SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

HC Deb 07 May 1885 vol 297 cc1869-944

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £58,100, Divine Service.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £38,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of Military Law, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to put a question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) in regard to a case which had been mentioned in the American newspapers, of the alleged deportation to this country of a soldier who had been formerly a piper in a Highland regiment. It appeared that the man had deserted, and had gone to America. After residing for some years in the United States he was decoyed into Canadian territory, under the pretence of finding him employment, whereupon he was arrested, put in irons, and brought in that condition to England. It was further stated that the American Consul had interfered on behalf of the man, on the ground that he was an American subject; and that his case had been tried before a military tribunal and dismissed, on the ground that the original charge against him was unfounded. He thought the whole matter was one which required explanation.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he had never heard of the case until that moment; and he regretted that the hon. and learned Member had not made it the subject of a Question, put after Notice, in the ordinary manner, before the commencement of Public Business. If the hon. and learned Member had taken that course, he would have been able to make inquiry, and give the hon. and learned Member full information. As the matter stood, he was not able to give any details; but if the hon. and learned Member would put a Question to-morrow, he would give the information asked for.

MR. HEALY

said, he would adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had to complain that the information supplied with regard to Army administration was very meagre; and he thought there ought to be an annual Report presented to Parliament.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, that he had last year pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that it was advisable to give some idea to the Committee of the character of the offences for which trials by courts martial had taken place, and punishments had been awarded. He was under the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had promised that, in another year, information should be supplied. He had looked carefully over the Return presented to Parliament for their approval; but he could not find out that it contained any fur- ther information with regard to crimes and punishments. He thought it would have been interesting to have had such a Return in connection with the troops now serving abroad in the Soudan. The system of military punishments had now been entirely changed, and it would be of advantage if hon. Members were able to form some conclusion as to the results of the change, as shown by the nature of the crimes, trials, and punishments in connection with courts martial. In the present state of the information, it was impossible to say whether the misconduct of the troops had been great or small. Then, again, they were unable to say under what conditions the men were kept in prison—whether they were detained in custody at Cairo, Alexandria, or elsewhere, or whether they were sent home to serve their sentences. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give the Committee a full account of all that had been going on in the course of last year, so that the Committee might be able to form for themselves some information as to the merits or demerits of the system of punishment now adopted as compared with that which formerly prevailed.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

, in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000—the salary of the Judge Advocate General—said, he desired at the outset to disclaim all feeling of hostility towards the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) who now so pleasantly and ably discharged the duties of Judge Advocate General in that House. His business that night was not with the present or any past holder of the Office, but simply with the Office itself and its duties. He maintained, although he might be wrong, that there were no duties connected with the Office, or, at any rate, none which could not be equally well discharged by the subordinates in the Department of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What, to begin with, were the duties of the Judge Advocate General in that House? His principal duty was either to pilot the Army (Annual) Bill in its several stages through the House—work which could not be said either to be very onerous, or of a very important character. His next duty in the House of Commons was to do that which he was now doing —namely, to be present at the discus- sion of the Army Estimates, and more especially of the particular Vote now before the Committee. In the third place, it was his duty in the House to answer any Questions which might be put to him in connection with the Department; but, as far as he (General Alexander) remembered, such Questions were very few indeed. As a matter of fact, no Minister of the Crown in that House was less troubled with Questions than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. With regard to his duties outside the House, the first and most important was to attend Her Majesty, and, having previously read and ascertained the legality of the proceedings of all general courts martial, to submit them to Her Majesty the Queen for revision and confirmation. He had seen paragraphs from time to time in the newspapers, stating that the Judge Advocate General had had an audience of the Queen, and had submitted to Her Majesty the proceedings of certain courts martial; but by far the most onerous duty connected with the Office of Judge Advocate General, outside the House, was the revision of the proceedings of many thousands of district courts martial. Mr. O'Dowd, the permanent Judge Advocate, said to the Committee which sat to consider this subject in connection with the Mutiny Act in 1878 that there were between 7,000 and 8,000 district courts martial held annually. He understood that since that time the number had very largely increased. There could be no doubt that the revision would be laborious indeed if it involved the consideration of many abstruse legal points. But everybody who had served in the Army, and especially those who had discharged the duties of adjutant to a regiment, would know that that was by no means the case, and that the proceedings of most of the courts martial were of the very simplest possible character, involving no questions of law whatever. Even if there were any difficult points of law to be considered, it would not speak much for the system of examination to which the officers of the Army were subjected if they could not be dealt with by the officers themselves, as they had to pass a very strict examination in Military Law. He might mention that the sort of eases which came before the Judge Advocate General for his revision were cases in which men had been tried by district courts martial for desertion, in which a difference arose between the Judge Advocate General and the court as to whether the offence amounted to desertion, or the minor offence of absence without leave. That was the sort of case which, as a general rule, came before the Judge Advocate General for revision, and there were very few even of those cases. He submitted that such cases of law, as did from time to time occur, might very well be disposed of by the permanent Judge Advocate and his assistants in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department. Mr. O'Dowd told the Committee in 1878 to which he (General Alexander) had just referred that he, or one of his military subordinates, was in the habit of reading over the proceedings of every court martial; and he (General Alexander) inferred from what Mr. O'Dowd told the Committee that the Judge Advocate General of the day was not in the habit of reading those proceedings himself. The custom in that respect might have changed in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's time, because he (General Alexander) understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was in the habit of reading the proceedings of all these courts martial himself.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

Not all of them.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

Well; a considerable portion of them.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

Only those in which questions of law are involved.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

continued: Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have a right to read the proceedings of any of the courts martial he liked; but he (General Alexander) maintained that the work was a very unnecessary work, and that to perform duties of that kind was very much like attaching a fifth wheel to a coach. Mr. O'Dowd was perfectly competent, with his two military subordinates, who received £700 a-year each, to discharge all the duties connected with the revision of the proceedings of the district courts martial. A further point was that, in revising the proceedings of the district courts martial, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had nothing to do with the severity of the sentences, and had no right to interfere in that respect. Mr. O'Dowd told the Committee that it was not desirable the Judge Advocate General should be able to interfere with the severity of the sentence, as that would be, to a certain extent, an interference with discipline; and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who appeared before the Committee, expressed a similar opinion. But Mr. O'Dowd further stated that the Judge Advocate General used a kind of backstairs influence in order to secure a mitigation of the sentence, whenever he considered it desirable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had friends in the Department of the War Office, and when, occasionally, he thought that a sentence passed by a district court martial was too severe, he made a representation with regard to it, and it need scarcely be said that his representations were generally attended to. Then there was another very important point to which he (General Alexander) desired, for one moment, to call the attention of the Committee, and it was this—that the judgment of the Judge Advocate General was not a final judgment. It might be referred—and it had been referred—to the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. O'Dowd mentioned a case which occurred in November, 1872, in which the Law Officers of the Crown reversed the decision of the then Judge Advocate General. In that particular case the War Office had appealed from the decision of the Judge Advocate General to the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Law Officers reversed the decision arrived at by the Judge Advocate General. The Law Officers of the Crown, in reversing the decision, were of opinion that the Judge Advocate General was not so much a Judge as an Assessor, and he (General Alexander) thought it was just as well that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be a Judge; because he believed that a great evil might arise from having Judges sitting in the House of Commons. He believed there was only one exception to that rule, and that was the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London (Sir Thomas Chambers), who was at present a Member of the House. Perhaps the strongest proof of all of the inutility of the Office was the circum- stance that for two years and four months the Office actually remained vacant. From April, 1871, after the death of Mr. Davidson, until August, 1873, the Office was not filled up, and during the whole of the interval Mr. O'Dowd, the present permanent Judge Advocate, discharged the duties of the Office of Judge Advocate General.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

Oh, no! The duties were discharged by Sir Robert Phillimore.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, he was aware that Sir Robert Phillimore had been nominally Judge Advocate General; but he had been under the impression that he did not actually discharge the duties.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

That is a mistake; Sir Robert Phillimore discharged the duties.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he would make inquiries, would find that Mr. O'Dowd virtually considered himself Judge Advocate General at the time, and he stated to the Committee that he had been discharging the duties of Judge Advocate General for a considerable period. Certainly, in the interval which elapsed from the death of Mr. Davidson in April, 1871, until the month of August, 1873, the Office of Judge Advocate General was not filled up. But, even admitting the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be correct, that Sir Robert Phillimore, who was also at the time Judge of the Admiralty Court, filled the Office, it showed that it was not absolutely necessary, under any circumstances, that the Judge Advocate General should have a seat in the House of Commons; and if the Office could be kept vacant for two years and four months, it certainly appeared to him (General Alexander) that there was no very great necessity for filling it up at all. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to anotherpoint—namely, that the Navy and Royal Marines were not represented by the Judge Advocate General in that House, and that when any question arose in reference to courts martial in the Navy, the Secretary to the Navy was always ready to answer it. As a matter of fact, the Secretary to the Navy answered far more ques- tions on such subjects than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. With regard to the remuneration of the Office, it appeared to him that the salary was very high compared with that of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whose work was much more onerous. The Financial Secretaryship to the War Office was an appointment instituted by Viscount Card-well, and that officer was certainly very inadequately paid compared with the Judge Advocate General, although his duties were far more onerous and difficult than those of the Judge Advocate General. He (General Alexander) was bound to add that since he came into the House he had heard that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had, temporarily at any rate, taken upon himself this additional appointment—namely, that formerly followed by Mr. Clode as Legal Secretary to the War Office. He was told that on good authority; but, of course, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman denied it, he would at once accept the denial, and would only say that the denial would make his case all the stronger, because, if the Judge Advocate General did not perform the additional duty he submitted that he had made out a clear case why the Office of Judge Advocate General in that House should be discontinued. It appeared to him that the Office was one of those which were maintained merely for the purpose of muzzling independent Members who might prove inconvenient. They all knew the great talent and ability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that before he was appointed Judge Advocate General his voice was frequently heard in that House. It was now no longer heard, and he (General Alexander) was quite certain that it would be of advantage to the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself if he would give up the post he had so well filled for the last five years, and seek from the Government, as he had a right to do, an appointment upon altogether higher lines. He did not propose to trouble the Committee by going to a division, if he could obtain any satisfactory information from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He certainly did not expect to get much support from either side of the House —either from those who had, or those who hoped to fill this position. He felt, however, that it was only by appealing to the House, and thoroughly ventilating questions of this kind, that they could eventually hope to get rid of what he must call, without intending any disrespect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a useless excrescence. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000, the salary of the Judge Advocate General.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of Military Law, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."— (General Alexander.)

