if the men after serving with the Colours could join some orderly corps to perform the duties of orderlies in garrison towns, and also do the orderly work at the Public Offices. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) had made some remarks with regard to the absence of officers from the Militia training. He (Lord Algernon Percy) took objection to the remark of the hon. and gallant Member that those officers did not take a keen interest in their duties. The fact was
  1784
  that the time of training often clashed with the time of examinations, so that if an officer wanted to read up for an examination he could not do so and train with the Militia as well. He thought the officers might be allowed to train with other regiments, or that some relief might be given to them under the circumstances he had mentioned. There was no doubt the Militia was going down in a certain sense; but that was due to the fact of its being made the means of feeding the Army. He would not detain the Committee at any greater length than to say that these matters might be treated and remedied by Her Majesty's Government without expense to the country.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that remedies had been attempted for some of the evils which existed in the Service by enabling a certain number of soldiers to be re-engaged. But those remedies had not been successful, and it was the duty of that House to find out and remove the cause. He believed the cause was mainly to be found in the system of deferred pay. Under the existing system the deferred pay was given to the man when he left the Army, but if he re-engaged it was not given to him before the final termination of his service; and he (Colonel Colthurst) was therefore of opinion that the £10 under such circumstances was too great an inducement for him to leave the Service. He thought that if the system of deferred pay was to be retained, the money should be given to the man whether he re-engaged or not. But, in his opinion, the far better way would be to do away with the stoppages of 3½d. a-day for groceries. The men were told that they were to have free rations; but the ration was not sufficient, and they had to pay from 3d. to 3½d. a-day to make it so. He thought the noble Marquess should consider whether it would not be a good thing to do away with the stoppages and give a man 1s. a-day with his food and no deferred pay at all. It was an extraordinary thing that with the inducements given of late to re-engage, and with the privilege which the noble Marquess had also given to Reserve men of coming back, so few of them should return to the ranks; 1,400 was a very small proportion of those who might

  1785
  have been expected to return. He was unable to understand that except on the ground of the constant changes made during the last few years, under which the minds of the men had become quite puzzled and disheartened; when the privilege of re-engagement was taken away the men regretted it, but when it was given back to them they would not take advantage of it. There seemed to be some discontent at the bottom of this; and he thought that the facts mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord Algernon Percy), and the fact that the older men in the regiment did more work than they were accustomed to formerly, on account of the recruits, were the cause of it. With regard to orderlies, he thought it would be well if those employed in Public Offices and in garrison towns were taken out of an orderly corps. There was at the present time a great need of soldiers, and he thought the soldiers they had might be left to do their duties as soldiers without engaging them in other occupations. He hoped the noble Marquess would take those points into consideration, which, although they might appear small in themselves, were of very great importance in connection with the popularity of the Service.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he agreed with much that had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Colthurst), and with regard to deferred pay on which he had remarked, he was entirely in accord with him. The deferred pay had been, in his opinion, and in the opinion of old soldiers, a very great mistake. He would like to bring before the notice of the Committee another matter which he knew would be met with some opposition from the Benches opposite. He referred to the Order from the Horse Guards, dated 24th January, 1885, to the effect that after the 30th of June next gratuities given in connection with medals for long service and good service would cease. He had given Notice to his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Arthur Hayter) that he would bring forward this question. The present was a time when they must not play fast-and-loose with good and gallant soldiers. Their Army was a volunteer Army, and they wanted to get men to re-engage. He sincerely thanked the noble Marquess for what he had done
  1786
  in the matter of allowing soldiers to reengage; but was that a time for the issue of an Order such as that to which he had referred, which could not but operate in a very opposite direction—that was to say, against the re-engagement of soldiers? For his own part, he regarded it as a breach of faith with the men that soldiers who had enlisted on previous conditions should now be told that after the 30th of June next they should not have the £5 gratuity given to them at the end of their period of service. He knew the feeling of the old soldiers in the Army, and their views of the Service; he worked for them as much as he could, and he could not but believe that it was detrimental to the interests of the Service that that Order should have been issued which deprived them of their gratuity. He had taken the trouble to work out the number of medals distributed last year, and he found from the 1st of April, 1884, to the 1st of January, 1885, there were 880 medals distributed amongst the old soldiers in Her Majesty's Service, and that with those 880 medals was granted altogether the sum of £4,880 by way of gratuity. He asked whether it was wise, with the Army in a transition state, for the sake of £4,880 to create discontent amongst old soldiers who had enlisted on the understanding that they should have this gratuity with their medal? He would not, on that occasion, dwell longer on that point; but he hoped the noble Marquess would take the matter into consideration with a view, if possible, to the withdrawal of the Order in question. While thanking the noble Marquess for what he had done, he was obliged to take exception to one or two remarks which fell from him with regard to the state of the Guards regiment sent to Egypt. The noble Marquess said they had not been obliged to call for volunteers. But, although that was the case, he (Sir Henry Fletcher) pointed out that in consequence they had decimated the regiments at home. He thought it right that the whole system should be clearly understood at the present time. He was informed that one of the battalions of Guards which went out the other day to Egypt—the Scots Guards—had to be provided with 10 sergeants and 350 men from the battalion left at home to make up its complement on proceeding to Egypt. The conse-

  1787
  quence was that the one battalion left at home, and which was at that moment in London, was almost exhausted owing to the duties it had to perform. Those were matters which he thought the Military Authorities should look into. He was opposed to, and should always be opposed to, the territorial system, which he believed to be entirely wrong. He had read the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and from his own knowledge of the state of affairs throughout the country he was unable to agree with that Report. However, he would impress most forcibly upon the Military Authorities that they should consider very carefully how the regiments which had two battalions abroad should be best provided for. There were 15 regiments abroad of two battalions, and that was a point of great importance. He thought that before the Committee voted this large sum of money they ought carefully to consider whether the territorial system was a success, and whether they would be able to keep up the supply of men to the regiments which were abroad.
  CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONsaid, that although at the present moment, as military men, they had reason to criticize the Army system, they were none the less able to appreciate and express admiration of the great deeds and valour of their men in Egypt. No doubt, the great question at issue was as to recruiting; and he thought that while the pay of the soldier was only 1s. a-day, they could not expect to get the same article, so to speak, as they did 30 years ago, when the price of labour was cheaper. But he was glad to see, by the Report of the Inspector General, that recruiting had improved; and not only that, but that desertion was less than it was four years ago. During the Crimean War the 10 years' system came into operation. In 1854 he had the honour of commanding a company when some troops had to take their discharge. Speaking to the soldiers, whom he found to be very reasonable men, as a friend, he asked them whether they thought that in the next 10 or 11 years, by leaving the Army, they would be able, out of the wages earned by the practice of their calling, to save enough of money to give them a pension of 1s. or 1s. 2d. a-day. He believed that on that occasion, with the exception of three, not a single man
  1788
  took his discharge—a fact which he thought very creditable to the men. But the real question was the difficulty of providing troops for India. He had always held that they should revert to the local system in India, because he was sure that the time occupied in crossing the seas and bringing home invalided men was the cause of a great deal of loss in respect of soldier labour. He was sure it would come to it in time, and that was a question which he believed operated in the mind of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when on a former occasion he mentioned the subject of pensions to him. They had discussed that evening the whole system of military administration, and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had brought some important points under their consideration. He had always considered it their duty, as military men, to place military matters outside politics. Therefore he said he did not consider that the administration of affairs in the Army was as good as it might be, although he did not attribute that to anything which the noble Marquess had done. On the contrary, he had certainly made the system of extended service with the Colours more elastic; and if hon. Members wished to ascertain how that system had worked they had only to refer to the Inspector General's Report. They would find that when the system was made more elastic, and the noble Marquess offered £10 to men serving in India to re-engage with the Colours, not one single man re-engaged of under three years' service, a fact which proved that for the first three years a soldier's life was irksome and tedious to him, because he was made a soldier only after three years' service, and in the meantime he was, in a manner of speaking, bullied and kicked about, and was therefore, at the end of the short-service period, only too ready to take his discharge. Again, as the number of years of service increased, so the number of discharges decreased; and therefore he thought that if they could engage men to serve 21 years, they would confer a great boon both upon the Service and the country in general. The great difficulty now was to have a good line of attack and a good Reserve; but he trusted that they would never have to resort as they did during the Crimean War to the

  1789
  humiliating and miserable expedient of paying mercenaries to fight the battles of the country. He was convinced that the present state of things abroad had been good for the Service, inasmuch as it had awakened many to the fact that neither the Army nor the Navy was in that state of efficiency in which they would like to see it. He hoped before another year had passed the Service would be improved, and that a considerable improvement would take place before their soldiers were again called upon to exhibit their courage and valour in the field.
  COLONEL MILNE-HOMEsaid, he should not have addressed the Committee but for one point raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) with reference to the proposed abolition of the gratuities accompanying medals for long service and good conduct. As a matter of fact, in the Household Cavalry, in which he had the honour of serving a long time, long service still prevailed. The consequence was that a large number of those medals had to be given away in the corps; and he knew of no prouder or pleasanter moment than when commanding officers had to call from the ranks men who had served during 18 years with uninterrupted good character for the purpose of bestowing upon them the medals in question. It was a very easy thing to lose character in a regiment, where temptations were so rife, and he repeated that it was a pleasant thing to award medals to men who had withstood those temptations and retained their character. Therefore, he felt it his duty to protest against the abolition of the gratuities which accompanied the long-service medals; and, in speaking on that subject, he would like the Committee to consider the kind of Circular which abolished them. It said—
  "Until the 30th of June, 1885, a gratuity shall be paid to each soldier awarded a medal,"
  and so on. Why, anyone would infer from the ingenious and ingenuous way in which the Circular was worded that something was to be granted to the soldiers until that date, whereas, as a matter of fact, something was to be taken away from them. It so happened that for the last nine years gratuities had been granted with good service medals, and that previous to that time there were only four such medals given
  1790
  away in each regiment. He repeated that this Article, instead of giving the soldier anything, absolutely deprived him of what he was entitled to. An hon. and gallant Friend of his had said it was a breach of faith. Surely common sense showed it was a breach of faith to all the men who joined the Service before the Circular was issued. The Circular was issued in 1881; it was repeated in 1882; and repeated again in January last; so that all the men who joined the Service before 1881 felt they would receive a gratuity of £5. Now, however, they were to be done out of it. Why were they to be done out of it? Was it because on Vote 17 it was hoped to save something like £3,000? In his opinion, £3,000 would be very well spent in the shape of these gratuities, because the very best recruiting agency they could have in the country were the men who left the Army, and who went back to their homes, and told their friends and companions how well they had been treated. Now, if men were sent down to the country who had been done out of this £5—he used the phrase advisably—recruiting would be very much checked, because they would tell their friends how, when they entered the Service, they were promised £5 one day, and how it was taken away from them the next. He had intended to say a word or two with reference to the condition of the Cavalry of the country; but the subject had been so thoroughly well dealt with by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that he would not detain the Committee more than a single moment on the subject. General Fraser's letter had been referred to. That letter was, in his opinion, a most valuable production, because it put the facts of the case in the briefest and tersest manner, and it ought to be added to the Annals of the House. Every Member of the House of Commons ought to make it a part of his duty to ascertain what the real facts were with regard to the Cavalry Force of the country. There was one point to which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not allude, and that was with reference to an Hussar regiment which had been sent abroad. The hon. and gallant Member said that the regiment had something like 300 recruits in