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

said, it was quite unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander) to apologize for having brought the Motion forward. Personally, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for having done so, because he was glad to have this opportunity of clearing up some most extraordinary misconceptions which prevailed with regard to the duties of the Office he had the honour to hold— misconceptions not only on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, but shared by many other hon. Members. The duties of the Judge Advocate General were two in number. In the first place, as the Committee knew, Her Majesty administered military law by virtue of Her Royal Prerogative; and, of course, it was necessary that she should be advised by some responsible Minister in doing so. That was the reason why the Judge Advocate General, who advised Her Majesty from a legal standpoint in regard to the proceedings of all general and district courts martial, was required to have a seat in the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member could hardly know how deeply he was cutting into the Constitution of the country when he suggested that the Judge Advocate General should not have a seat in that House. The Judge Advocate General was not only the direct Adviser of Her Majesty on all questions of Military Law, but he was called upon to answer a considerable number of Questions in the House of Commons. His first and, perhaps, most important duty, although it was not the most difficult duty he had to perform, was therefore to revise, from a legal point of view, the proceedings of all general and district courts martial. The proceedings of regimental courts martial were not, in the first instance, sent to the Judge Advocate General, even in the case of these proceedings; but the military officers could and did appeal to the Judge Advocate General if a question of law did happen to arise.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, that he had only referred to district courts martial, and not to regimental courts martial.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

said, that no man could have a higher opinion than he had of the sense of justice which animated officers when sitting upon courts martial; and he believed that in 19 cases out of 20, perhaps in 49 out of 50, or even in 99 out of 100, the conclusions at which they arrived were perfectly right and just. The cases with which they had to deal were generally simple cases; but, unfortunately, all cases were not simple cases. He wished the hon. and gallant Gentleman would call upon him at his Office and see the proceedings, sometimes 300 or 400 pages long, involving intricate questions, such as cases of embezzlement, or questions affecting the honour of officers, and other most important matters. He would then see whether the Office of Judge Advocate General was a sinecure or not. While he gave the very highest credit to the officers who sat upon courts martial for the sense of justice by which they were animated, it was undoubtedly the fact that now and then they would convict a man who had been legally found guilty of no offence whatever, perhaps upon hearsay evidence, or upon the evidence of an accomplice, in which case it became essential that some trained legal mind— a mind accustomed to sift and to weigh evidence—should go through all the evidence, not in order to decide whether the sentence, if legal, was, or was not, too severe, but whether any offence had been committed at all. What the Judge Advocate General had to do, in such a case, was to see whether there was any real case to go before such a tribunal. Whenever a case was found which ought not to have been tried, it was the duty of the Judge Advocate General to step in and reverse the proceedings. He had now held Office for five years, and he would give the Committee some statistics to show the number of cases with which he had had to deal in four of those years— namely, 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884. In the year 1881, the number of courts martial that came before the Judge Advocate General was 7,474; in 1882, 6,513; in 1883, 6,026; and in 1884, 6,108; making altogether 26,121 for the four years. The proceedings of every one of these courts martial was read over by one of the Deputy Judge Advocate Generals; and whenever any question of law or evidence arose, the matter was at once referred to him (the Judge Advocate General) personally, and he did not hesitate to say that, on the average, at least three or four such cases were every day brought before him. In order to show the hon. and gallant Member how constantly occupied the Office was in endeavouring to do justice, he might state that in 1881, out of 7,474 courts martial, 246 were set aside upon the ground of want of evidence, or for some other reason—that was to say, that 246 persons who, if this contemptible office did not exist, might have wrongfully suffered penal servitude, or imprisonment, had been set at liberty, or had had their sentences reduced. He maintained that if the Judge Advocate General did nothing more than save those 246 presumably innocent men from undergoing a punishment they had not legally incurred, he would have done his duty, and justified the retention of the Office. He did not suppose, for one moment, that the hon. and gallant Member, or any other Member, would wish that those 246 persons should have been punished unjustly. But he wanted to know who could have prevented the punishment of these innocent men if the Office of Judge Advocate General—the only individual who had the power of revising such cases—had been abolished?