  1791
  18 months; but there was one other cause for its depletion or exhaustion, and that was the passing last autumn of 82 men to the Reserve. Practically speaking, 82 efficient men, after five years' service, were lost to the country. It was true they went to the Reserve; but what, after all, was the Cavalry Reserve? With all submission, he ventured to say it was a useless Force. It was well known that as men grew older they did not become better horsemen unless they continued their riding; and, therefore, when they passed a Cavalry man to the Reserve, unless they sent his horse with him he would not be of much use if he were called upon a few years hence. Therefore, if the country wished to have efficient Cavalry ready to take the field at any moment, regiments must be kept up to war strength, and not be dependent upon any phantom Reserve such as they had in this country. It was all very well to state, as had been stated by the Inspector General of Recruiting, that not only in the case of the Cavalry, but in the case of the Infantry, there were a great number of excellent recruits, young men who were calculated to become good soldiers. They did not want men who were calculated to become good soldiers, but they wanted men who were now good soldiers. The first number of men calculated to become good soldiers who were sent out would only fill the hospitals or create scares. He did hope that the Committee would insist upon the men who were to go and fight their battles being thoroughly efficient.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, he would not detain the Committee long; but he did not wish that opportunity to pass without making some remarks in respect to the Cavalry. He did not propose to enter into the question of the value of the Cavalry as compared with the other branches of the Service—he did not wish to enter into the question that had been discussed at length with regard to the number of men; but he wished simply and solely to point out in what way he thought it would be possible so to organize the Cavalry as to make them an efficient body. He thought it was the duty of the Committee to take care that every regiment in the Military Service should be made thoroughly efficient. Now, he believed he was justified in Saying
  1792
  that at the present moment the War Department had not got a single regiment of Cavalry which they could send out complete in men and horses. That he believed to be an absolute fact; indeed, it was pretty well established the other day, when the War Department wanted to send out 400 men to Egypt, and they were obliged to take 200 men from one regiment, and 200 from another regiment. He was aware of the ingenious answer made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) to a Question put to him on the subject. The noble Marquess said that he desired to send out a certain number of Hussars and Lancers; but if he had tried to take 400 men from either of the two regiments, he would have found it quite impossible to do so. Supposing they were to send out a full Cavalry regiment at its present strength, they would have no reserve to replenish it, and no means of maintaining it during the progress of the campaign; and men and horses during a campaign—horses especially—perished very quickly. According to the establishment of their Cavalry at the present time, the War Department appeared to imagine that Cavalry would have no casualties. The facts of the case, however, were just the contrary, because there was no branch of the Service which was so exposed to casualties as Cavalry. The very nature of the occupation of the men led to it, as Cavalry in war time were always pushed forward to the front; they were always nearest to the enemy; if any reverse occurred, the Cavalry had to guard the rear, while in actual battle they were always thrown in the front of the fight. Now, if their Cavalry regiments were to be made efficient, he believed it was absolutely necessary to add a fifth squadron to every regiment. If the money could not be found to add that squadron, he should infinitely prefer the number of Cavalry regiments to be reduced, and the remaining regiments made really efficient for purposes of war, rather than maintain a number of regiments which were inefficient, and unable to do the good service required of Cavalry in the time of war. Under the present organization he considered that the officers commanding the Cavalry regiments, and the officers generally, deserved the greatest credit for the struggles they

  1793
  had made under the difficulties of their service. Very much fewer complaints had been heard from Cavalry officers of Cavalry regiments against the short-service system than from Infantry regiments; yet it was much more difficult to train a Cavalry soldier than an Infantry soldier, in addition to which there was the training of the horses to be taken into consideration. Notwithstanding all that, he ventured to say that for the purposes of war, however good their Cavalry regiments might be, they were not really efficient. The Establishment of Cavalry regiments at home were six regiments of 600 men and 400 horses, and 13 regiments of 450 and 300 horses. What he would like to see done was an extra squadron added to each of those regiments, and that that squadron should consist of 150 men, but of 50 horses only. They would then have regiments of 750 men and 450 horses in the higher standard, and regiments of 600 men and 350 horses in the lower standard. He knew he should be asked why he made that proposal. There were a great many hon. Gentlemen who considered that the force of the Cavalry regiment consisted in its horses; but that was quite a fallacy; the real valuable part of a Cavalry regiment was its trained men. The horses were, comparatively speaking, immaterial; and for two reasons. Horses could be bought in this country from private trade of suitable age, used to saddle and to harness. The trade of the country would supply them with whatever trained horses they required; but the private trade of the country would not supply them with trained Cavalry soldiers; and, therefore, he urged most strongly the necessity of keeping up the number of men very largely in excess of the horses. His idea of the proper and relative strength of the two was, that in Cavalry regiments they should keep the fewest number of horses on which the riding practice of the largest number of men could be kept up. There was another point connected with the horses on which he wished to make a few remarks. It was settled at the time of the Egyptian War that no horses over 14 years of age were to be sent out; yet the allowance to the Cavalry for remounting was so small that many horses were obliged to be retained up to 18 years of age. It was true that some change had been made in respect
  1794
  of the first six regiments on the list; but the observation was true as to the remainder of the Cavalry regiments. He could not conceive what was the good of keeping horses which were useless for war. When the 4th Dragoon Guards were ordered to Egypt in 1882 they had no less than 100 horses over 14 years of age, and that was one of the reasons why the second line of Cavalry was so broken up, in order to replace these overage horses. They did not keep noncommissioned officers and men when they were unfit for service; and, therefore, he could not really understand why they should keep horses which were not fit to be used in time of war. Old soldiers might be of some use for the training of recruits; but old horses could certainly not be used for the training of young horses. With regard to the strength of Cavalry regiments, it had been said that it could be very largely made up from the Reserve. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Milne-Home) had explained that that was not possible, because when men left a Cavalry regiment, though they were, generally speaking, employed in stables, yet it very frequently happened that they never got outside a horse for years after. The Germans had fully recognized this fact, and therefore they had done away with a reserve of Cavalry as regarded their first line. A good deal was said in the earlier part of the evening as to the stoppages for rations. He wished, on behalf of the Cavalry regiments, to remind the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) of the promise made two years ago that Cavalry soldiers should receive extra clothing. The promise was to the effect that as soon as a man was dismissed his drill—that was, about eight or nine months after he joined the Service, he should be given a new suit of clothes. That promise had not been fulfilled. Perhaps he was not strictly correct in saying that such a promise was made; but it was as good as made, and he certainly understood it was made. There was another point with respect to the Cavalry on which he desired to say a word or two. He thought it was very desirable that every Cavalry regiment should be camped out once a-year. Indeed, it would be well if a strict rule were made on that point. It was not necessary to send the regiments a long

  1795
  distance; but they might be camped out even in the barrack yard. Every soldier, he thought, should be camped out once a-year, whether he belonged to Cavalry or Infantry, because it was well that he should acquire a certain knowledge of what would have to be done in actual warfare. Now, as to Commissariats and Transports. It ought to be borne in mind that the Committee of which he was President, after the Egyptian War, had declared very strongly in favour of training a certain number of Infantry soldiers to Transport duties. The measure was not a very large one; it would not be a very expensive one. At present, when any campaigning was to be done, they were obliged to trust the mules and camels in a measure to untrained Infantry soldiers. In the present war Mounted Infantry had been sent out with comparatively little or no knowledge of the duties they had to perform. He had seen it stated, in connection with the Soudan Campaign, that the loss of camels and horses, and animals generally, had been something terrible. He believed that in General Stewart's Brigade alone the loss amounted to 1,600 out of 1,750. It was a well-known fact that soldiers not knowing how to treat animals, or how to saddle them, added enormously to the expense of war. Ho did not know what the expense of keeping up a Camel Corps was; but he was confident that the losses in the Soudan must have entailed great expense. Of course, they could not have camels in this country; their hard roads would not suit them; but he thought it would be a wise step always to keep a certain number of mules here for the Commissariat and Transport Services, and to keep their soldiers well trained in their treatment. It was well that their soldiers should be trained to the care of mules, because they were very peculiar animals, and they were excessively vicious and nasty unless they were properly attended to. Then, again, it was very necessary to encourage all soldiers, particularly in Infantry regiments, in military trades—such, for instance, as shoeing horses. The first want which displayed itself in a campaign was the want of farriers; there always had been such a want, and he presumed there always would be, on the principle that when men were most wanted they were never forthcoming. He thought that every endeavour should
  1796
  be made to make every regiment as complete as it could possibly be in itself. Much had been said about special corps. Now, he had the strongest objection to all special corps. Indeed, he should like to abolish every special corps in the Service, and make the regiment furnish everything that was necessary for the service of the regiment. Take the case of hospital orderlies. Of old, every regiment possessed its own hospital orderlies; and wherever the regiment went the hospital orderlies went. It was quite possible to keep men in a regiment trained to hospital duties, and the same thing might be done with regard to Transport and other duties needed on a campaign.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished, before this Vote was passed, to refer to a matter which came under his own observation during the Recess. He happened to be at Gibraltar, and he there saw a regiment of the Line, part of whom were clothed in brown uniforms, and the other in red. The regiment certainly did not present a very creditable appearance. The explanation given to him was—he did not know whether it was a correct one—that reinforcements had come out a short time ago, and when they left England there were no brown uniforms in store, and they were obliged to go out in their red uniforms and parade with the men at Gibraltar, who had only the brown uniform. He only hoped that what he witnessed at Gibraltar was not an instance of the state of preparation in which the Service was generally in. It appeared too probable that the stores generally had been allowed to run down to an undue extent. He did not think they ought to allow this opportunity to pass without expressing, on behalf of the Volunteer Service, his thanks to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) for having considered the recommendations made last year with respect to the necessity of dealing more liberally with the Volunteers regarding camping. It was generally admitted by military authorities that camping out was the best mode of training for the Volunteer Service; but, notwithstanding the allowance made this year, it was still the fact that the allowances were not sufficient to maintain Volunteer Corps in camp, and that the officers were obliged to put their hands in their

  1797
  own pockets to meet the expenses. He did not think the Government were yet doing their duty in this respect to the Volunteer Service. He wished to make one observation with reference to the number of Volunteers. It was satisfactory to note that the number was increasing, and that there was also a steady advance in efficiency. He was sorry, however, to find that the advance in numbers did not extend to the Artillery Volunteers, for they had been reduced during the year from 38,889 to 38,236—a decrease of something like 500. This circumstance was very much to be regretted, because, in the opinion of competent men, the Artillery Volunteers were, perhaps, the most useful element in the Volunteer Service. They were trained in managing heavy guns, and would, therefore, if required, prove themselves most valuable. He suggested that it might be worth the while of the noble Marquess to inquire into the cause of the diminution. In his (Mr. Tomlinson's) opinion, the Artillery was a force which ought to be encouraged in every possible way. It was very well to congratulate themselves on the condition of the Volunteer Service; but they ought never to forget—and no one who had had anything to do with the Volunteer Service could forget—that after all that was said and done the Service was in a very incomplete condition, considered as an effective part of the defensive forces of this country. Until the Volunteers possessed every equipment, including transport, necessary to make them an effective body, it could not be said they were in a condition to perform the work which might be required of them. Whilst speaking of the Artillery Corps, he should like to mention a circumstance which struck him very much. He was not connected himself with the Artillery Service, but he was told of a certain corps in Lancashire that would, in case its services were required, be marched to Portsmouth or some part of the South Coast. He could not help thinking that that disclosed a defective system of organization. The primary object of a Volunteer Corps ought to be to defend the particular county or part of the country in which it was raised. If the Volunteers were called out their recognized post of duty should be the military district to which they belonged.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) would be able to see his way to take seriously into consideration the case of that deserving class of officers, the Quartermasters. It might be said that when once a man became a Quartermaster he always remained a Quartermaster. If an ordinary soldier raised from the ranks remained in the Service he might rise to any rank, even to that of a General Officer or of Field Marshal; and, as a matter of fact, there were one or two amongst the higher officers in the Army who had risen from the ranks. The Quartermasters did not receive the money they used to receive as Paymasters. A Paymaster was a much less important officer in a regiment than a Quartermaster, and had not so much intrusted to his care, because the stores under the control of the Quartermaster were frequently of far greater value than the amount of money intrusted to the Paymaster; and yet, while the Paymaster was allowed 15 s. a-day, the Quartermaster received only 9s. That they felt very strongly, and it seemed to him that in this matter the grievance they felt was very just. They had over and over again applied to the various Heads of the War Department for relief; but, like most individuals who had not the great advantage of aristocratic or other influences to bring to bear upon the authorities, their prayers had hitherto been very much neglected. In 1881 the Government offered the old officers an increase of 4d. per day, and he had no doubt that he should be only expressing the sense of the Committee and the opinion of everybody who had paid any attention at all to this subject, when he said that their offer of 4d. per day was little short of insult added to the injury under which that deserving body of men had long suffered. He thought the minimum pension ought to be raised to £130 a-year. Another point which he thought ought to be considered was this—He understood that at present only a certain portion of the service of Quartermasters, whilst they were non-commissioned officers, was taken into account in fixing their pensions. He failed to see any ground in reason or justice for this regulation. Surely the time a man served in the Army as a private soldier was just as

  1799
  valuable to the Service as the time he spent in it with a commission; in fact, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought it grossly unfair that these men who, by rising to the position of Quartermasters, had given ample proof of their ability and efficiency, should not have the whole of the time they had spent in the Army in any capacity taken into account. He thought every year those men had spent in the Service, whether as private soldiers, non-commissioned officers, or commissioned officers, should be taken into account by the authorities when the question of pensions came before them. He had promised the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that he would not deal with this subject at any considerable length, and he was anxious not to break his promise. There was just this other point he would bring to the notice of the noble Marquess—namely, that he thought Quartermasters should be allowed to reach the rank of Major, and that when they retired they should be allowed to reach the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: So many points have been touched on in the course of this discussion that I am afraid it will be absolutely impossible for me to make a reply to more than a very few of them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) expressed great anxiety as to when an opportunity would be given for a full discussion upon the proposals of the Government with regard to the Army. It is not possible to predict that the opportunity will occur on the Vote of Credit, on which a political issue may be raised, which may therefore render a discussion upon points of detail inconvenient. If such a discussion cannot then be held, an opportunity will arise on the Reserves Vote, or some other Vote, when the Vote of Credit for the Establishment is within full knowledge of the Committee. We will undertake that such an opportunity will be given within a reasonable time. I trust, however, that that opportunity may be made use of really for the purpose of discussing the actual proposals of the Government, for I think the discussion we have had tonight has been, to a great extent, a repetition of discussions we have had previously, and that it would be well to avoid, as much as possible, a repetition of to-night's debate. It is reasonable
  1800
  that an opportunity should be given for full discussion on the question of ordnance, and we shall make the best arrangement in our power for such a discussion to take place. It may be that the most convenient opportunity will be when the Navy Estimates are under consideration. If, however, such an opportunity should not arise, we will endeavour to bring in the Army Estimates again at a time when such a discussion on the subject may be taken. Well, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) also asked me whether the administrative authorities had anticipated and provided for the double drain that will take place whenever the campaign is at an end and the men detained in the Reserve are released? Of course, that has been present to our minds. With reference to this point, I stated, I think, the other day that measures are already being taken to largely increase the depots of certain regiments which have battalions abroad; and in the other cases, when the transfer of men from the Reserve is suspended, it will possibly be necessary to make a corresponding increase in the Home battalions. A great deal has been said in the course of the discussion as to the organization of the Cavalry. That is a part of the organization of the Army which I admit has not come so much under my attention as the recruiting of the Infantry. It is perfectly true, no doubt, as has been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram), that although, no doubt, the short-service system has given more trouble and labour to Cavalry officers than to Infantry officers, yet we have heard less complaint of this system from those Cavalry officers than from the others. So far as I am aware, no alteration in Cavalry organization has been made; and I am under the impression that the present organization, which has been in force for some years, has given general satisfaction to Cavalry officers. I understand that one of the complaints of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was that, in the present establishment of horses, a Cavalry regiment could not embark for foreign service without obtaining a large number of animals from other sources. That always has been the case, I think, and is the result of the system that has been

  1801
  deliberately adopted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire, who is acknowledged to be a high authority on Cavalry organization generally, and especially on Cavalry horses, says he does not object to the establishment of horses being considerably less than the establishment of men. The remaining complaint appears to be that a considerable number of the men in Cavalry regiments are very young soldiers, and not fit to embark on foreign service. I do not know in what way that can be avoided. It has always been contemplated that a Cavalry regiment embarking for foreign service should leave a certain number of its recruits behind it for the purpose of forming a depot. The only question is, what is to be the strength of the establishment of a Cavalry regiment? It may be, though it is a question upon which I do not speak with much confidence—speaking upon it, as I do, after only a moment's notice—it may be that it would be better, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire suggests, that we should have fewer Cavalry regiments with a larger complement than to be satisfied with the present organization. I have never, however, heard of any such motive as that alleged for the arrangement. It has been suggested to me that the most convenient way of bringing about what is desired would be to send out two squadrons of Cavalry regiments. That appears to me to be a very practicable arrangement, as it would enable two thoroughly efficient squadrons to be sent out, and the younger men, or less efficient, could be left at home. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) says that I ought to have taken the opportunity to have proposed a large permanent increase to the Army. The hon. and gallant Member has said that the battalions at home are, and always have been, deficient, and that the wants of the battalions abroad cannot be supplied. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has repeated that statement tonight, having made it before. I have never contended that the battalions at home are efficient for immediate service; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not bring forward any proof of the accuracy of his assertion that the battalions at home are unable to supply the bat-
  1802
  talions abroad. I have told the Committee what the organization has been able to do in sending a force to the Soudan and another to South Africa, and the manner in which those Forces have been disposed of. I contend that that number of men could not have been sent out with the rapidity with which it has been sent out, and with as little confusion and disturbance of the system, at any previous period in our military history. My hon. and gallant Friend has failed to give proof that the regiments that have been sent out for service in Africa during the past summer and autumn have been sent out in an inefficient condition, or that they have not been perfectly capable of performing the duties they have been sent out to perform. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) has again complained of the form of the Estimates. I think upon this subject we have given all the information it is possible to give. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants a comparison drawn between the different items in the normal Estimates, and put with the Estimates of last year, including the Supplementary grant. It is impossible to comply with that request, because the comparison that he requires would be one altogether contrary to the fact. The provision that is asked for this year can only be put in comparison with the provision that was granted last year. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained of the gradual decrease of the Militia. He was not in the House when I made my Statement, and I do not know from what figures he has quoted; but certainly he cannot have referred to the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting. Appended to General Bul-wer's Report was a Return showing the increase and decrease in the Militia since 1884. From that Return it seems that, as a matter of fact, there has been an increase. On the 1st of January, 1884, the number of Militia was 99,440, whereas on the 1st of January, 1885, it was 104,340. I do not know, Sir, from what information the hon. and gallant Gentleman arrives at the conclusion that the Militia is wasting away, when it has increased in the manner I point out.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: I quoted from a Militia Return dated 31st

  1803
  December last. That Return and that from which the noble Marquess is quoting do not agree; and if he will refer to the Return I speak of he will find that what I have stated is accurate.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My Return is probably the right one. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell me what figures he refers to I will explain them. I have here a Return for the year 1884, and according to that it appears there has not been a decrease, but an increase, in the total strength of the Militia. As to Militia officers, it is well known that the great inducement to gentlemen to enter the Militia is the prospect of obtaining commissions in the Line. The chances of obtaining these commissions in the Army, through the Militia, are greater now than they were in former years. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) said that the measures that have been taken to induce the men to extend their service have been a failure. I think, however, my hon. and gallant Friend has not quite accurately apprehended what has been said. In the numbers I quoted I gave the numbers of men who had rejoined the Colours from the Reserve. They were 1,400—the number who rejoined the ranks between the 10th of August and the 1st of January of this year. But no great effort has been made to induce men to return; and, as I have already stated, the men were only permitted to rejoin under certain conditions—that is to say, they had two years' additional service to give. Under these circumstances 1,400 men joined, and, looking at the circumstances of the case, I think that is quite as many as we could have anticipated would have joined. Then my hon. and gallant Friend mixed up with that question of volunteering from the Reserve the question of extension of service. Now, Sir, I stated that the system which was established in 1882–3 had been permanently adopted. We are not able to state yet how many men will avail themselves of the permission to extend their service abroad; the Return has not yet been received. Last year 1,500 men did so. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has just referred again to the complaints of the Quartermasters. He was not in the House when this was brought on by the
  1804
  hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton), and when the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Arthur Hayter) replied. I do not think it is possible for me to add anything to what has been said on this matter. It appears to me that the position of these officers has been fully considered both by the present and by the late Government, and I fail to see that there is any sufficient ground for incurring so large an expenditure of public money as the hon. Member has shown would be involved by agreeing to the demand made. The hon. Gentleman complains that they are not permitted to count the whole of their service while in the ranks in reckoning the time they have been in the Army for pensions. Well, my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Arthur Hayter) has already pointed out that that is a rule that does not apply to Quartermasters only, but to commissioned officers of all grades who have risen from the ranks, and that it is no grievance attaching only to Quartermasters. Seeing that that is the case, and that this is no grievance attaching to Quartermasters alone, I cannot see why an exception should be made in their favour. I think I have referred to a few, but I am afraid to only a very few, of the questions that have been put to mo to-night. I am afraid I have passed by many of them; but many of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed questions to me evidently do not attach much importance to the answers, as they have not thought it necessary to be present.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he wished to remind the noble Marquess that he had said nothing with regard to the abolition of the £5 gratuity paid to men with the long-service medal. He thought for the sake of the Service, and particularly for the sake of those who felt themselves aggrieved in this matter, that an answer should be given.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that the hon. Baronet referred to the question of the taking away the gratuity of £5 granted with the medals to the men who had served 18 years. The gratuity would cease on the 30th of June. The reason it had been decided to abolish it was because when deferred pay was granted for a second period of service it was thought that the gratuity should cease. There was a difference between non-commissioned officers and men, because the

  1805
  former were granted deferred pay during the first period in 1876, and in 1881 it was conceded to them that they should have deferred pay for the second period of service also, which boon was not conceded to the men. Retiring non-commissioned officers, therefore, would get £63 instead of the smaller sum. The men who enlisted before 1881, and who went on for 18 years' service, having understood they came into the Army on a definite understanding, and enlisted expecting to receive the gratuity, were, of course, an exception to the general rule, and he should be happy to consider their case again.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the statement he had just made. He would point out that in the Estimates there were only £1,200 put down for this item as against £4,000 granted last year, so that all the soldiers could not be deprived of their rights.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the noble Marquess had any explanation to offer with regard to the regiment he had referred to?
  LORD BURGHLEYwished to know whether the noble Marquess could give him an answer to the question which he had addressed to him with reference to the Militia?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps it will be more convenient to discuss the details of the Militia on the Militia Vote. It is impossible in a general discussion to give details. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), the Committee will agree that I can hardly be expected to know the circumstances of the uniforming of a certain regiment at Malta; but I can promise that inquiries shall be made into the subject.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £4,543,000, Pay and Allowances.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to say, Sir, with regard to this Vote——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have taken the voices.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I will ask—I appeal to the Committee——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I state that I had taken the voices before the hon. Gentleman rose. I had not said who
  1806
  had it; but I called both for the Ayes and Noes—therefore the hon. Gentleman is too late. I say the Ayes have it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish, Sir, to say that I rose——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to contest my ruling.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg, Sir, to move, "That you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Government, Sir, agree to that Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

EAST INDIA (LOAN).