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, he proposed that that work should be done by the permanent Judge Advocate General.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the duty should be performed by the permanent Judge Advocate General; but the permanent Judge Advocate General did not possess a seat in the House of Commons. He was not, therefore, able to answer any questions that might be put in the House of Commons, and he would not be responsible to the House; and he took' leave to doubt whether, but for the inducement of a place in the Government, any really competent man would be found to undertake the duties for the salary attached to the Office, to say nothing of the additional weight which such a position and a seat in the House gave to the Judge Advocate General in dealing with the Military Authorities. Every one of these eases had come before him (the Judge Advocate General) as a matter of course, and in many of them the most complicated questions of law which could be conceived had been involved. He did not mean to say that the Judge Advocate General in that House was always, though he ought to be, an expert lawyer. On the contrary, he deeply felt his own deficiencies in that respect. He only wished he was more capable; but he had done his best, and the result had been that, in the course of five years, something like 700 or 800 persons had been saved from undergoing what was, presumably, an unjust sentence. The hon. and gallant Member told the House that the Judge Advocate General had no power to interfere with the severity of a sentence if it was legal. That was quite true; but when he (the Judge Advocate General) discovered a sentence which he believed to be unduly severe, he took the opportunity of mentioning the matter in the proper quarter, and in every case, or in nearly every case in which he had made such a representation, the sentence had been remitted altogether, or reduced. He might tell the hon. and gallant Member one thing. The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that the courts martial in the Navy, to which he had referred, had frequently been brought before the House, and commented upon; but, although the proceedings of at least 30,000 military courts martial had passed through his hands, in not a single one of the cases dealt with by him had the decision arrived at in his Office been challenged in the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member said that very few Questions were put to the Judge Advocate General in the House itself; but he (the Judge Advocate General) constantly received letters from Members of the House calling attention to certain proceedings. As a rule, he invited the hon. Member who communicated with him to wait upon him at his Office; and in the same way he was prepared to invite the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander), if he wished for information respecting any case, when he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would be prepared to produce all the documents in his possession to show that substantial justice had been done. Now, the House would see that the number of courts martial set aside for irregularity had been decreasing year by year. In 1881 the number of courts martial set aside was 246; in 1882, 154; in 1883, 116; and in 1884, 100. Therefore, in the four years from 1881 to 1884, no less than 616 presumably innocent men had been saved from unjust punishment; and it would be further seen that the number of courts martial set aside for irregularity in 1884, as compared with those set aside in 1881, had been nearly 150 per cent less. It might be asked what had caused the diminution? Probably the hon. and gallant Member was not aware that many of the difficulties which undoubtedly did arise in 1879, 1880, and 1881 had been got rid of by the simplification and codification of the law in 1881. Last year a book revised by the Judge Advocate General was published by the War Office, entitled A Manual of Military Law, in which each of the decisions of the Judge Advocate General were given in the form of notes to the Army Act of 1881. He was afraid that the hon. and gallant Member could not have examined that book. Certainly, he could not know the amount of labour the revision of the book had entailed in merely putting the decisions into shape. Probably, if he had been acquainted with these facts, the hon. and gallant Member would not have made his present proposal. But even that work was not considered enough, and the Office was now engaged in bringing out a pocket edition, containing everything that it was necessary for officers in the field to know. The result of their simplifying the law, and codifying it, had been to correct many of the errors into which officers presiding at courts martial had been previously led; and, instead of 246 wrong decisions in the year 1881, they were reduced to 100 last year. This, however, was only one of the duties of the Judge Advocate General. In ad- dition to the duties connected with the revision, from a legal point of view, of the proceedings of courts martial, the Judge Advocate General had another duty to perform—namely, that of advising the Horse Guards and War Office on legal questions, many of which involved considerations of a most difficult and delicate nature. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the retirement of the Legal Secretary to the War Office. He would explain exactly how that matter stood. Mr. Clode, who held the office of Legal Secretary to the War Office, retired in 1881. His right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), who was then Secretary for the War Department, asked him if be thought it was not possible to effect an economy by throwing the greater part of the duties previously performed by Mr. Clode on the shoulders of the Judge Advocate General. Of course, he said that he was only too happy to perform the duties without salary, although they involved a very large addition to his labours, and the consequence was that he had effected a saving in the Army Estimates of £1,600 a-year — £1,500 in the salary of the Legal Secretary to the War Office, and £100 per annum for certain allowances. Therefore, since that date, he had saved the country something more than £6,000 in four years. Reference had been made by the hon. and gallant Member to the duties performed by the deputies in the Office. He was glad to be able to say that another piece of economy would shortly be effected in reference to those officers. He found that he would be able to get on with three Deputy Judge Advocates instead of four, and by abolishing the fourth Deputy Judge Advocate a saving would be effected to the country of £456 a-year, making altogether £2,056, or £56 in excess of his salary. In every transaction connected with the Office strict economy was studied. He had pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member how entirely he was mistaken if he fancied that the duties of Judge Advocate General were confined to the revision of the proceedings of courts martial. There were always matters arising which demanded the personal attention of the Judge Advocate General. A consider-ible number of questions were raised in the course of last year which concerned important legal points in reference to the Military Department, and all of them involved a considerable amount of responsibility. He might inform the hon. and gallant Member that, in the course of a single year, something like 800 Minutes and letters were written by the Judge Advocate General in which a legal opinion was expressed; and he would like to know what his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would say if he found it necessary to write 800 legal opinions in the course of a single year. If the Office of Judge Advocate General were abolished a substitute must be provided, and surely it was far better to have a Judge Advocate General with a seat in the House of Commons directly responsible to the House itself than to have an officer altogether without responsibility to Parliament. He did not think it was necessary to say more. He thought he had shown that the Office of Judge Advocate General was not a sinecure; but that it was one in which a vast amount of work was carried on. He had pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman what he (the Judge Advocate General) had done since he had filled the Office. He had given the hon. and gallant Gentleman a number of statistics, and he would be happy if the hon. and gallant Member would call at his office to give even further information, and to point out to him the complex nature of the proceedings in connection with some of the courts martial of which the hon. and gallant Member had spoken so lightly. He believed the hon. and gallant Member had made this Motion under an entirely mistaken view of the duties of the Office of Judge Advocate General, and he thanked him for having afforded him an opportunity to give this explanation. With regard to the questions put by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil), he was sorry that they had only the Returns from the Home Army for 1884 to go by; but, as far as those Returns went, he might say that there was an unquestionable improvement on the year 1883 in the number of courts martial held. This was particularly satisfactory, seeing that in 1883 the number of courts martial amounted only to 76 per 1,000 men, which was the lowest number they had ever had; and he might mention that in 1868 the number amounted to 144 for every 1,000 men, so that they had dropped down to little more than one-half that number. He had carefully compared the Returns from the War Office for 188? and 1884, as far as they went, and he found that the improvement which took place in 1883 was still being maintained. The number of courts martial held in the Home Army in 1884 were 10,040, whereas they were 10,703 in the previous year. As to the punishments inflicted, they were 6,899 in 1884 against 7,209 in 1883, thus showing a considerable reduction. There had also been a great diminution in the number of non-commissioned officers who had been tried by courts martial. That was a very satisfactory fact, because he had always held that it was of the highest importance to get good and well-conducted non-commissioned officers. In 1883 the number of courts martial on non-commissioned officers in the Home Army were nearly 10 per cent, while last year they were under 8 per cent, showing a substantial decrease. There had been a remarkable decrease, too, in the punishments for drunkenness. In 1883 the number of men fined for drunkenness amounted to 102 per 1,000; but last year they were only 84 per 1,000. He had no desire to conceal the shady side of the question; but, at the same time, these figures were encouraging, and showed that there had been a considerable decrease both in the trials and punishments. He regretted that the Returns in his possession did not enable him to give the number of crimes which had been dealt with among the troops serving abroad. He had, however, noted all the proceedings of courts martial sent to him from Egypt up to a certain date — namely, since the 1st of November up to the present time, and he thought the result was highly encouraging. The total number of courts martial in Egypt and the Soudan between the 1st of November, 1884, and the present time—namely, May, 1885—hadonlybeen 171, and of that number there had only been two general courts martial. That, as far as it went, was, in his opinion, a very satisfactory result. He did not know exactly how many men there were in Egypt; but he believed the number was somewhere about 13,000; and that, among so many men, there should have been only 171 courts martial, of which only two were general courts martial, in six months, was, he thought highly satisfactory. With regard to severe punishments —? speaking from memory — he did not think there had been many. He was sorry that he could not give a more complete answer to the question of the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil); but it was not his fault, but arose from the fact that the information he had to give, so far as it was derived from official sources, was limited to the Home Army.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, he had listened with great attention to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he did not wish to enter into the merits of the case, so far as the Office of Judge Advocate General was concerned. He would only say that he did not quite take the same view as the hon. and gallant Member behind him (General Alexander). At the same time, he could not quite understand why the business of the War Office should not be done very much in the same way as the business of the Navy. In the case of the Navy, there was no Judge Advocate General at all. He would not say whether that was a better or a worse system; but he believed that in the Navy the proceedings of courts martial were brought under the notice of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and if the First Lord found any occasion to question the accuracy or the justice of the decision conveyed to him he had the Report cancelled. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had never hoard that the business of the Navy was not done satisfactorily. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that some changes had been introduced into the Office, and into the duties of the Office as originally constituted. It appeared that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), when Secretary of State for War, evidently thought that the Judge Advocate General had not enough to do, because when Mr. Clode retired from the position of Legal Secretary to the War Office, which, as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) happened to know, involved very laborious work, it was thought that the Judge Advocate General might very well do his own work and that which Mr. Clode had performed also. As far as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) was acquainted with the duties of the Legal Secretary to the War Office, they were quite enough for one person to discharge, seeing that, in the course of a single year, something like 800 cases came before him upon which he was required to give 800 legal opinions, or from two to three per day. Under the present circumstances, he did not think that the Committee would say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had enough to do for the salary he received; but that, he thought, hardly touched the point. As to the duties of the Judge Advocate General before, it was clear there was not enough work; and that had been the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Secretary of State for War. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) only threw that out as a hint; he was not going to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend; but he would suggest for the consideration of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, and the House of Commons generally, whether the practice which had hitherto succeeded with regard to the Navy might not also be carried out in the War Department. If it were necessary to have a Gentleman of the standing and rank of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, let the Office, at all events, not be an honorary one. That, however, was a point which he did not wish to go into, or to press upon the Committee at that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that he did a large amount of laborious work which appertained to another Office, and he had also managed to dispense with the services of one of the Deputy Judge Advocates General in his own Office; and that he (Lord Eustace Cecil) thought was in itself a proof that he had not originally enough to do. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) should be the last person to wish to disestablish the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the Office which he, no doubt, so ably filled; but he thought, without any desire to interfere with vested interests, that, should promotion happen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or should there be any change, it should be a matter for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War whether the honorary Office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not be, in some way, arranged for, and the duties of the Office performed in the same manner as in the Navy, and whether the onerous office of Counsel to the War Office could not be otherwise pro- vided for. There was a portion of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which his hon. and gallant Friend near him desired him to touch upon. That was the statement that 246 innocent men had been saved from punishment by the revision of the proceedings of courts martial. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) could quite understand the sense in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken; but the manner in which he had stated the fact gave the impression that the men were innocent men, and ought not to have been tried at all.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

I intended to say legally innocent men.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House understood perfectly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant; but coming from a Gentleman of legal attainments, who they knew always used the right word, his sentence might be interpreted to mean that the men were innocent and ought not to have been tried. He was glad, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had explained. With regard to the point in connection with the Army, about which he (Lord Eustace Cecil) desired further information, the right hon. and learned Gentleman last year engaged to give that information, or else that he would make a statement on the subject when the Vote came on. He was afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to make that statement, or to fulfil his engagement; but he understood that he now engaged that the information should be forthcoming in future.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

I am told that this cannot possibly be done before a month, or two months, have elapsed; but I am in hope that next year it will be in time for the Army Estimates.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, it was necessary that the Committee should have the fullest information before it passed that Vote, and it should have information not only with regard to the conduct of the Army at home, but with regard to that portion of it which was abroad. He took notice, in passing, of the increased number of desertions from the Army; they were certainly larger now than they were last year. The Lord Eustace Cecil number for the present year, according to the Return which he held in his hand, was 4,300, as against 3,700 last year. He was at a loss to account for that very large increase in the number of desertions; but he observed that the two arms of the Service in which desertions were most frequent were the Cavalry and the Artillery; and the fact might be due to the excessive amount of work thrown upon those corps. He was also struck with the circumstance that a very large number of courts martial had taken place in the Artillery as compared with other corps; he believed that in the Artillery last year there were 1,268 courts martial—a very large number as compared with the Cavalry, for instance, in which there were only 740. Without making any reflection on that gallant corps, the number appeared so disproportionate that it seemed to him to demand an explanation, because it should be borne in mind that these were district, and not regimental, courts martial. He pointed out these and similar matters in passing; and he could not help recurring to the main idea—that Returns of this kind were most useful, because they gave the fullest information to the Committee and the public, and because they more or less formed a check on the appointment of unnecessary courts martial. He recollected that, in the time of the Crimean War, there were a large number of badly-conducted soldiers in the ranks, and that when they came home there used to be courts martial daily. That was a state of things which, for his part, he very much deplored; but now that education had so much extended in the Army, now that out of 84,000 soldiers at home all but 3,000, as it appeared by the Return, could read and write, he thought it was time that courts martial for grosser crimes should diminish; and he was greatly in hope, with the steps now being taken in the direction of not giving the men unnecessary work, and not harassing them either at home or abroad, with the steps taken towards dealing with offenders summarily, and not by court martial, that a better state of things would shortly prevail. But he again impressed upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that it was most important for the interests of the Service that the fullest information with, regard to the conduct of the Army at home and abroad should be laid upon the Table of the House.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he thought it was not necessary that there should be a Parliamentary Judge Advocate General. The War Department had three other Representatives in the House, while the Board of Trade and the Admiralty had only two. But he would like to know whether this question had not really been dealt with in another way than that in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Alexander) proposed to deal with it? The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £2,000, the amount of the salary of the Judge Advocate General; but he (Mr. Heneage) understood that already the War Office had reduced the Vote in another way by the sum of £1,600, and that the amount of the Vote was also to be reduced by £45(5, the amount of the salary of one of the Deputy Judge Advocates General; so that, as a matter of fact, the Vote was to be reduced by the sum which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed. The only questions that remained were as to whether the right thing had been done, and whether it would not be better to abolish—not his right hon. and learned Friend—but the Office of Judge Advocate General. He did not think the duties were very onerous, either of the Judge Advocate General or of the Solicitor to the War Office, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having, as he stated, done the work of the latter for over a year, had been able to compile a book.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

I beg pardon; I said I had revised the book.

MR. HENEAGE

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he had volunteered to take upon himself the duties of Solicitor to the War Office, and that he had there by saved the country £1,600 a-year. It was public-spirited on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take over the duties of the Solicitor to the War Department; but he (Mr. Heneage) would like to know whether, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were promoted to another Office, those duties would be left to his successor? The Committee had heard much about the legal knowledge necessary to the Office; but was it not a fact that, in former times, it had been held by Gentlemen who had not the slightest knowledge of Criminal Law? If that were so, he thought it followed that a knowledge of Criminal Law was not necessary for the Office of Judge Advocate General. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman divided the Committee he should vote with him.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, he was unable to perceive how they could abolish the Office of Judge Advocate General without altering the whole constitution of the Army. The practice at the Admiralty was that the proceedings of courts martial came before the First Sea Lord, who, in case there was any doubt with regard to them, referred them to the counsel to the Admiralty. He had no doubt that, practically, the proceedings came before the First Lord, and that he gave an opinion upon them. But he thought it was hardly possible to proceed in the same way with regard to Army courts martial; and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown how heavy were the duties of his Office, and how well he earned the salary which he received, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander).

MR. RYLANDS

said, he certainly thought that great credit was due to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for undertaking the duties of Legal Adviser to the War Office without any additional salary. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were perfectly aware that there was an opportunity of making an economical arrangement by adding those duties to the duties of the Judge Advocate General. His hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had drawn attention to one point on which it was desirable that the Committee should have some information; he had asked whether the arrangement under which the right hon. Gentleman had taken upon himself the duties of Legal Adviser to the War Office was of a permanent character? He (Mr. Rylands) knew it was quite permanent, so far as the present holder of the Office was concerned; but he wished to be informed whether, in the unfortunate event of the present Government going out of Office and a new Government coming into power, it would be practicable not only to fill up the Office of Judge Advocate General, but also to refill the Office of Legal Adviser to the War Office?

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

It is a permanent arrangement.

MR. RYLANDS

said, his right hon. and learned Friend said it would be a permanent arrangement. Well, he thought that was a fair reply to the very important inquiry made by the hon. Member for Grimsby. He recollected that it had once been asked in that House whether the Judge Advocate General was a General in the Army, and the reply was that he was neither a Judge, an Advocate, nor a General. No doubt, the Deputy Judge Advocate General performed very important duties towards the State—was there any Department of the State the permanent officers of which did not perform important duties? He was disposed to believe that the present Judge Advocate General brought to the Office not only great zeal, but great ability. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had alluded to a very serious matter—namely, the desertions which took place from the Army. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) went entirely with the spirit of the noble Lord's remarks. He thought it of the greatest possible consequence that they should make the condition of the soldiers as comfortable as possible, and also such as was consistent with their own self-respect, and free from unnecessary interference—that they should treat the soldier in such a way as would encourage him to like his corps, and not in a spirit calculated to induce him to desert. But punishments were necessary, and in that respect he thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman filled a position of great responsibility; it was a position which, in his (Mr. Rylands's) opinion, he had no right to delegate to any deputy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stood there as the administrator of justice in the Army, and it would be quite right for the House to hold him responsible if any failure of justice occurred. Under the circumstances, he should not be willing at the present time to see the Office in question abolished. If any inquiry should be made hereafter into the various branches of the Military Service, he should think that then possibly the Office of Judge Advocate General might be put into the crucible; but for the present he should certainly not support the Amendment before the Committee.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he must question the policy of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (General Alexander) in moving this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member generally took an enlightened view of military matters, over which he believed he was anxious to establish the control of the House. He (Colonel Nolan) would be altogether against the abolition of the Office of Judge Advocate General, not only because they had in that Office a very able and courteous Gentleman, but because he believed that the abolition of the Office would be a great injustice to the private soldier, and that the morale of the Army would be thereby very seriously impaired. Those would be great evils. He did not think that ordinary General Officers could know anything about CriminalLaw. Sir Edward Ward was an exception, because he was a barrister, and had practised in Court; but the majority of Generals proceeded only on red-tape ideas, and as to looking into the evidence to see that it fully established the charge, that was a matter about which they knew very little. He thought it absolutely necessary that the Army should have a real lawyer to supervise the proceedings of courts martial, and he believed that they had a very efficient one at the present moment. It might be said that there were now three or four barristers in the Army, and that one of them might discharge the duties of the Office. He believed that that proposition had received a certain amount of support; but his own opinion was that it would be a very dangerous experiment, because those officers would be entirely under the influence of the Commander-in-Chief. If the Office of Judge Advocate General were abolished, he supposed that a barrister would be employed; and that, in his opinion, would be extremely wrong from a military point of view. The position of the Army would be totally changed if there was no Judge Advocate General. At the present moment a private soldier could ask the opinion of the Judge Advocate General upon any point of Military Law. A private soldier who knew nothing about Common Law or Military Law could write to a Member of Parliament concerning any point of Military Law in which he was interested, and that Member could go to the Judge Advocate General, who would set him right, and show whether there was any foundation for the complaint the soldier might have. If the Office were abolished, who was the Member of Parliament to go to? He would have to go to the Secretary of State for War, who, perhaps, would know much less about the law than the Member himself; for it was not the business of the Secretary of State to know anything about the law. Therefore, as he had said, if the Office were abolished, the Member of Parliament would have no means of obtaining any redress desired except by going to the Commander-in-Chief, or refusing Supply. He (Colonel Nolan) thought the present plan a very good one. Of course, the Navy was very different to the Army. The Navy was generally afloat. In the whole of his Parliamentary experience, he never received a letter from a sailor with respect to a point of law; whereas he had received hundreds of letters from soldiers. Our Constitution taught us to be extremely jealous of the Army, but not of the Navy. The Army was a very Constitutional one; but it might take power into its own hands. It was very necessary, therefore, that people should be jealous of the Army, and keep the control of it in their own hands. Through the Judge Advocate General, Members of Parliament could exercise a very strict and Constitutional control over the Army, not only in a general way, but in matters of detail, and particularly in respect to the administration of justice in the Army. They would commit a great mistake if they abolished the Office. It was true they would not pay the salary of £2,000 a-year; but they would be required to pay large sums for counsel's opinions, and they would lose that control which, in the interest of the Army and the country, it was very desirable Parliament should exercise.