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had no desire to detain the House; but he thought that this Resolution with regard to the East India Loan was of such importance that it ought to be accompanied by some explanation as to its object.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, a Select Committee had reported last year in favour of a considerable extension of railways in India, and the money asked for was for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of that Committee. He would not enter into any detailed explanation at the present stage, because it would probably be better to take any discussion which might arise upon the second reading of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom any sum or sums of money not exceeding £10,000,000, for the service of the Government of India, on the security of the Revenues of India.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [16th March] reported.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it would be in the memory of hon. Members that a man

  1807
  named Dennis Murphy was shot in his house at Castleisland, and that he died, from the effects of the injury received, in two days. Two constables reported that an outrage had been committed, and that shots had been fired from the outside of the house, and the District Inspector on going to the house found that a window had been broken. However, on closer examination, he found that the outrage could not have been committed from the outside of the house, because, judging from the position which the man occupied, the shots could not have been fired through the window in which the hole was made. In the course of two days it turned out that the two constables were in the house of Dennis Murphy, and that Murphy had been wounded by the discharge of one of their rifles, after which the two constables went out of the house and fired shots in order to create the impression that an outrage had been committed. They then induced the family of the wounded man, and the wounded man himself, to support their story, and it appeared that the circumstances were such that he would have corroborated any story which they chose to present. It was strange to him, under the circumstances, that the Inspector forwarded to the County Inspector a Report describing the case as an outrage, and that he caused to be arrested 12 men at night, one of them having been dragged out of the house in which his father was dying; after that application was made to the magistrate, and a remand obtained. He wished to impress on the House that the Government had not taken the course which the desire to do justice in this case would seem to demand. The Coroner's Jury appeared to think that the killing of Murphy was purely accidental, and the Resident Magistrate appeared to have been of the same opinion. But there remained another question gravely concerning the administration of justice; and that was, whether one of the constables invented, or whether both constables conspired to fabricate a false story for the purpose of producing an impression that an outrage had been committed, and thereby to impede the administration of justice? There could be no rational doubt that the constables did invent and propagate that story. On Friday last the Lord Chief Baron of Ireland opened the Assizes at Derry.
  1808
  Now, 20 days had elapsed since the occurrence of the accident, and 16 days had elapsed since the District Inspector announced in the public Press that it was not an outrage, but an accidental occurrence. He (Mr. Sexton) said that there had been ample time for the Crown and its agents to consider whether there was or was not sufficient evidence to put these constables on their trial for conspiracy to defeat the administration of justice. The constables had denied at first that they were in the house at all, although they were subsequently compelled to admit that they were there, and one of them had since admitted that he had induced the family to endorse the story, and that he had fired the shots outside the house. Well, the Lord Chief Baron was confronted with these facts, and in addressing the Grand Jury how did he deal with the case? He said, whatever might be the question as to the accidental or other character of the death of Murphy, there was no reason to doubt that a grievous misdemeanour had been committed. He said that it was a lamentable thing that members of the Constabulary Force should have deceived their superiors in a matter of this kind; that officers paid to support the due administration of justice should have endeavoured to defeat and misdirect the administration of it. He expressed his deep regret, and said that it was most unfortunate that the Crown had not sent up before the Grand Jury any Bill whatever which would have enabled them to investigate whether or not this gross offence had been committed. He (Mr. Sexton) said that within his memory no such language of censure had been applied to the Crown agents in Ireland by any Judge on the Bench; and he wished to ask what steps the Crown intended to take for the administration of justice in this case? For his part, he thought they ought to take very stern measures indeed. This was due from them, first, to those members of the Constabulary Force who desired to do their duty honestly; secondly, they owed it to the public at large, who in Ireland found it especially difficult to procure the administration of justice; and, in the third place, they owed it to the people of Castleisland, who had by accident been saved from becoming the victims of an atrocious conspiracy, and from having

  1809
  been thrown into gaol and indicted for murder. And Irish Members knew from experience in the last four years that in that case informers would have been forthcoming—that there would have been a flood of evidence forthcoming against these innocent persons, and that the sequel would have been that the two peccant constables would be promoted for efficiency and ability; that iron huts would have been put up in the district, and that the people would have had to pay a special tax on account of the alleged outrage. He thought it would be seen that the Government had erred gravely in allowing so much time to elapse in coming to a conclusion with regard to the conduct of these men; and he trusted they would do their best to remove the heavy censure under which they lay at the hands of the Lord Chief Baron. He wished also to ask the right hon Gentleman if he sanctioned the extraordinary freak which had been perpetrated by the Local Government Board in Ireland on the Board of Guardians of the North Dublin Union. Not long ago the Guardians desired to change their treasurer. The Bank of Ireland having been their treasurer for many years, they applied to the Bank for a loan of £2,000 at 4½ per cent, and the Bank refused to give it. The Guardians then applied to the Hibernian Bank, who agreed to advance the money on the security of the rates, and to charge no interest for the first three months. Thereupon the Board of Guardians transferred their account to the Hibernian Bank. After that the Local Government Board wrote to the Guardians and said that it rested with them to decide on the removal of the treasurer of the Union, and that they refused to agree to the transfer from the Bank of Ireland to the Hibernian Bank. The result of that was that the North Dublin Guardians had been compelled to seek for a loan of £2,000 elswhere on more disadvantageous terms than they could obtain from the Hibernian Bank, and to pay interest upon an advance which the Hibernian Bank was willing to give them for nothing. He said that it was the duty of the Local Government Board in Ireland to protect the interests of the ratepayers, and that they were not doing so in acting thus, and that their attempt to influence the Guardians in the choice of a treasurer was an intolerable pre-
  1810
  tension. In order to allow the right hon. Gentleman to say that he disagreed with the Local Government Board or with the Guardians of the North Dublin Union, he should move that either the Vote be reduced by £500, or that the House disagree with the Committee in this Resolution.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the last matter to which the hon. Member referred was one with regard to which he had given him no Notice.
  MR. SEXTON: I only heard of it since the House assembled.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was still more unfortunate in not having heard of it at all; and it was impossible for him to give any explanation or tell the House anything about the facts at that moment. He would only say that the matter should be looked into; but as to its being debated that night, it was perfectly impossible for him to make any statement upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward a most deplorable event which had occurred in Castle-island. The hon. Gentleman had stated the circumstances as they occurred, and as he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had explained them in his answer to an hon. Member opposite a few days ago. But the hon. Gentleman had conveyed an impression to the House that the Government had been extremely remiss in dealing with the case. What were the facts? When the circumstances were brought to the notice of the Government the constables were immediately dismissed from the service, which was in itself a very considerable punishment. Then it was said that the District Inspector was greatly to be blamed, because he had proceeded in the case when he had suspicions of its not being correct; but the charge having been reported and substantiated by the testimony of the two men, it was his bounden duty to proceed with it as if it were correct. It was true that he had suspicions with regard to it from the first; but whatever those suspicions might have been he had to wait until he obtained corroborative evidence. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought his conduct in this respect was greatly to be praised, because he got the two men to make a clean breast of the matter and contradict one another, finally worming

  1811
  from each of them the truth. But as to screening anyone, or attempting to defeat the true interests of justice, every disposition had been shown from the bottom to the top of the hierarchy of the Constabulary to bring the matter into the light of day and expose what had happened. So much as to the conduct of the Constabulary. Then the question was raised as to what the Law Officers should have done in the way of prosecution. He had told the hon. Member that that had been considered. The decision of the Resident Magistrate was, he believed, that the death of Murphy was accidental; and that, of course, took away the idea of proceeding against the men for manslaughter. Then there remained the question of conspiracy. Well, that had been under the consideration of the Law Officers; but he believed it was not by any means so easy and plain a matter as hon. Members seemed to suppose. Since he answered the Question a few days ago he had heard nothing more as to the decision arrived at; but he could assure the House that there was every desire on the part of the Government to proceed in this matter in such a way as should mark their sense of the great mischief done to the public interest by the conduct of those men or one of them, if their conduct were proved to be what it was supposed to have been, and there would be no reasonable steps untaken which would lead to the punishment of such acts in future.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was very well calculated to spread alarm and dismay in Ireland. Here were two constables actually engaged in conspiracy to murder. Those two men spread the story that Dennis Murphy had been shot through the window of his house, and that he had been murdered. On that statement 12 men were arrested and kept in prison for three days. The two constables adhered to their statement until they were forced into contradiction, not by remorse of conscience, but by cross-examination. They would have persisted in their story if they could; they would have gone to the table in Court and given their evidence against the men arrested, and those men would have been hanged upon that evidence. Therefore, he said that the two constables were guilty of
  1812
  conspiracy to murder. And what punishment had they received? Those two guardians of the peace appointed to protect the life of Murphy, the caretaker—those two guardians of the peace were only to be dismissed from the Service. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I did not say so.] He said it was an abuse of phrases, and an insult to the intelligence of that House, for any sane man to say that serious action was taken against the two constables engaged in a conspiracy to murder when they were dismissed from the Service. He wondered that the right hon. Gentleman had learned so much during his short stay in Dublin as to be able to come before the House of Commons and say that the Government had taken serious action against two guardians of the peace because they had been dismissed the Service. The right hon. Gentleman had implied that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) rather underrated the difficulties of bringing these men to justice. Now, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was not a lawyer by profession, but the Chief Baron was a lawyer by profession; and he, like the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton), expressed his sense of bewilderment that so awful a crime as this should have been committed, and that the Government had not taken the trouble to appeal to the Grand Jury. How could the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or any other man, defend such apathy, such screening, on the part of the Government? Why, not 20 hours, much less 20 days, ought to have elapsed before the men committing such an atrocious offence were brought to account. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not wish to exaggerate matters; but he was persuaded that when the right hon. Gentleman's statement was read tomorrow in Ireland it would be taken as amounting to this—that killing was no murder when it was done by a policeman. What would have happened if the story of those men had not been found out? Twelve men were arrested, and he supposed they would have been convicted. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), through his agent, would have taken good care to have had a jury of the proper colour; and he certainly would not have had any difficulty in getting a Judge of the proper colour. With a jury of 12 of the Loyal

  1813
  Party, and with a ferocious partizan in the shape of a Judge——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has just used an expression which is quite out of Order. [Mr. BIGGAB: Oh, oh!] I said the hon. Gentleman has used an expression which he ought not to have used in speaking of a Judge as a ferocious partizan. I ask him to be good enough to withdraw that expression.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would certainly withdraw the expression; but he supposed he would be in Order in saying that the same jury-packing would have taken place as had taken place in several other cases in Ireland, and the two policemen with their story well arranged, with informers procured by the lavish rewards that were offered by the Government in all these cases—the two constables, with all the means at the disposal of Government, would have been able to procure the conviction of the men. What would have happened? He supposed that two of the men would have been found guilty. They would have gone to the scaffold protesting their innocence; but, as the House knew, that would not have been any protection against the extreme penalty of the law. The neighbourhood would have been denounced in the House as a district in which innocent men were murdered at night by bands of marauders. The next step would have been that the relatives of the unfortunate men would have applied for a large money compensation, and of course that compensation would have been given. If the head of the family had been murdered, there was no reason why it should not have been given. The district, which was one of the poorest in Ireland, would have had perhaps £1,000 in the shape of a Blood Tax put upon it; and in the face of all these possibilities which had been avoided by something like a miracle the right hon. Gentleman now said the Government had taken serious action, because the two constables had been dismissed the Force. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said that an endeavour was now being made to get the constables reinstated. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should not be surprised if they were taken back, because they had proved themselves efficient in the manufacture of crime, and, therefore, they were most fitting to per-
  1814
  form such services as were required in Ireland. He did not think that the action of the Sub-Inspector had been sufficiently vindicated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) upon this point. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could say strong things, but he would refrain from doing so, because he wished to stick at what was the central fact of the whole case—namely, that two men had invented a charge of murder against innocent men; that they persisted in the charge until they were compelled to acknowledge its falsity; that on this charge 12 innocent men were arrested and imprisoned for three days; and that in the face of so atrocious a crime the Government had up to the present—more than 30 days after the event—confined their action to dismissing the constables from the Force. He thought that a more shameful neglect of duty was never displayed by any Administration.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had spoken very strongly of the two constables. Now he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was not there to say one word in justification of those constables. He could imagine nothing more improper than their action. The question was, what was to be done under the circumstances? He apprehended the first thing was to dismiss them from the Force; no one would find fault with the Government for doing that, inasmuch as it was a very natural course to take; and, as his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said, a course involving to the two men most serious consequences, such as loss of employment, and loss of the chance of pension. The Government were not to stop there of course, for it was necessary that the men should be punished in other ways. It was necessary, in the first place, to consider whether the men should not be prosecuted for manslaughter. The Coroner's Jury found a verdict of accidental death, and the magistrate, before whom the case came, did not feel himself justified in sending the men for trial. The next step to be taken was, not as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had suggested, to try the constables for conspiracy to