MR. JOHNSON

said, that, of course, they knew the Judge Advocate General had very important cases to look into; but he should like to know how trivial cases, such as one which had come under his (Mr. Johnson's) notice, came under the Judge Advocate General's judgment? Some time ago he was at Chatham Station, waiting for the train, and there he met some officers with whom he fell into conversation. He asked them where they came from, and they told him they came from Maidstone, where they had been serving on a court martial; and it came out, as a matter of joke, that they had travelled considerable distances, at the public expense, to try a wretched boy—a boy who had only been a few hours in one of the Militia regiments— for not having sufficiently washed himself. It appeared that the boy, who had just been taken from the plough, was not over fond of soap and water; he was reprimanded by his lance corporal, who, possibly, was only a minute and a half his senior, the boy told him to go to Bath or something of the kind, and was reported to the Colonel. He (Mr. Johnson) was not conversant with Military Law; but he should have thought that a reprimand from the Colonel, or confinement to barracks for an hour or two, would have met the justice of the case. Instead of that, however, a court martial was ordered. Three or four officers were brought from Canterbury to Maidstone, at something like an expense to the country of from £5 to £10, merely to try this boy. "Mony a mickle makes a muckle," and £5 and £10 soon mounted up to large sums; and therefore he thought that if some means could be found of settling such trivial cases like that, without putting the country to expense besides taking three or four officers from their duties, a great step in advance would be made.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he had noticed, since he was elected a Member of the House, a great disposition on the part of hon. Members to make a great ado about very small sums of money; while they offered no opposition whatever to very lavish expenditure for very unworthy purposes. He had noticed this disposition very strongly marked in hon. Members who sat below the Gangway opposite and called themselves Radicals. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had expressed the extreme indignation which he felt that the management of affairs in this country allowed the Judge Advocate General to receive a salary of £2,000 a-year. When the Vote was askedfor£l 1,000,000 sterling, hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Burnley, had very little to say, either about the advisability of the expenditure of that money, or as to the lack of economy, on the part of the Government, which allowed such expenditure to be made. It was extremely irksome to listen to debates carried on by men who were supposed to be sensible men, and to have some degree of common sense—it was extremely irksome to listen to such debates as that which had just taken place. None of the speeches delivered that night had contained a single bit of information; they were mere dry repetition, and so far as he could see the only object that hon. Members had in delivering them was to waste the time of the Committee. If the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate had been Irish Members, the Committee would have howled at them, and very possibly to-morrow they would have been accused by the English Press of wilful Obstruction. But, as those hon. Members were not Irish Members, he supposed that all the twaddle which had been talked that evening would be put down by the English Press to the great solicitude which was felt by the hon. Members of the House that the affairs of the country should be managed as economically as possible. He did not care very much whether the Office of Judge Advocate General was abolished or not. He was not very much interested in the matter; but having listened to the debate—he regretted that he had allowed himself to listen to it instead of going to dinner long ago—he certainly felt——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's remarks concerning other Members of the House are not proper. It is forbidden by the Rules of Parliament for an hon. Member to use language which is calculated to be offensive to his brother Members.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he was sure the Chairman would believe him when he said he had not the slightest intention of being offensive in any way. He had no intention whatever of being unnecessarily offensive, or offensive at all, to any hon. Members of the House; and if he had been so, he should endeavour, in the few remarks which he wished now to address to the Committee, not to offend again. He merely rose for the purpose of saying that, in his opinion, it was absolutely absurd for hon. Members to come down to the House, and object, upon the score of economy, to a hard- working official getting a salary of £2.000 a-year, while they offered no objection to expenditure of millions of money for the most unworthy purposes. He did not know whether the Committee would go to a division; but if they did he should certainly vote against the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander).

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to ask what steps had been taken to apply the Military Law to a series of outrages committed by soldiers a few nights ago in the town of Downpatrick? He put a Question last week with regard to the manner in which these men were billeted in the town. Some time ago the Government gave £1,000 for the tenant right of a piece of land in Downpatrick, and in the town itself there were a sufficient number of unoccupied houses to give accommodation to all the men. In the exercise of their judgment, the Government had billeted the men in the vicinity of the town. He believed that the men were Protestants, and that they had been mostly billeted on Catholics. Now, Downpatrick was a place where religious feeling influenced political feeling; and it might have been foreseen by the authorities that the system of billeting which had been adopted would lead to undesirable results. When he put the Question last week, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) said it was not usual to camp men out before the 1st of May, and there were not sufficient unoccupied houses in the town to accommodate them. (He (Mr. Sexton) had learned since that the latter statement was not correct. Anyhow, last week there were horse races near the town, and it was very desirable that care should be taken to keep the men apart from the general body of the people. They were, however, allowed on the racecourse, and they seemed to have partaken of a considerable quantity of liquor. They were allowed to go about as they pleased, and the consequence was that at 8 o'clock on Thursday night of last week, about 40 of the battalion, accompanied by three or four privates of the Devonshire Regiment, commenced an irregular march through the town. They were headed by a couple of civilians, whose names he had not ascertained, who pointed out the houses of the Catholics. The men broke the windows of these houses; they went through the streets indulging in the most offensive and provocative Party cries they could invent; and they wound up their evening by rushing into the licensed premises of a Catholic and making most violent assaults with their waist-belts upon the waiters and everybody in the place. When a cry of police was raised, they ran away, but not before they had broken all the glasses they could find in the house. The result was riot and excitement, and there had been the greatest confusion and indignation in the town in consequence. He was told the other day that no complaint had been made with regard to the system of billeting the men in the town. As a matter of fact, the clergy made complaints on the subject, and he had letters in his possession complaining in the very strongest manner of the probable effects of the system. He believed that the day following these extraordinary outrages an inquiry of an informal nature was held, at which Major Stewart, an officer of the battalion and the resident magistrate of the district, was present. He wished to know what was the result of that inquiry; whether any trial of the men had been held; and, if not, how soon one would be held; whether communications had been held with the Civil Authorities; whether, by the machinery of the Crimes Act, an endeavour had been made to ascertain who were the two civilians who led the marauders and pointed out the houses occupied by Catholics? It was very desirable that persons concerned in promoting outrages should be punished, and it was equally desirable that the soldiers should be withdrawn from the town at once. There was a camping ground outside the town; why not put the men into tents? He could only say that if they were not withdrawn, but allowed to go on committing these outrages night after night, the probability was that if the people of the town had not the spirit to resent such proceedings, the people of the surrounding districts would come in and clear the military out of the town.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, that, as the general feeling of the Committee appeared to be against the Amendment, he should be glad to ask leave to withdraw it. In doing so, he wished to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) for the very valuable book he had laid on the Table. He was also glad that the Amendment had afforded the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of justifying the retention of his Office.

MR. CALLAN

said, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in the course of some observations which perhaps were not quite pertinent to the question before the Committee, made a sneering allusion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Judge Advocate General for having written a book. The greatest enemy of the hon. Member, however, would never be able to accuse him of having written or even revised a book. He (Mr. Callan) rose on this occasion to bring before the Judge Advocate General a point concerning Military Law. He did not desire to bring it before the right hon. and learned Gentleman because he had written a book, but because he had a greater acquaintance with Military Law than the ordinary run of Judge Advocate Generals. He wished to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerning a proceeding that had lately taken place in Ireland—a proceeding connected with the embarkation at Kingstown for Suakin of the Royal Irish Lancers. Some months ago the portion of the regiment told off for foreign service left the Royal Barracks at an early hour of the morning under the command of Colonel Chichester. The senior colonel, Colonel Vandeleur, saw them leave the barracks, but remained in charge of the depot and of that portion of the regiment under orders to proceed to Dundalk. Now, the 5th Lancers arrived at what was called the jetty at Kingstown a few hours afterwards; but the steamer which was ordered for their embarkation was not ready to receive them, the consequence being that when the time for leaving arrived 20 or 30 of the men failed to appear. The jetty belonged to the town—the people had every right to it; indeed, no military order could exclude them from it. The troops remained there for some hours, and in course of time a large number of persons assembled to see them leave. He believed there was considerable confusion; but he was informed not more than always attended the embarkation of troops — not more, for instance, than occurred when the Guards were em- barked on the Thames. When the facts became known, Colonel Chichester was recalled from the Soudan. He (Mr. Callan), however, was not at all concerned with Colonel Chichester. Colonel Chichester was in command of the troops; he was an Englishman, and he (Mr. Callan) would leave it to other people to take up the cudgels in that officer's defence. But Colonel Vandeleur was an Irishman; he belonged to one of the oldest families in Ireland—a family which had given heroes to the English Army. He was a near relative to one occupying an honoured position in the House of Commons. Colonel Tandeleur was the senior colonel of the regiment, and he handed over his command in obedience to the orders of the War Office—he handed over his command to Colonel Chichester at the Royal Barracks. In the course of the afternoon, Colonel Vandeleur, as was very natural, went to Kingstown to bid farewell to those who had for so many years been under his command; he went out unofficially and without any responsibility; he went to Kingstown, simply out of feelings of kindliness and as a mark of old friendship, to see his brother officers away. And he believed that for the same reason Lord Clarina, who was in command of the Dublin district, also went to Kingstown. Well, Colonel Vandeleur had been suspended. Colonel Vandeleur, who relinquished his command, or rather the command of the troops taken from him, that morning, had been suspended on account of what happened at Kingstown, while Lord Clarina went unscathed. If Colonel Vandeleur, who was not in command, who had no responsibility whatever attaching to him, was to be suspended, or have his conduct inquired into, because of the confusion which occurred in the embarkation at Kingstown, surely Lord Clarina, who was in command of the district at the time, who had relinquished none of his authority, should be similarly treated. It occurred to him (Mr. Callan) that Lord Clarina was much more censurable than Colonel Vandeleur. It was alleged that the War Office had suspended Colonel Vandeleur from motives which were anything but creditable. Whether that was so or not, the treatment dealt out to this gallant officer was not such as ought to be dealt out to a British officer, or a British gentleman. He was sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had left the House. He had paid the right hon. and learned Gentleman a compliment, hoping to enlist his sympathies; he supposed that the Judge Advocate General took the compliment, and had now gone to take his dinner. Perhaps the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) would give him the information he desired. He wished to know how it came to pass that Colonel Vandeleur, who handed over his command at the Royal Barracks early in the morning, who might have remained in Dublin, and who by mere accident went down to Kingstown, was to have his conduct inquired into, while the commander of the Dublin district was to escape unscathed? The whole of the difficulty— that was to say, the negligence which led to the occurrence to which he was referring, arose in the Quartermaster General's Department. He wished to know whether it was not the duty of the Quartermaster General's Department, when the steamer was alongside the jetty in Kingstown Harbour, to have had it ready for the troops, when they arrived at the appointed hour? If the steamer had been ready the troops could have been put on board; they would not have been subjected to temptation, and these irregularities would not have occurred. Was it not the duty of the Quartermaster General's Department to have the ship ready for the reception of the troops at the hour appointed; and when an officer handed over his regiment, or a portion of it, for foreign service to an officer named by the War Office, to command it, did not his responsibility cease, and did not the fact of his being present accidentally, when irregularities took place amongst the men, relieve him from all blame? He would call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General to the exact rules respecting the embarkation of troops, and ask whether the fault did not lie with the Quartermaster General's Department?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I am sorry I was not here when the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Callan) commenced his observations; but to so much of them as I did hear I am able to say a few words in reply. It is true, as the hon. Member has stated, that a Court of Inquiry has been held for the purpose of reporting on the circumstances of the embarkation of two squadrons of the 5th Lancers for Kingstown some weeks ago. That Court has concluded its inquiry; but the decision of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has not been promulgated; and, therefore, it is impossible for me at present to state what that decision is, and it is also impossible for me to enter into the argument of the hon. Gentleman. I desire, however, to controvert two or three statements made by the hon. Member. I understood him to say that Colonel Vandeleur, having handed over the detachment to Colonel Chichester, could not be held responsible for what took place afterwards. But, in the first place, Colonel Vandeleur was responsible for the state in which that detachment was handed over to Colonel Chichester; and so long as any part of that regiment was within his reach, and under his cognizance, he, as its commanding officer, could not absolve himself from responsibility. Colonel Vandeleur thought it necessary, or part of his duty—and I do not suppose that any hon. Member will be surprised at it—to go down to Kingstown to see the embarkation of the detachment, though not in command of it. He was in uniform, and was present during the irregularities, which took place within his knowledge, and for any orders which were given or not given Colonel Vandeleur could not possibly be held as not responsible. The doctrine of the hon. Member is one which no military officer in the House, or outside it, will countenance— namely, that a commanding officer can, under any possible circumstances, be held as not responsible for what takes place under his very eye. The hon. Member asks whether the Quartermaster General's Department is not responsible for the arrangements of embarkation? The hon. Member is quite correct in supposing that that Department would be responsible for these arrangements, and I cannot say whether the irregularities that occurred were caused or exaggerated by the difficulties of embarkation. But, even if there were such difficulties, they cannot excuse the un soldier like conduct of the detachment on the occasion, or do away with the responsibility of the commanding officer. It is impossible, until the decision of the Commander-in-Chief is promulgated—which I believe will be in a few days—to add anything further on the subject. All I can do now is to protest against the doctrine that Colonel Vandeleur, in handing over the command to a subordinate officer, can be held to be not responsible for what took place under his cognizance. If any further information is required, I shall be very happy to give it to the hon. Member.