  1815
  murder, but to consider whether they might not possibly be prosecuted for some conspiracy to defeat justice.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not go so far as to say that their crime amounted to conspiracy to murder innocent people.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Gentleman agreed with him that it was impossible to prosecute the men for conspiracy to murder. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General for Ireland was at that moment considering whether the constables could not be prosecuted for conspiracy to defeat justice. It was too late to undertake such a prosecution at the last Assizes. ["Why?"] The prosecution for manslaughter only took place a short time ago, and it was by no means easy for any lawyer to arrive at a conclusion as to whether an indictment for conspiracy would lie. As a matter of fact, from information he had received within the last 24 hours, he knew his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was now considering the matter.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that the fact stood, after all the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had said, that not only the first thing, but the last thing the Government had done up to that moment to punish the two constables had been to dismiss them from the Force. If the Solicitor General for Ireland had studied the charge of the Chief Baron to the Grand Jury, he would have found that the Chief Baron was of opinion that the dismissal of the men from the Force for the atrocious conspiracy against the lives of 12 innocent men was an insufficient display of energy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Surely the opinion of the Chief Baron, as a lawyer, was of some weight. He (Mr. O'Brien) was not a bit surprised that the Government in Ireland, or its instruments, did not follow up the scandal in Kerry, and did not follow it up with indignant zeal. That fact was that the higher police officers of Ireland were in the power, and at the mercy, of many of the police subordinates; they did not know what depths of villainy would be disclosed if men were pushed too closely. The district of Castleisland was one that had been noted for moonlight outrages. It was not long ago that a very similar
  1816
  moonlight outrage was reported; but policemen were found to have been the delinquents, and they were let off with a fine of £2. How did hon. Members know that it was not in this way that the district had earned its reputation? How did the House know that it had not been imposed upon by many occurrences of the same kind? Surely if policemen were capable of fabricating one story they were capable of fabricating other stories. The fact was that many of these police officers lived in glass houses. Again and again proof had been brought before the House of complicity on the part of the police in Ireland with crime; but the proofs had never been inquired into. There was the case of the man Noonan, who was hired by County Inspector French to assassinate Judge Barry. There was the case of the policeman Woods, who, disguised as a blacksmith, went down to Tubbercurry to organize a conspiracy to murder. There was the case of McDermott, who was closeted with Mr. Jenkinson in Dublin Castle at the time he was at the head of the dynamite conspiracy in Cork, the unfortunate dupes of which conspiracy had since been sent to penal servitude. Those things he (Mr. O'Brien) and his hon. Friends had brought forward in the House again and again, and the answer had always been the same—vague general statements of the good intentions of the Government. The people of Ireland gave mighty little for the good intentions of the Government. All they knew and believed was that the Government were afraid to have any honest inquiry into the proceedings of their police in Ireland, for fear it would turn out that their own police were the worst criminals and the greatest outrage mongers in the world. Just let them see the sort of latitude that was given to those very policemen of Castleisland, the very men who invented the story of the moonlight outrage—the latitude that was given to them in dealing with the people in the neighbourhood. A week ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) a question about the systematic persecution of a very respectable man in that district named Mr. Hussey, probably by those very policemen. On the morning to which his Question referred Hussey was waked up about 2 o'clock by a body of police-

  1817
  men who had not even a warrant, and his house was ransacked for concealed Moonlighters. It was on the very night or morning of this bogus occurrence that these men went roaming about the country breaking into innocent men's houses. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not able to deny that Hussey's house was systematically invaded by the police just at their whim and pleasure in the middle of the night. The fact was that the police wanted to create an impression in the public mind that Hussey, who had previously been kept for over a year in prison as a suspect, without trial or without any charge being made against him, was guilty of complicity in crime. The police, however, had never been able to lay their hands on a scrap of evidence that would warrant them in injuring, and insulting, and blasting in this way Hussey's character before the public. If the house of an Englishman were invaded in the middle of the night by police without a warrant the police would be shot, and he did not believe that any 12 men in England would be found to convict the man who fired the shot of murder. Unfortunately in Ireland the people were perfectly helpless to prevent raids by the police. So long as things of that kind continued under the wing of the Irish Administration, so long as the crime of those policemen remained practically unpunished, England need not be in the least surprised if the Irish people cheered on every occasion they assembled together for the Mahdi, and for the success of other enemies of England. "While he was in possession of the House he wanted to say a word about another matter. The other night he had a Motion on the Paper in regard to it, but it was dropped because the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) said it was not convenient for him to accede to it. He applied for a—
  "Return of all Loans made to landowners or others in the county of Donegal, since the 1st day of January, 1880, according to the records now in possession of the Board of Works, specifying:—1. The names of borrowers and town-lands in which works were situated; 2. The nature of the works in respect of which Loans were granted, whether (a) Arterial Drainage; (b) Thorough Drainage; (c) Subsoiling; (d) Farm or other Buildings; (e) Demesne Walls; (f) other Walls; (g) Fences; (h) Improvements or other Works, distinguishing new works from repairs of old; 3. The amount approved for
  1818
  each of the foregoing together with the amount expended in each case; 4. Act under which each Loan was made."
  Now, he received a communication from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), stating two reasons for objecting to give this Return. They were reasons which he was perfectly certain could not for a moment impose upon the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Hibbert's) own good sense; they were reasons which, it was quite plain, were invented by the Board of Works in Dublin for the purpose of evading what they expected would be an inconvenient investigation. The first of the objections was that the Return would be of an inquisitorial character, and that to give it would be unfair to private individuals who were indebted to the Government. It would have been nothing at all of the sort. The Act under which all those loans was made was an Act which was passed by the late Government in 1879. It was an Act by which £1,000,000 of Irish money was set apart in loans to the Irish landlords, at a nominal rate of interest after two years, no interest at all being charged for the first two years. The loans were made for the express purpose of giving employment in the distressed districts. It was, therefore, public money given for an express public object, and he submitted that the persons who received the money were absolutely bound to account for it to Parliament. If the money had been honestly applied by them they had done a service to the community, and they ought to be very glad to have the matter cleared up. The other objection really seemed almost too absurd to be advanced by any public Department. It was that the Return would overtask the energies of the staff of the Board of Works. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) knew thoroughly well that the Return could be made out by a single clerk in a week. It would be very useful if the Return could be made for every distressed district in Ireland; but there were special reasons for confining it to the one county of Donegal. Donegal was very greatly distressed, and there was the strongest possible reason to believe that large sums of the money which were granted to the landlords for the purpose of giving employment were never so employed, but employed upon bogus works, or devoted by

  1819
  landlords to their own necessities. Of course, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) stated that he would inquire into any special charge of this character. Now, a promise of this sort was perfectly worthless. The Return for which he asked was absolutely necessary, in order that people might be able to test their information and test their suspicion. At the present moment people had no accurate information, and no way of getting at accurate information, as to the amount of money that was lent, or as to the works towards which it was supposed to have been given, or as to what became of the money at all. If the money had honestly been put to the purpose that Parliament intended it for, there was nobody who would be injured by the Return that he asked for. This was truly a matter of very great importance and interest in Ireland. This huge sum of money had been lent as a public trust; and he now stated, upon the authority of some of the very best informed persons, that large sums advanced were never applied to the proper purposes at all, but were applied for the benefit of the landlords themselves. There was the best reason to believe, moreover, that not only had some of the landlords—of course, he was sure his remarks only applied to a small number, and therefore it was all the more easy to get at the facts—not only had some of the landlords misapplied the money, but the inspections by the Inspectors of the Board of Works had been of the most cursory and most unsatisfactory character. In point of fact, in some cases of which he had information, certificates of the Board of Works were actually given without the works being examined at all, given upon the words of the landlords to their friends and brother Freemasons, the Inspectors of the Board of Works. He could not imagine that the hon. Gentleman, with his high sense of justice, could accept the miserable excuse that had been given by the Board of Works for shirking this investigation. All he could say was that if the hon. Gentleman could not that night give them some more substantial, some less ridiculous and trivial reasons for refusing this Return, the only conclusion that Lit would be possible for the people of Ireland to arrive at would be that there was something behind which both the Board of
  1820
  Works and the landlords were anxious to keep in the dark.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that, in the case of the two policemen referred to by the hon. Members for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and Gal way Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), the Government had done all they could reasonably be expected to do. Of course, it was quite right that the men should be punished; it was quite right that an attempt should be made to see whether they could not be prosecuted for manslaughter. That step, however, had been taken. He was inclined to think that, if the hon. Member for Galway Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not explained his meaning in the course of the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), a certain section of the inhabitants of Ireland would have gone under the impression that the hon. Gentleman charged the men with conspiracy to murder, and that the men could have been indicted on such a charge. Now, such a thing could not be done. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General for Ireland) that it was an exceedingly difficult matter to draw an indictment in such a case as this. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Galway Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) were to sit down and endeavour to draw up an indictment suitable for this case, he would find himself in a most difficult position. It was evident that, on general principles, the constables had been guilty of a Common Law misdemeanour.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not know whether he had any right to fancy himself a lawyer; but it did appear to him that, on the face of the case, it was clear that an indictment would lie for conspiracy. It was a crime recognized by the law to be guilty of a moonlight outrage. It was also a crime to accuse another man falsely of committing an outrage, and it was also a crime to conspire falsely to accuse another man of outrage. Ho thought that if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) were to refer to the well-known book of Archbold, he would find in it the form of indictment for this offence. Why the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) hesitated so much, and allowed his conscience such delicate procrastination in the case of these policemen, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) found it difficult to

  1821
  understand. He had not read the charge of the Chief Baron; but he could imagine any Judge—at any rate, any English Judge—would have little difficulty in expressing himself on the action of the Government in respect of those policemen. Now, as to the Board of Works, he, too, had ground for complaint. It seemed to him that the whole history of the Irish Board of Works was a history of mismanagement and obstruction. It was the worst, the most useless, and most extravagant Board in Ireland, and God knew that they had enough of very bad Boards in that country. The whole of Ireland was studded with monuments to the mismanagement of the Board of Works, and he supposed there was no Department of the Government which had squandered so much money as that Board. In the Board's Reports, given year after year, hon. Members would find whole pages devoted to a record of the drainage works which they had in hand. He did not know for how many years they had been engaged in draining; but, at any rate, there was not a county in Ireland—there was no division of any county in Ireland—in which the Board of Works had not been called upon to do something or other in connection with drainage. As a general rule, it had been very badly done. Whether the works of drainage were public or private, they all had to come under the cognizance of the Board of Works. Nothing was so important in Ireland as draining, and the other day, when he asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) if the Board of Works were in a position to furnish information, merely of an elementary kind, necessary for the formation of any judgment with regard to general drainage in Ireland, or with regard to any particular basin, the hon. Gentleman was obliged to admit that the Board of Works were not in a position to give information with regard to a single basin. Well, he thought that was absolutely scandalous. It was disgraceful that this Board, with all the materials in the Office of Registry, should hesitate about furnishing such a Return. He himself would undertake to furnish such a Return with less than two days' work, either from books and documents in the Library of the House of Commons, or in his own library,
  1822
  and he was certain that at that moment the Board of Works must have in its possession Mr. Griffiths' survey of the bogs taken in 1809, 1810, and 1811. That alone would be sufficient to furnish almost all the information required. That was only one Department of the work of this Board, and in every single on8 of those Departments they found the same incompetency, maladministration, and waste of money, and injury done to the country. He regretted that no Motion had been made to reduce the Vote, because he thought that such a proposal should have been submitted, if only to secure some declaration from the Government with regard to this particular Board. He was perfectly certain that if the Government would only inquire into the constitution of the Board of Works in Ireland—if they would only send a Treasury officer over to inquire into the work of the staff of the Office—they would find the staff capable of reduction by at least 30 per cent. He felt satisfied that the Treasury would be able to effect considerable saving of the public money, and that while they did that they could also so far improve the efficiency of the Board, that the Public Service would gain in more respects than one. As a matter of fact, the Department was a kind of outwork and buffer to the Treasury, and the Secretary to the Treasury was its mouthpiece in that House. The Board of Works in Ireland was incorrigible and inert, and asked only to be left alone, and all the Treasury asked was that that Board should help the Treasury to be left alone. Now, when they had a new broom in the Treasury in the person of the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary (Mr. Hibbert), who seemed willing to improve all matters in Ireland that came under his management in any way, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) trusted that this question would not be lost sight of. He hardly thought it would be, from what they had seen of the action of the hon. Gentleman since he had anything to do with Irish affairs. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) hoped that in 12 months they would see a great improvement in connection with the Irish Board of Works, and that when this Vote came on for discussion they would hear that the hon. Gentleman had seriously considered the question.
  MR. HIBBERTthanked the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) for having given him private Notice of his intention to bring forward this question, because if that Notice had not been given, in all probability he (Mr. Hibbert) should not have been in his place, and would not have been able to have submitted a proper reply. He could assure the hon. Member that it was with very great regret that he was unable to assent to this Motion for the Return, and he took upon himself to say that though the hon. Member had used strong language towards the Board of Works, on account of the reasons they had given for not granting this Return, he thought the first reason referred to was one which anyone who looked at the wording of the Motion for the Return would agree was perfectly justified. The Motion was in these words—
  "Return of all Loans made to landowners or others in the County of Donegal, since the 1st day of January 1880, according to the records now in the possession of the Board of Works, specifying:—1. The names of borrowers and townlands in which works were situated; 2. The nature of the works in respect of which Loans were granted, whether (a) Arterial Drainage; (b) Thorough Drainage; (c) Subsoiling; (d) Farm or other Buildings; (e) Demesne Walls; (f) other Walls; (g) Fences; (h) Improvements or other Works, distinguishing new works from repairs of old; 3. The amount approved for each of the foregoing, together with the amount expended in each case: 4. Act under which each Loan was made."
  All that, of course, not only applied to loans to be made to landowners, but also to loans to be made to tenants; and he thought that if the Act of Parliament had intended that the circumstances connected with the granting of those loans were to be made public, and that if it were legitimate for such Returns as that to be made, it would require very inquisitorial proceedings.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The name was advertised in the newspapers in the case of each application.
  MR. HIBBERT: If the names were advertised in the papers when the loans were made the information would be at hand, and there is no necessity for this Return. I think it would be an inquisitorial thing to publish the information asked for in this Motion.
  MR. O'BRIENasked whether he understood the hon. Member to say that if he (Mr. O'Brien) could find the Return of landowners, and those who obtained
  1824
  loans under the Act of 1879–80, the Return would be granted?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not say that. What he said was, that the Return, as drawn, would include information with regard to loans made to landowners and tenants alike, and that if the Act of Parliament had intended such a Return to be made to Parliament, it would have contained a provision to that effect. If the hon. Member would give him any case in his county in which he suspected the occurrences to which ho had. alluded, or where he thought there was ground for suspicion that the money obtained for loans was not being properly spent, he (Mr. Hibbert) would undertake to inquire into those cases, and to supply all the information he could obtain privately. Having made that offer, he should have thought that the hon. Member would have been satisfied, and would not have thought it necessary to proceed further with his Motion with regard to the Return for which he seemed so anxious. He (Mr. Hibbert) could only say that since he had been at the Treasury he had been anxious on every occasion to give the Irish Members all the information in his power, and that he had given them such information whenever they had applied for it. That was the first occasion on which he had had to refuse an application of the kind; and he could assure the hon. Member that if he would give the names of any persons whose case he suspected, he would make inquiries and undertake to give him all the information he could.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that the hon. Member was offering to give his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) information of just as inquisitorial a character as that for which the hon. Member asked in his Motion.
  MR. HIBBERT: But the difference is this. In the one case the information will be made public, and in the other it would be given to the hon. Member privately.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that in any ease the inquisitorial inquiry would have to be made. The reason why he thought that the information sought for in this Return should be granted was that the money granted under the Act of 1879–80 was really handed over to the applicants in the form of a public trust. Other Acts of Parliament had granted loans

  1825
  for the carrying out of public improvements, but public improvements which, so far as the landlords were concerned, were their own special improvements—improvements on their own holdings, and in their own interest. In the case of the fund in question, however, the money was granted to the interest of all; not merely that the landlord should be able to carry out work upon his property, or that the farmer should be able to drain his land for his own benefit, but that by the spending of the money the landlord or the farmer would be able to give a large amount of employment to the peasantry and the poor people generally, when famine was in the country. Under the circumstances, this fund was looked upon in Ireland as a trust fund, and he thought that the Irish Members had a perfect right to demand information as to how that trust fund had been expended—how the trust had been fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) said he would not like to give the names; but it had been pointed out that those names had had to appear in the newspapers when the applications were made. The amounts when granted by the Board of Works also appeared in the newspapers; and surely to goodness there could be no serious objection to stating how much of that money had been expended on the works in respect of which it had been applied for, and the nature of those works. He did not wish to mention names, because he did not like to bring charges without being able to substantiate them, which he should not be able to do without the Return asked for; but he had heard of cases in which the money granted had been singularly misapplied. There was one case, however, in Donegal, where a landlord had borrowed money ostensibly to make a wall round his demesne. The landlord had received the money, and if he had applied it to the work for which he had obtained it a large amount of work would have been done and a large amount of employment given; but instead of that he only repaired a portion of an iron railing. The principal reason why the Irish Members made this demand was because this money was public money, lent for a specific public object and for the public benefit, and therefore the public had a right to know how it had been expended. If £5,000 or
  1826
  £10,000 had been granted for the erection of a pier, if the pier were for the benefit of the fishing community generally, the hon. Member would have no objection to state how the money had been spent. Why, then, should he object in this case, in which, as he said, the money had not been granted for the purpose of benefiting the landlords primarily, but for the purpose of benefiting the public? He (Mr. Leamy) was sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had found it necessary, so early in his official capacity at the Treasury, to refuse the reasonable request of the Irish Members; and he could not help thinking that the more the hon. Member considered the matter the more he would come to the conclusion that the Irish Members had no inquisitorial motive in moving for this Return, but that they merely wanted to know how this money given for the Public Service had been actually spent. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in answer to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) with regard to the action of the Local Government Board, had made a statement in the House that night which he no doubt thought a sufficient reply to the hon. Member. He had said that he did not know anything about the matter. That was to say, that the right hon. Gentleman who was President of the Local Government Board in Ireland knew nothing whatever of the action taken by the Body over which he presided. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing much about it; but Englishmen who grumbled at the temper of the Irish people ought not to be too much surprised at that temper when they saw, as in this case, a right hon. Gentleman at the head of a Department pleading absolute ignorance of the work of that Department, and being unable to give information except from people who were hostile to the majority of the Irish Representatives. He (Mr. Leamy) only referred to the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance for the purpose of pointing out the difficulty in which the Irish. Members were placed in dealing with matters of this kind. The Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that the case of the two policemen was occupying the attention of the Government; but surely it was a very remarkable fact that the Chief Baron in Ireland should have de-

  1827
  clared that these men should have been sent up for defeating the ends of justice. He (Mr. Leamy) would give no opinion as to whether these men could have been indicted for conspiracy to murder. It was said that there was some doubt as to whether one of the policemen conspired with the other; but if one conspired with the members of Murphy's family to defeat the inquiry, the Coroner was bound to make it "and for the purpose of defeating the ends of justice;" and if the policeman made his statement for the purpose of enabling the family to obtain blood money, in case his statement was supported there was no doubt plenty of ground for indicting the man. He (Mr. Leamy) hoped that now the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the matter into his hands the delay which had occurred would be made up for.
  MR. MAYNEsaid, that they had a right to expect something more definite from the Chief Secretary than the reply which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had obtained as to the action of the Local Government Board in regard to the North Dublin Union. This was a matter of considerable importance to the ratepayers of the City of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was President of the Irish Local Government Board, and this matter had now been pending nearly a fortnight, and yet the right hon. Gentleman appeared to know nothing of what had been going on. Was not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a letter from the Local Government Board of Ireland had been read at the meeting of the North Dublin Union Guardians yesterday, dated November last—a letter in which it was stated that their attention had been called to the Minute of the Board of Guardians, in which they changed their banking account by resolution, and in which they stated their refusal to permit the Board to carry out that change? The Local Government Board of Ireland took this course on a ground that he thought he was justified in describing as a quibble. They stated that the banker of the Board of Guardians was an official of the Board. Their allegation was that its banker was really the Board's Treasurer, but the banker was paid no salary. He was not appointed in the way officials were appointed, and yet the Local Go-
  1828
  vernment Board refused to permit the banking account to be changed, because they stated that under the 24th Order no official of the Board could be changed unless the Local Government Board themselves changed him; and in this case they refused to authorize the change. The reason why the Board of Guardians had endeavoured to effect this change should be borne in mind. It was a very substantial one. The Bank of Ireland had refused a loan for 10 years to the Board of Guardians that the Board deemed to be necessary. The Hibernian Bank had consented to grant it for 4½ per cent, on condition that the account of the Board of Guardians was transferred to them. They at the same time consented, if this arrangement were carried out, to charge nothing on the overdraft which was necessary for the Board of Guardians to make in Dublin and probably everywhere else, because, as most people knew, the rates for the year came in very slowly during the first three or four months of the year, with the result that the Dublin Board of Guardians, at all events, were considerably in debt during those three or four months, and had to overdraw their account. The Bank of Ireland, under those circumstances, took very good care of themselves, and charged 5s. per cent on any overdraft that occurred up to May, notwithstanding that during the remaining months of the year they had a large sum in their hands standing to the credit of the Board. The Hibernian Bank offered to put the large credit which the Guardians had during the latter part of the year against the overdraft in the early part of the year, allowing the overdraft to stand without interest. Those were the reasons why the Guardians of the North Dublin Union thought they could do better for the ratepayers by dealing with the Hibernian Bank. Why, therefore, should the Local Government Board step in between the Guardians and the Banking arrangement, and insist upon mulcting the ratepayers for the benefit of an institution which had hitherto had a monopoly? He (Mr. Mayne), as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Dublin Corporation, knew that the Bank of Ireland, having this monopoly, were most illiberal under it. The Dublin Corporation were bound by law to deal with this bank, or they would not con-

  1829
  tinue their present relations for a moment. The Dublin Corporation would take their account away from the Bank of Ireland on Monday if they could do so. The Bank of Ireland, knowing the position in which they were placed by the Local Government Board and other official bodies, took advantage of it for the benefit of their shareholders, and mulcted the ratepayers unmercifully. The Guardians of the North Dublin Union had made a manly attempt to deal with a bank which was just as safe a concern as the Bank of Ireland, and was anxious to deal with them liberally. He (Mr. Mayne) submitted that the President of the Irish Local Government Board owed it to the House and to the Irish Members to now state that the action taken by his Board had his disapproval. If the right hon. Gentleman expressed disapproval with the action of the Board of which he was President now, the Board might probably listen to the remonstrances of the Board of Guardians of the North Dublin Union. That Board of Guardians had passed a resolution remonstrating with the Local Government Board, and asking them to reconsider their extraordinary decision; and he asserted that it would help the Local Government Board very considerably if there was an expression of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, if he could address the House, and if he could not, then on the part of some other occupant of the Treasury Bench, in favour of the spirited and proper action of the Guardians of the North Dublin Union.
  MR. SMALLsaid, that he had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and he had understood from his observations in regard to the Castleisland case that the Government were of opinion that they could not prosecute the policemen for manslaughter, because the Coroner's Jury had not brought in such a verdict against them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I did not say that. The magistrates had refused to send them for trial.
  MR. SMALLsaid, there were one or two other matters which had occurred in the North of Ireland which had come under the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and which could not
  1830
  now, therefore, be regarded by Mm with surprise. He (Mr. Small) wished to draw attention to a trial which had taken place at Armagh in the case of Francis Hughes. An application had been made to get the venue changed from Armagh, on the ground that Party feeling ran so high that a trial of this kind could not be properly held in that county. A man had been violently murdered within a few yards of the Orange Hall in the town where the outrage occurred, and the murder was consequently attributed to Orangemen. He (Mr. Small) had some knowledge of the district, and he was aware that the majority of those on the Jury Panel in that county were strong sympathizers with the Orange brotherhood, many of them being sworn and active members of the organization. Three men, believed to be Orangemen, were charged with the murder to which he referred—the murder of a Catholic, and it was hardly likely that if they were tried locally they would get a fair trial. Therefore, a request was made to the Government to have the venue changed to some other county. The application was a very sensible one, and should have been complied with; but the Government, he understood, held that it would be unfair to change the venue, and that there was no reason to believe that a proper trial could not be had in Armagh. Accordingly, the three men charged with the murder of this Catholic were brought to trial in the county of Armagh. The bill sent up before the Grand Jury was for manslaughter. The Grand Jury threw it out, and found a bill merely for assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, and this notwithstanding that the man whose death was the subject of the trial had been killed by having his skull smashed in with a stone of several pounds weight. Could there be any doubt that an assault of this kind was an assault "occasioning grievous bodily harm?" The case came before the Petty Jury. He (Mr. Small) had often been present at Assizes in the city of Armagh, and had noticed the way in which this business was done. The Crown Solicitor, himself a Catholic—one of the class of men who were most despised in Ireland, that was to say, a Castle Catholic, one of those who were usually found to do the dirty work from which respectable Protestants would reooil—was in the habit of holding the