MR. CALLAN

said, he would take advantage of the invitation of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had said that Colonel Vandeleur was responsible for all orders given or not given on the day of the embarkation; and the noble Marquess, he was sorry to say, had mentioned in a tone of aggravation or justification that Colonel Vandeleur, when the irregularities took place, was in uniform—which would lead the public to suppose that he attended the embarkation officially and in the performance of his duty. He (Mr. Callan) wished to ask if it was not a fact that Colonel Vandeleur—whether in uniform or not—was not under any obligation to proceed to Kingstown? Colonel Chichester took the troops over in Dublin, and it was for him to take charge of the embarkation; and if Colonel Vandeleur was held responsible for any irregularities, as being the senior, why was it that Colonel Vandeleur's senior, Lord Clarina, the General commanding the district, was not held responsible? If Colonel Vandeleur was to be held responsible for orders given and orders not given at Kingstown, because he was the Colonel commanding, was Lord Clarina, the General commanding, not even more responsible—was he to go scatheless?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

The General commanding would be held responsible for the failure of any arrangement he made. What I have said is this—that no orders to any other officer could absolve the commanding officer of a regiment from responsibility for the good conduct of that regiment where he was in its presence.

MR. CALLAN

said, that, with all respect to the noble Marquess, what he wished to know was whether Colonel Vandeleur, having handed over command of the men to Colonel Chichester, was under any obligation to be present at the embarkation at Kingstown; and, next, if there was any failure of the arrangements—and no one would deny that there was a failure—and it was the fault of the Quartermaster General's Department, whether the General commanding the district was not to be held responsible? There had been no demand made for any explanation from Lord Clarina, though, by the Queen's Regulations, he might be held responsible for any irregularities which might happen in his district. For what more could he be held responsible than the conduct of his troops during an embarkation for foreign service?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I am sorry I did not answer the hon. Member's question. Colonel Vandeleur was under no obligation to go down to see the men off, and I do not say that he would have committed an offence for which he could have been censured or tried by court martial if he had not gone down to see the embarkation. But there are many circumstances in connection with the management of troops which must be decided by the superior officer present. Colonel Vandeleur was not compelled to be present at the embarkation; but, being present, he could not absolve himself from responsibility. As for the Quartermaster General's Department, there was an inquiry, and it was shown that the arrangements made for the embarkation were perfectly well known. Many statements were made by the men as to what took place on the march, and so on.

MR. SMALL

said, he had heard no answer given from the Treasury Bench to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), as to the conduct of the Royal Irish Rifles and the men of the Devonshire Regiment at Downpatrick the other day. He (Mr. Small) trusted the Treasury Bench would consider the serious character of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, and the very serious consequences which would ensue if that complaint was not attended to. He (Mr. Small) possessed knowledge in the matter that his hon. Friend had not had. Party feeling ran very high in the town of Downpatrick, and the result was that matters of a Party character sometimes caused breaches of the peace there. He held in his hand a report taken from The Belfast Morning News of the 2nd of May, which gave a circumstantial account of what occurred. This report said— Last night, shortly after 8 o'clock, a number of the recruits of the 5th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, at present undergoing their annual training in this town, accompanied by a few privates of the Devonshire Regiment, a detachment of which is stationed here for the purpose of guard duty at the new convict prison, conducted themselves in a most disorderly manner, parading part of the town, shouting, yelling-, and making use of Party expressions. On their way through John Street several windows were smashed, and the occupants put in terror of their lives. On arriving at the lower end of Stream Street a halt was made, and, as if by pre-arrangement, a most deliberate and cowardly attack was made on the public-house of Mr. John Grilmore. On entering the premises, with belts in their hands, the rioters commenced a fearful onslaught on the customers, some of whom were severely assaulted. The waiters of the establishment were overpowered, and one of them, a man named Nelson, was knocked down and trampled upon. On. a shout of "police" being raised, a stampede was made for the outside, the rioters smashing more large panes of glass in the front of Mr. Gilmore's premises on their way. Word having been sent to the barracks, a large force of police were afterwards on the scene; but, before their arrival, no trace of the rioters was to be seen. It was evident, therefore, that however gallant these warriors might have been, there was, at any rate, something of prudence left in them; because, directly the cry of "police" was raised, they made off. None of them were caught or discovered. It would be an easy matter, however, for the commanding officer of the military in Downpatrick to ascertain which of the men were in that part of the town in which the disturbance occurred that night. He could scarcely imagine that the Military Authorities would fail to recognize the importance of this matter; because it would be most deplorable if a chronic state of ill-feeling were to arise between the military and the inhabitants of Downpatrick. Downpatrick was a peaceable town; but he thought there could be little doubt that it would not remain so long, unless punishment were meted out to the men guilty of the outrage, and unless they were removed to some other place where they would, perhaps, conduct themselves better. He understood it was alleged that no complaint had been made by any person as to the conduct of the military on the occasion to which he referred; but he held in his hand a copy of a letter from the Rev. Robert Headley, in which he said— Unless the existing arrangements are immediately changed, by which 190 men are scattered through the town at night, I have grave reason to apprehend that serious rioting will be the consequence. A strong feeling of just indignation prevails in the district through which these men passed, which is bound to manifest itself in retaliation, unless a collision is prevented by your men being placed under restraint. It had been alleged that there was not proper accommodation for the men in the town, and that it had been necessary to billet them by twos and threes in the houses of Catholics; but, as a matter of fact, Downpatrick was a declining place, containing a great many empty houses, and it would have been easy for the Military Authorities to have got accommodation for their men in those buildings. Their men, so situated, could be kept under better control than when scattered in twos and threes in the town. He considered it highly unsatisfactory that no reply had been given to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) by any occupant of the Treasury Bench. After the hon. Member had brought this matter forward, another case had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). and an answer had been vouchsafed to that hon. Member, although as yet the hon. Member for Sligo had received no reply. He hoped that this silence on the part of the Treasury Bench, to whatever it was due, would not be persevered in. He trusted to hear from the noble Marquess, or from some other Member of the Government, that this regiment would be removed from Downpatrick.