  1831
  Jury Panel in his hand, going over it, and carefully excluding from it all those whom he knew or believed to be Catholics. He (Mr. Small) asserted most positively that this Crown Solicitor, Kilkelly, had struck off Catholic names time out of mind, and that whenever a Catholic had got upon the panel it was only in consequence of his bearing a name which had a Protestant sound. In the case to which he was referring a jury was empanelled consisting of 11 Protestants and one Catholic, and that in a county where the majority of the people were Catholics. The one Catholic upon the jury got on simply because his name was Adams, which the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware was a well-known Protestant name in Ireland. Mr. Kilkelly had felt himself reasonably certain that William Adams was a Protestant, otherwise he would not have put him on the panel. The three men were put upon their trial before this jury, with the curious result that the prisoners were acquitted even on the minor charge, and were found guilty of a common assault. He presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew, as every criminal lawyer knew, what a common assault was. It was a term which was generally applied to an assault of the slightest character, unaccompanied by serious disturbance or serious result. The jury found that the men who had smashed in their victim's skull with a stone which weighed several pounds were only guilty of a common assault. The trial had taken place before Mr. Justice Johnson, of whom it might be said, whatever could be said of other Judges in Ireland, that he at least was an impartial and just magistrate. This Justice said that of all the evidence which had ever been brought before a Petty Jury none had been clearer than this, and that they would have been justified in bringing in a verdict of manslaughter. It was stated in that House, in reply to an hon. Friend of his (Mr. Small's), a day or two ago, that all the evidence had been produced before the Petty Jury. Was all the evidence produced? Mr. Justice Johnson had given the men 12 months' imprisonment, which he believed was the utmost he could possibly give them. In that way he showed his appreciation of the conduct of the Grand Jury, in the first place, for returning a true bill for a less offence
  1832
  than that for which the prisoners had been indicted; and, secondly, of the conduct of the Petty Jury in bringing in a verdict for a common assault. In sentencing the men the learned Judge said that they had followed their victim as Indians dogged their enemies. He (Mr. Small) could inform the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland that before very long he would hear a great deal more about this trial. In the beginning of June there was a Nationalist demonstration in Newry, on which occasion the Orangemen fired with murderous intention on the Nationalist gathering. Although they were sent for trial by the magistrates, it was found that an impartial trial could not be had in the county town, and application was made to change the venue. The Government, always ready to bring prisoners to Dublin to be tried by special juries, hesitated to bring those men to Dublin to be tried. It was said that the Dublin juries had too much to do, and in the last two years, no doubt, they had had a great deal of work, because they had to try criminals from all parts of Ireland; but it was strange that this only struck the Government when an application was made to change the venue in this case. The Irish Government, however, after hesitating and coquetting with the question, promised to change the venue locally, and they changed it to—Belfast. Yes; they agreed that the prisoners could not have an impartial trial in the county town, and they thought it would be better to bring them before a jury in the county of Antrim. Anyone acquainted with the North of Ireland would know that the Antrim juries were the worst and most bigoted and intolerant in any part of Ireland. The Crown entered on the case at the Belfast Assizes with all the machinery of a State trial. Mr. Justice Murphy formed a strong opinion on the case; but notwithstanding that the jury disagreed. The trials were then adjourned, and it was understood that the venue should be changed to another place; but, to the surprise of everyone, within the last few days the Government had again changed the venue, and again changed it to Belfast. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman think the effect of this would be on the minds of the people in the North of Ireland? Did they want to purge their minds

  1833
  altogether of the idea that they would get any justice whatever from the Government? Irish Members knew that this farce would be gone through again and again; and the Orange jury would be empanelled, and this time he thought there was no chance of disagreement, because the jury would be too well versed in the case before the trial took place. Would the House believe that, in a later trial of an Orangeman charged with firing on a Nationalist procession, the Crown ordered Catholics to stand aside on the jury being empanelled? Only a few days ago, Mr. O'Hare, who was on the panel in Armagh, and a Catholic, was suspected of being a Nationalist, and because of that he was not thought fit by the Crown to be on a jury. Politically, however, he was not sorry for what had occurred in the county of Armagh, for when the next election took place at Newry he knew that the two circumstances he had drawn attention to would be well remembered, and if any gentleman under Whig colours presented himself there he would be likely to go away without the letters M.P. attached to his name.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it could hardly be a matter of surprise to the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should have pleaded ignorance in the matter of the Hibernian Bank and the Guardians of the North Dublin Union, because he was in point of fact thoroughly ignorant of all Irish affairs, and, from what could be judged, likely to continue so. Perhaps, however, owing to the amount of enlightenment he had received from hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, there was hope that he would make some inquiry, and that justice would be done in the case. Then, with regard to the application made to the Board of Works, to which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had alluded, he had listened with attention to the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury, and although he was not disposed to think harshly of that hon. Gentleman, who, he believed, was desirous of doing what was right, he was bound to say that he had in this case given a peculiarly weak and injudicious answer. It was notorious that the grossest frauds were practised by those who borrowed money from the Government. There was nothing exceptional in the fact that
  1834
  frauds were committed in connection with these Government loans, and the hon. Gentleman, instead of saying to the hon. Member for Mallow that he was very much obliged to him for drawing his attention to the circumstance, and that the subject should be investigated, replied—"If you will make a statement to me privately with regard to any particular case, I will give you every information." But then he took away from the hon. Member for Mallow the means of pursuing the case. He (Mr. Biggar) pointed out that if Returns of the loans were published, the local knowledge of persons who saw them would enable them to form an opinion as to whether or not there was any cause of complaint, and they could then draw attention to the subject through their Representatives, who would endeavour, if possible, to get some redress. A story had been told him by an hon. Member to the effect that, on one occasion, he had gone with the Board of Works Inspector, who had to grant a certificate for work alleged to be done. What occurred? His hon. Friend was alone with the Inspector, who simply went on the confines of the land supposed to have been drained, and asked the farmer—"How many purchases have you made for drainage, and what am I to certify for?" The Inspector never investigated any part of the work done, and in point of fact the certifying was a perfect farce, and he might just as well have certified on the statement of the farmer without going on the premises at all, and without pretending to investigate the matter in any way. He thought, although this was only one instance, that it was sufficient to show that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider this question, with a view to seeing whether, not only in the interest of Irish Members, but in the interest of the Board of Works, whose duty it was to get the work done honestly, and act with some show of judicious management, the system could not be altered. The Board of Works were in this matter the representatives of the Treasury, and he thought, seeing that there was such a tendency to borrow money from the Government on private representations alone, that all those transactions should be made as public as possible, and that information should be given to Members of the House for

  1835
  the purpose of saving the Government from being plundered by advancing money on such pleas. Turning to another subject, he had over and over again drawn the attention of the House to the Vote of £1,200, which year by year came forward for the Ulster Canal Works. The Canal, he pointed out, had never been opened at all, and the money had gone into the pockets of some swindlers, notwithstanding which it was the custom of the Government to grant the money annually. He had always protested against the throwing away of public money for any unproductive work in Ireland and everywhere else, because it was a thing which ought neither to be defended nor practised; and he would always be ready to throw obstacles in the way of the borrowing and spending of public money on works of that kind. Then, with regard to the Castleisland case. It was well known that two persons alleged to be innocent had been hanged for a murder which was committed at that place; and now, when a similar case was proved—when it was shown that two constables had attempted to get innocent men hanged—the Government simply dismissed the men from the Force, and there would be no chance of punishing them further, because, if they had any sense at all, they would get out of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law. He thought with his hon. Friend the Member for Galway Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for the course they had taken in this matter; because if the constables had not been found out in this conspiracy to murder, of which if not legally they were morally guilty, some of the 12 men who were arrested would undoubtedly have been hanged. The Government would have taken care that the men were tried at a place where they would be certain of getting a packed jury, they would have brought the case for trial before a partizan Judge like Mr. Justice Lawson or Mr. Justice O'Brien, and a conviction would have followed as a matter of course. Earl Spencer would then have said—"There has been a verdict by a jury given, and I will hang the men whether right or wrong." The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) had drawn attention to the change of venue which had taken place in the case of Orangemen
  1836
  who fired upon a Nationalist gathering at Newry, with regard to which he (Mr. Biggar) said, from his own knowledge, that it would be perfectly impossible to get an honest verdict at Belfast. He knew that, because he had been engaged in several cases in which civil juries had perjured themselves in the most atrocious manner, and had returned verdicts against him simply because he happened to belong to a Party different from that to which they belonged. The Government seemed to have lost their minds altogether, or they ought to know that it was their duty to get just and not dishonest verdicts; they ought to know, even from a mere Party point of view, that it was the interest of their Party to be reasonably popular with the Party to which hon. Members on those Benches belonged. As the hon. Member for Wexford had said, there was no doubt that it was the bounden duty of Nationalists in the North of Ireland to throw the whole weight of their power and influence against the Party who acted as gross partizans by deliberately packing juries and taking care that a class of persons who were their enemies politically should get off scot-free, and that those who belonged to the Party whose support they hoped to have at the next Election should be convicted, whether guilty or not. Those were matters with regard to which he thought the Government ought to turn over a new leaf. There was a large part of the Irish population living in England, whose support it would be impossible for the Government to gain if they continued their present course of action with regard to Judges, officials, and juries in Ireland. In point of fact, the whole conduct of the Government in Ireland had been to screen and support persons of bad character, and with regard to persons of good character to do all they could to injure them.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, if some of his hon. Friends were a little more experienced in the way in which the Local Government Board discharged the duties of the Department, they would have expressed no surprise at anything they did. It was the practice to send down to the Poor Law Boards in Ireland a gentleman as Auditor from the Local Government Board, who, as a rule, differed with the Guardians on every point. Those gentlemen were most peremptory

  1837
  in the matter of surcharges. In England, if the Auditor made a surcharge there was an appeal against it; but in Ireland there was no appeal, and the Guardians had to submit to any charge, although it might be of the most outrageous character. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) ruled with gentle sway in Ireland, when he arrested and threw into gaol hundreds of the Irish people, without trial, it was not unusual for the wives of persons so arrested to apply to the Boards of Guardians for outdoor relief, while their husbands were in gaol. A "suspect," in the neighbourhood of Waterford, having been arrested, his wife applied to the Guardians for outdoor relief, which was granted her to the extent of 10 s. or 15 s. a-week for herself and five children. Shortly afterwards the Auditor came down and surcharged the amount paid. The Guardians were told that they should have applied to the Local Government Board before they made the grant, although it should be remembered that the poor woman would have had nothing to subsist on in the meantime. Well, the surcharge was made, and those who signed the checks had no remedy, and they had to pay the amount of the surcharge. If the advice which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had given had been acted upon, the Board might not have found it very easy to collect the money, and in future they would probably profit by that advice. Then there was another case, with respect to the working of the Labourers' Act, in which a great interest was taken in Ireland. The Board thought it might be well that they should procure guides, published in Dublin, which clearly stated the object of the Act and the way in which it should be put in force. They were obtained, and in that case also the Auditor of the Local Government Board came down and surcharged the amount. Again, for some years previously it had been the habit in the Union over which he had the honour now to preside to make a certain annual payment of £55. He himself made the same payment in one year which his predecessors had made; but owing to some cause which he knew not, the Auditor came down and surcharged him with the sum of £55. That was another peculiar instance of even-handed justice on the part of
  1838
  the Local Government Board. He was happy to say, however, that his predecessor, Sir Robert Paul, and some gentlemen of his (Sir Robert Paul's) way of thinking and some gentlemen of his own way of thinking, considered the surcharge so monstrous that they interested themselves in the matter, and the Local Government Board spoke to their Auditor, and he, under their influence, did not make a charge. He thought that these few instances would suffice to show hon. Members, no matter to what Party they might belong in that House, that they in Ireland had to put up with a dictatorial spirit on the part of the Local Government Board which English or Scotch Members would not tolerate for 24 hours. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had, last autumn, held out some hopes that he would be prepared to bring in a measure dealing with this subject; however, he had not moved in the matter up to that time. The Local Government Board seemed to have no other work in Ireland than to thwart and annoy the Guardians. Certainly there could be no greater instance of their incapacity than their treatment of an eminent medical man a few years ago. The political views of this gentleman were not in accordance with the opinions held by the Local Government Board, and they, therefore, thought him an inconvenient person to have in a responsible position. When he was thrown into prison his practice suffered considerably, of course; but, in addition to that, this Board of worthies, who sat in Dublin, afterwards deprived him of the position which he held, by sealed order; and he would have been without his position to that day had it not been that popular opinion, which in Ireland was very strong, compelled the Local Government Board to reinstate him. He wished to mention these facts, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House might know what some of the advantages of the present system were. He imagined that a similar state of things would not be allowed to continue in England for 24 hours.
  MR. KENNYregretted that the Members of the Government who were responsible for the administration of Ireland had already exhausted their right to reply to the observations which had been made by some of his hon. Friends. There were a few questions to which he

  1839
  wished to draw attention, and perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man) heard him he might be enabled to offer a few words of explanation. Some time since he (Mr. Kenny) called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the manner in which the Irish Government had set their promise at naught with regard to the appointment to the Magistracy of gentlemen who belonged to the popular religion. Last year the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), and also the present Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), made repeated and distinct promises that if steps were taken to bring before the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the names of Catholic gentlemen suitable for the position of Justices of the Peace, those gentlemen would be appointed; that, in fact, the Lord Chancellor would exercise his inherent right to appoint them over the heads, if necessary, of the Lord Lieutenants of the counties. Previous to that time, and unfortunately since, the appointment rested with the Lord Lieutenants of counties. Furnishing the other day an example in which a palpable unfairness was perpetrated, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government meant to redeem their pledge by appointing a fair and reasonable number of Catholics to the Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said that if the names of Catholic gentlemen were sent directly to the Lord Chancellor, he would consider them, no matter what the Lord Lieutenants of counties might think of the subject. No sooner had the right hon. Gentleman made that statement than he (Mr. Kenny) had sent to him a letter from the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, in which he stated that with regard to the recommendations for the Commissions of the Peace the Lord Chancellor could not accede to them, owing to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant of the county had not sent a recommendation on the subject. Now, as a matter of fact, the two gentlemen who were recommended by the local Board of Guardians, and also by the respectable people of the locality, happened to be Catholics in religion, and also happened to differ in political opinions from the Lord Lieu-
  1840
  tenant of the county, who was notoriously an extreme Orangeman and a very extreme Tory. Without entering into the question of the appointment to the Magistracy further, he (Mr. Kenny) would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was fulfilling the expressed promise of the Irish Government last year when he said deliberately in a letter to a responsible body in Ireland that he refused to appoint certain gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace because the Lord Lieutenant of the county would not recommend them? There was another question to which he (Mr. Kenny) desired to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was this. The Government had undertaken to relieve certain districts of Ireland from a portion of extra Constabulary stationed there under the Act of Will. IV. Now, by the system of removal which had been adopted a great injustice had been done to the men who had been removed. In certain of the districts some of the subordinate men were removed while the sergeants remained. Now, under such a system the constables and sub-constables of the district had their prospects in the Force indefinitely postponed. Fifty-two had been removed from the county of Clare. These were all constables and sub-constables, but the sergeants were allowed to remain. Now, the result was that if that force of sergeants was kept up the constables and sub-constables who remained would have no possible chance of reaching any higher position in the Service for the next five or 10 years. That might seem a simple matter to the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time it was a system which was practised throughout the whole of Ireland, or certainly in those counties in Ireland where the extra police had been stationed. There was another question to which he (Mr. Kenny) wished to draw attention—namely, the manner in which the County Court of Clare had been turned into a mockery by the antics of a gentleman who was called the County Court Judge of that district. For a long time the action of this man had been a perfect public scandal. It was ridiculous in the extreme to suppose that a person of this man's peculiar character could be capable of exercising judicial discretion to the satisfaction of anybody but

  1841
  himself. To give the man his due he was perfectly impartial in his vagaries, for he attacked all men no matter what position—high or low—with an equal want of discretion. He (Mr. Kenny) had drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and also of his Predecessor (Mr. Trevelyan), to certain of this man's performances. He drew the attention of the Chief Secretary the other day to the fact that this County Court Judge was anxious of knowing from a witness who had been a juror in a previous case what verdict he was in favour of giving. Now, the Judge, if he knew the law at all, must have known very well that the question he put to the witness was a gross violation of the law. That was only one of the many freaks this man was constantly guilty of. Now, one of his favourite pranks was when witnesses were called on the table, witnesses infinitely more respectable than himself, to tell them that he did not believe a word they were going to say. That was rather hard on men who, in the first place, had not opened their mouths in the case, and who, in the second place, as far as public character was concerned, stood in a much higher position in the county than the County Court Judge. Recently, he (Mr. Kenny) had his attention drawn to another case in which two gentlemen, both of extreme Conservative views, came into conflict in a civil matter. It was the case of Mr. Studdart, a well-known local gentleman, a Justice of the Peace, a member of the Limerick Board of Works, but who resided in the county of Clare, and who was an extreme Tory, and a Mr. Stacpoole, also an extreme Tory. They had come into conflict concerning the value of some land. Mr. Stacpoole was engaged in the case previous to the one in which he was in conflict with Mr. Studdart. Mr. Stacpoole failed to prove the case, and then when the case in which Mr. Studdart was engaged was called, this County Court Judge immediately asked if the defendant was his friend, Mr. Stacpoole. Mr. Studdart handed up the account as required of him, whereupon Mr. Stacpoole's solicitor said that he had only received a copy of the account that day. A discussion ensued with regard to a longer notice being given; but the plaintiff explained that it was a matter which could be mastered in a few minutes.
  1842
  Then it was that the peculiarities of the County Court Judge were demonstrated. He threw the account book which had been handed to him on the table, saying he would not hear the case, and directing the Clerk of the Peace to dismiss it. He also told Mr. Studdart to go to some other Court which would hear the case. Mr. Studdart appealed in due course to the Judge of Assize, and the Court gave him a decree with costs. In another case the County Court Judge gave a decree to the plaintiff, refusing to hear the defendant; but when the latter appealed to the Judge of Assize, the decision was reversed. Now, there was another peculiarity about this Mr. Kelly, the County Court Judge. He resided at the county Club, which was kept up by landlords and their agents, and the members of that Club; whenever they were concerned in a suit, took good care to earwig his Honour, and prejudice him beforehand on their behalf. That was a thing which went on constantly. If proof were wanted of the manner in which matters were conducted at the County Club, it was only necessary to take the testimony of Mr. Justice O'Hagan. When he was originally appointed Chairman of the county of Clare, he put up at the County Club; but he found he was so annoyed by gentlemen coming to him and stating their cases, and, when he refused to listen to them, taking seats near him, and discussing amongst themselves the relative merits of the suits in which they were engaged, that he was forced to leave the Club, and he refused to re-enter it again until his term of office in Clare ceased. Mr. Kelly stuck to the Club all the closer, because the members made themselves pleasant, and made his duty extremely simple. He (Mr. Kenny) assumed that Mr. Kelly was prejudiced against Mr. Studdart simply because that gentleman happened to be a member of the Limerick Club, and not of the Ennis Club. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would only consult the statistics in the possession of the House with regard to the successful appeals which had been made from the decision of this County Court Judge to the Judge of Assize, he would find sufficient proof of everything he (Mr. Kenny) had said. Some time ago a pamphlet was published in Ireland by a well-known mem-

  1843
  ber of the Irish Bar, dealing with the County Court question, and condemning strongly the present system. It was conclusively proved in that pamphlet that not only in one, but in many counties, the County Court system was equivalent to a travesty of justice. This was a serious matter to the unfortunate persons who happened to be litigants in Ireland. Many litigants were compelled to graduate through the County Court, involving them in great expense, before they were entitled to appear before the Judge of Assize. When, in 1877, a new law came into force, and a number of very able men were removed from the position of County Court Judges, or Chairmen of Counties, as they were then called, and a number of men, who were unfortunately their inferiors in every respect, were put in their place, appeals had grown rapidly, and the expense incurred by litigants in Ireland had been vastly multiplied, owing to the present most unjust and worthless system. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it worth while to pay any attention to what he (Mr. Kenny) was saying; but he assured the right hon. Gentleman that the subject was not altogether unimportant, and that he might find before long there would be such an outcry raised with regard to the system of administration of the law in Ireland that it would be made extremely uncomfortable for any English Minister who turned a deaf ear to the demand of the people. Now, attention had been called to the money expended in foolish and absurd projects by the Board of Works. It was a notorious fact that almost every work which the Board of Works had undertaken had failed. The Board commenced their career a failure, in 1846 or 1847, during the Famine period, for at that time their favourite amusement was the endeavour to make water run up hills. If necessary, he could give an instance in which the Board of Works absolutely intended to drain a district in such a way that the water, instead of flowing downwards, would have been forced upwards. The conduct of the Board of Works in Ireland in sanctioning loans in a great many instances where loans ought not to have been sanctioned deserved the serious attention of the House. It was well to contrast their conduct in this respect with
  1844
  their niggardliness in refusing loans to industrious farmers simply on account of some technical flaw in the form of agreement, or in the signatures sent up. As a matter of fact, the Board of Works placed every objection in the way of honest and industrious men who required money for the improvement of their farms. Yet they made no demur in granting a loan of many thousand pounds to an arrant swindler. He knew instances in which the Board of Works had so assured farmers of their safety in getting loans, that the farmers had undertaken works, and virtually carried them out, expecting to receive an advance in due course from the Board of Works; but that then the Board of Works had sprung some objection, and the result was that the farmers, having undertaken an expenditure they could not afford, were virtually brought to ruin. Contrast such conduct with the action of the Board in lending to Mr. Drinkwater, of County Clare, a sum of £80,000 for the purpose of working out a scheme which would never be worth £20,000, or even £10,000. The loan was made to this individual under the régime of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He (Mr. Kenny) believed that this Mr. Drinkwater, who happened to be an Englishman, went across to Dublin, after having got some kind of a Private Bill passed through this House, authorizing a certain loan, and made a speech in Dublin Castle to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, in which speech he described the inhabitants of Clare as a set of barbarians whom he wished to civilize. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, with his cast-iron notions of philanthropy, got the Treasury to grant the man a loan of £78,000. Now, there was no inquiry whatever made into the character of the man. When Drinkwater had run through the money which he got from the Government in Ireland, he came over to England, and started as one of the "Long Firm," with the result that the gentleman soon found himself in gaol. This was the character of the man who went over to Ireland to civilize the people, and carry out philanthropic projects nominally for the civilization of the people, but really for the benefit of his own pocket. Drinkwater succeeded in extorting money from

  1845
  the Treasury, whereas honest Irishmen, who were really anxious to expend money in reproductive works, were refused loans by the Board of Works. This was one of the things which had the effect of ruining Irish credit; and perhaps five or 10 years hence, when a genuine scheme of reproductive work was formulated, and a loan was asked for, it would be thrown in the teeth of the people that a certain Drinkwater, in the year 1880, got a loan of £80,000 from the Treasury, and that not a single fraction had ever been repaid. The Government must admit—though the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would never admit it—that in their action towards Mr. Drinkwater they had been extremely mistaken and extremely foolish. At the same time, he (Mr. Kenny) pointed out to the Treasury that in this matter they were themselves entirely to blame, and that they ought not to be in any way prejudiced with regard to future schemes which were promoted by honest and proper men. The men who were really anxious to carry out proper schemes were men who did not object to have their antecedents and character fully investigated. It was only swindlers like this man, Drinkwater, who never intended to repay loans made them, that so objected. He trusted the Government would be able to give some satisfactory explanation as to the manner in which Drinkwater succeeded in obtaining £78,000, and how it was they had allowed themselves and the country to be swindled to so great an extent.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1884 and 1885, the sum of £2,130,084 5s. 7d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

  2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty; for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, the sum of £10,804,760 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (RAILWAY LOAN) BILL.
  Resolutions [March 18] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]

MOTIONS.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  MR. SEXTON: On this Motion I have only to complain that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has broken his word which he gave to me at Question time to-day. The right hon. Gentleman promised that at the end of the Sitting he would ask leave to introduce Bills relating to the Registration of Voters and the Irish Constabulary. He has not done so, and I beg to say that such conduct on the part of the right hon. Gentleman is unworthy and unjustifiable, and we shall not forget it.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders, under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, relating to the Upper Morning Star Drainage District, county Limerick, and the Cashen River Drainage District, county Kerry, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 100.]

  MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER SERVICES.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Expenditure for Miscellaneous Services, and the Expenses of the Postmaster General and the Revenue Boards."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  CHURCH BOARDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ALBERT GREY, Bill for the establishment of Church Boards in the parishes of England and "Wales, ordered to be Drought in by Mr. ALBERT GREY, Mr. ROBERT REID, Mr. EDWARD HOWARD, Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON, and Mr. HOULDSWORTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 102.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clook.