MR. BRAND

said, that it was through no intentional discourtesy to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that he had not answered him before. As a matter of fact, he had been about to answer the hon. Member when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth rose to address the Committee. As to the billeting of this regiment, inquiries had been made of the General Officer commanding the district. He had been asked whether the statement made in the question addressed to the Government on this subject was in his knowledge correct; and he had replied that, in the first place, there was not a sufficient number of unoccupied houses in the town in which to billet the men: and, secondly, that the men had been billeted in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Small) had said that Protestant soldiers were billeted in the houses of Roman Catholics; and his (Mr. Brand's) reply to that was that they were billeted in the usual way. He could not imagine for a moment that any selection of Catholic houses for Protestant soldiers had been made; and he could only hope that religious feeling did not run so high in the town that a Catholic would refuse shelter to a man simply because he was a Protestant. [Mr. SEXTON: I made no point of that.] He had stated the other day that the men would be properly encamped on the 1st of May; and he had not understood from the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Small) that that was not the case. At any rate, he (Mr. Brand) had been given to understand by the Military Authorities that the men would be encamped on the 1st of May. It had been said that the clergy had made a complaint to the Military Authorities as to the way in which the men had been billeted; but no such complaint had reached the Military Authorities.

MR. SEXTON

said, the rev. gentleman referred to had made a complaint to the Military Authorities in the first instance, and that not only were his suggestions unattended to, but the Military Authorities did not even vouchsafe him a reply.

MR. BRAND

said, he would undertake to have the matter inquired into. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to a riot which had taken place on Thursday in last week. He had said that a certain number of men belonging to a battalion stationed in Downpatrick had marched through the town in a disorderly manner, breaking the windows of the houses of the Roman Catholic inhabitants. These were very serious charges, and he had no hesitation in saying that if they were true the proceedings could only be described as disgraceful. Inquiries, however, would have to be made before the statements which had been put forward in regard to the conduct of those soldiers could be absolutely accepted. He could say that within the past few hours some information had reached a branch of the War Office with regard to these proceedings, and that inquiry was to be made of the General Officer commanding the district. Of course, if it could be shown that this disturbance had taken place, and if the General Officer commanding the district could ascertain the men who were guilty of taking part in it, the authorities would do everything in their power to bring them to punishment.

MR. SEXTON

said, that if the allegations he had made to-night were found on inquiry to be correct, he would ask that these men should be sent to some other part of the country; because, even if they were left in encampment in the neighbourhood of the town, their presence must be a source of irritation to those people who had had their windows broken and their houses injured by them. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brand) had said that no complaints had been made by the clergy of the district. Here was a letter written by the Rev. Robert Headley—

"Parochial House,

"Downpatrick, May 1st, 1885.

"Sir,—A large number of your men—40, I believe—were guilty of riotous conduct last night. They marched in a body through a district of the town, and wrecked a number of houses on their way. The houses upon which these cowardly assaults were made are occupied by Catholics, and it seems they were specially pointed out for attack by two civilians belonging to the town, who accompanied the Militia. I respectfully ask, have you taken steps to have the offenders duly punished, and also to preserve the peace to-night and the following nights? Unless the existing arrangements are immediately changed, by which 190 men are scattered through the town at night, I have grave reason to apprehend that serious rioting will be the consequence. A strong feeling of just indignation prevails in the district through which these men passed, which is bound to manifest itself in retaliation unless a collision is prevented by your men being placed under restraint.—I am, your obedient servant,

"Robert Headley.

"Major Stewart,"5th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles,

"Downpatrick."

He (Mr. Sexton) trusted that notice having been taken of this matter in the presence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, it would have the double effect of getting these men removed from Downpatrick, where they were a danger to the place, and of bringing about an application of the Civil Law to those guilty of disorder.

MR. SMALL

said, he understood from the hon. Gentleman the Sur- veyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Brand) that an inquiry would be at once instituted into the alleged outrages. He wished to ask what kind of inquiry would be held? Would it be a purely military inquiry, made in private, or would it be a public inquiry held by civilians? If it was to be a military inquiry sitting with closed doors, he thought it would be of very little use.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, the usual inquiry as to what had taken place would be made by the commanding officer, who was responsible for the conduct of his battalion. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Small) would see that the question was not purely a military one, and the War Office had no power to hold any inquiry except a military inquiry. In any matter which arose which ought to come before the Civil Authorities, it would not be necessary for the War Office to have a military inquiry; but he apprehended that there would be an investigation conducted before the magistrates.

MR. SEXTON

said, that on the Report of the Vote he should expect to find that this officer had been taken away from the district. He hoped that the War Office would facilitate the holding of a civil inquiry, so that the compensation to be awarded to the people of Downpatrick for their broken windows might be awarded.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he could not promise that.

MR. SEXTON

said, that all the facts had been published in the newspapers, and they were of such a character that it was necessary the regiment should be taken away from the town.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that in justice to the regiment he could not undertake to state what steps would be taken.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought that an inquiry might be made into the conduct of the officer in command, in order to ascertain whether he had misconducted himself. He certainly trusted that the inquiry would be extended not only to the alleged riotous conduct of the men, but also into the conduct of Major Stewart, the commanding officer, who, having received a courteous letter complaining of the conduct of the men, and asking for assistance from the officers, had contemptuously ignored it, and had not had the courtesy to forward a reply. He (Mr. Callan) wished to know whether, in the opinion of the (Secretary of State for War, that was proper conduct on the part of an officer in Her Majesty's Service; and whether the matter was not one which ought to be made the subject of a special inquiry?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, it was impossible for him to say whether Major Stewart might not have some explanation to offer in regard to the course he had pursued. He could not pretend to judge Major Stewart upon a mere ex parte statement.

MR. CALLAN

said, he could not understand why Major Stewart had not answered the courteous and proper letter he had received. No ingenuity on the part of the Secretary of State for War would justify such conduct, and he must say that if the men were riotous the officers were ungentlemanly; and, under such circumstances, orderly and proper conduct on the part of the men could hardly be expected. It was another verification of the old adage—"Like officer like man."

SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM

said, that at Aldershot and the Curragh there were great complaints on the part of the men of the arduous nature of the camp fatigue duties and the onerous burdens thrown upon their shoulders. He believed there were something like 200 military prisoners at Aldershot; and he would ask whether it would not be right and fair, in order to lighten the burdens of well-conducted men, to employ these 200 prisoners in camp work?

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he thought there was a great deal in the appeal which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram); and he hoped that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would cause some inquiry to be made, in order to see whether some arrangement might not be carried out in the direction of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so that these prisoners might be utilized in the performance of the general camp fatigue duties. Such an arrangement, he was satisfied, would relieve the men generally from the hard duties they had now to perform. He had not risen, however, for the sole purpose of supporting the appeal of his hon. and gallant Friend; but he wished to make an appeal on his own account to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General to give him some information as to whether he had satisfied himself of the position in which the Army stood as regarded the employment of Colonial troops in the field, acting in conjunction with our own Regular Forces? He believed there had been some doubt as to what their position was, and as to what their status would be from a military point of view when they came to be under Military Law. He believed it to be the fact that the Military Law was not the same in all of the Colonies, though the Colonies had their own Military Law. With regard to the men now serving in the Soudan, he believed that though they were under their own Colonial law, that law, except in one particular, was the same as the Military Law of the Regular Forces with which they were serving. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been good enough to say that he would look into the question. It was evident that it was not quite so simple a matter as it was at first supposed to be; but that it would require careful consideration. He would not press for any long statement, or, indeed, for any definite statement now; but he wanted to be sure that the question had not escaped the attention of the Government, because it was one which might become of considerable importance at any moment. There was another point which he also wished to mention. He believed there had been some desire expressed that a Return should be given, as in former years, in regard to the discipline of the Army. The matter had already been the subject of conversation in the House. He did not attach extravagant value to such a Return; but, nevertheless, he thought it would be important in enabling the Committee to make a comparison between the state of the Army now and at former periods. At one time attention was devoted to this matter; but, for some reason or other, the publication of the Return had been discontinued since the time he had had the honour to hold the Office of Secretary of State for War. If the Return could be given without disadvantage to the Public Service, he thought the details would be of considerable value. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General would be able to make a statement on the subject.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)

said, be would answer the question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as far as he was able. He believed that the Colonial Forces now serving with Her Majesty's troops were placed under English Military Law, except in regard to certain matters. They were, for example, not to be subjected to corporal punishment; but that exception was of no consequence now. In the case of some of the Colonies, it was also provided that the men should not be tried by any court martial except one composed of their own officers. It seemed to him of great importance that troops serving under the same flag should be subjected to the same discipline and law; and therefore, inregard to the New South Wales troops, he had suggested that a short Act should be passed to place the men unconditionally under Imperial Military Law. [Colonel STANLEY: A Colonial Act.] Of course, it would be a Colonial Act, and it would place the men under our Military Law. He believed that the suggestion would be accepted by the Colonial Governments, and it was a matter which at present was under consideration. With regard to the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) that prisoners should be employed in the discharge of camp duties, he thought it was one that was deserving of careful consideration hereafter, and he was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having called attention to the subject. He believed that there had been one or two small misapprehensions on the part of the Committee in regard to the statement he had made; but he would only say one thing in reference to the distinction between the Army and the Navy. No doubt, the Navy stood on an entirely different footing from the Army. In the case of the Navy all the proceedings of courts martial came under the supervision of the Board of Admiralty, to which the powers of the Crown were delegated; but in the case of the Army it was essential that there should be a separate Minister who should be responsible for these matters, and he believed that it was better to have an officer with a seat in the House of Commons, rather than to have a permanent official. He begged to thank the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General Alexander) for the manner in which he had spoken of him. He would again remind the hon. and gallant Member that Military Law was administered by the Queen herself, and that there must be some Minister in the House responsible for the action of Her Majesty. It would, therefore, be seen that, as a matter of fact, there was a wide difference between the administration of law in the Army and in the Navy.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, that a very important question indeed had been raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had brought before the Committee the conduct of the Militia in the North of Ireland, and who had described the troops as acting in a very undisciplined and offensive manner. The remarks of his hon. Friend raised the whole question of billeting. There was no doubt that the billeting of English troops in Catholic districts in Ireland was a very great evil indeed; and he had himself heard many complaints, both from clergymen and from others occupying a position of authority, in regard to this question of billeting. In the South of Ireland, he believed, there was no objection entertained to the billeting of Militia regiments. On the contrary, he knew that in some districts in the South of Ireland the people of the towns where the regiments were assembled were very glad indeed to get what money was to be procured for the housing of soldiers for whom there was no room in the barracks. But the men so billeted were of the same religion and of the same habits as the people with whom they lodged, and, consequently, no disorder or evil arose from the billeting of Militia regiments in the towns of the South of Ireland; but the billeting of English troops fresh from England in the houses of Catholic people, who might entertain Nationalist opinions, was a very great evil indeed. He himself remembered, not very many years ago, a striking incidence of this evil which occurred in the town of New Ross, in the county of Wexford, and which was at the time referred to by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. J. Redmond), who brought the matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), who was then Secretary of State for War. It was almost a similar instance of disorderly conduct to that which had been related by the hon. Member for Sligo that night. The troops stationed in New Ross got a little drink in the course of the evening, and, not being located in the barracks at the time, they behaved in the most grossly insulting manner to the people. They went round the town shouting—"To Hell with the Pope," and, meeting respectable people coming from church, several of these drunken soldiers ridiculed, in a highly offensive and sacrilegious manner, the observance of the rites of the Catholic Church. One man, outside the gates of a Catholic chapel, pretended to be a priest; and he and his drunken comrades mocked, as far as they could, the sacrament of penance as administered in the Catholic Church. He (Mr. W. Redmond) simply mentioned this circumstance to show that the story told by the hon. Member for Sligo in regard to the billeting of English Protestant troops indiscriminately in Catholic districts was not a solitary instance. Nor did the story told by his hon. Friend, and the one he had just narrated as having happened in the county of Wexford, stand by themselves, because he could enumerate at least a dozen instances in which similar riots had occurred in consequence of the action of the troops. What he would like to have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General—and he was perfectly sincere in making this appeal, having received representations from a great many priests and other persons as to the evils which arose from the quartering of Protestant troops upon the Catholic population of Ireland—was an undertaking that, as far as possible, troops, especially when they were fresh from England, and unaccustomed to the habits of the people of Ireland, should not be billeted out in Catholic towns upon Catholic people. Of course, the barracks in many of the garrison towns of Ireland were extremely small, and were not capable of affording the necessary accommodation for the large number of troops Her Majesty's Government now considered it necessary to maintain in Ireland; but if the barracks were not large enough there was hardly a garrison town in Ireland where it would not be possible to ob- tain some unoccupied building, which might be used as a substitute for barracks. A great deal of the evil and mischief arose from the indiscriminate billeting of English Protestant soldiers upon a Catholic population. He knew of instances in the South of Ireland where the greatest possible trouble had been occasioned owing to the abuse of the present system of billeting. Soldiers had been lodged in houses where there was a lack of accommodation; and in more than one case, when they had procured more drink than was good for them, they had grossly outraged the feelings of the people on whom they were billeted. He could mention several cases where acts of impropriety had taken place between these drunken soldiers and the people of the houses in which they had been billeted. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General that he was not drawing upon his imagination, but that he was simply narrating the representations which had been made to him. He believed it would give a great deal of satisfaction indeed to the people of Ireland, and especially to the clergy of that country who had charge of the morals of the people, if the Judge Advocate General would be good enough to say that in any case where it was at all possible a Protestant soldier should not be billeted in Ireland upon a family which professed a different religious creed, but that unoccupied buildings should be made available for the purpose of barracks.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, the question of billeting was one which hardly arose on the question of the administration of Military Law. It would more properly be raised on a subsequent Vote; but he might remark that it was extremely unusual to billet troops at all. They were placed in barracks wherever it was possible; but when it was found necessary to resort to billeting, the allocation of the billets was not a matter which was left to the Military Authorities. The Quartermaster General had to make the arrangements with the Civil Authorities. He did not think it would be desirable to draw such distinctions as the hon. Member desired between Catholics and Protestants. He would, however, make inquiries into the matter, and see whether it was desirable to make any different arrangement.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he was obliged to the noble Marquess for his reply. He had not intended to raise the question of billeting upon that Vote; but after the attention which had been directed to certain proceedings in the North of Ireland by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) he thought that he was in Order in calling attention to this matter. In regard to drawing a distinction between Catholic and Protestant, he had no desire, personally, to do so; and he would point out to the noble Marquess that it was neither himself nor any other Member of the House who had drawn the distinction, but the soldiers themselves, who went about crying out "To Hell with the Pope."

MR. BIGGAR

said, he could assure the noble Marquess that this question of billeting was one which gave rise to very general complaint. He had himself heard complaints of the same kind from the county of Cavan.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member had better defer any remarks upon the question of billeting until the Vote to which that subject relates is reached. I should have stopped the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. William Redmond), if I had not thought that he was going to connect his observations with the proceedings at Downpatrick. There is a Vote to be taken later on upon which this question can be more conveniently and. appropriately raised.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had only wished to corroborate the statement made by his hon. Friend. As to the administration of Military Law, he agreed with the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friends. At Mallow, on a recent occasion, a military officer, who had been in charge of certain troops there, was allowed to give evidence in favour of Mr. Carr, an Inspector of Police, when, in point of fact, the military officer in question was himself open to the same charge as Inspector Carr. He thought that such a proceeding was highly irregular, and that it ought to have been avoided. In regard to the question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (General Alexander), as to the Office of Judge Advocate General, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) in defence of that Office; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been placed in an unfortunate and somewhat unfair position in being required to defend the Office at all. He thought that some of his Colleagues upon the Treasury Bench ought to have defended the Office for him, and that it was not reasonable to ask a Gentleman whose Office was attacked to defend himself. Some of the permanent officials of the Office could have supplied notes to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, or some other military official, so that the personal question might not have been allowed to intervene. He thought if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right in his contention, he had really proved too much, because the personal experience of hon. Members was that they saw the Judge Advocate General about the House from 4 o'clock every afternoon until 1 or 2 in the morning; and it was perfectly impossible, if he had serious duties to perform in connection with a judicial Office, that those duties could be properly discharged. His own opinion was that there were too many polical officials in the House. It was notorious that all the work of the Public Offices was done by the permanent officials. At the present moment, there were four military Representatives in the House, which he (Mr. Biggar) thought, at least, two too many. The War Office ought to be satisfied with two Parliamentary Representatives, who should be able to defend the action of those permanent officials, who, from many points of view, were much preferable to political Representatives in the House of Commons. If a lawyer were permanently employed in the War Office to supervise the legal part of the business, he would, as a matter of course, be a thoroughly competent and efficient official, well versed in all matters connected with Military Law, and his services would be of value to the country. But if they were to have a Judge Advocate General, who was to be a political supporter of the Government, occupying the greater part of his time in the House, and selected, not because he was efficient in Military Law, but because he was a more or less import- ant political Member of Parliament, it seemed to him that such a Minister had all his business to learn after he went into the Office, and that he was by no means as well qualified to discharge the duties as a permanent official would be. Upon this matter the distinction between the Army and the Navy was very great, although the difference between the nature of the cases that were dealt with in the two branches of the Service was purely of a technical character. The hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander) had complained of the decisions that were sometimes given in Admiralty cases; but he (Mr. Biggar) believed that the decisions given by the Admiralty were much more satisfactory to the sailors than the decisions given in the Army were to the soldiers. His own opinion was that these matters were much better managed in the Navy than in the Army. Whatever might be said as to the importance of the Office of Judge Advocate General, the fact still remained that the country paid a substantial salary to a political Gentleman, who spent three-fourths of his time, not in the performance of the duties of his Office, but in waiting in the House of Commons to give a Party vote. The official duties discharged by the Judge Advocate General in the House of Commons consisted in his attendance for a few hours while the Army Votes were being passed, and while the Army (Annual) Bill was under consideration. He did not think that that was a business-like way of managing any Office connected with a great Public Department, and the sooner the whole matter was revised the better and the more easily would the work be done. Any difficult question arising out of the business of the Office would be much better attended to by a permanent official at the War Office than by a political Representative in the House of Commons, who was usually supplied with written answers to the Questions put to him by permanent officials connected with his Department.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, that in withdrawing the Motion he wished only to say one word. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had misunderstood what he had said. What he had said was that the discussion had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity, not of magnifying the Office, but of justifying its retention.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £320,500, Medical Establishment and Services.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, he must be allowed to express an opinion that the Medical Officers were thoroughly satisfied with the way in which the Department was worked. Dr. Crawford, the Director General, was one of the most able officers who had ever presided over it. He merely wished to point out very shortly one matter in connection with Army medical practice in Egypt and elsewhere upon which it was desirable to have an explanation. He wanted to know what was the precise connection which existed between the National Aid Society and the Army Medical Department? He did not wish to make any suggestion in derogation of the excellent work done by the Society; but he thought some of the misconception which had sprung up might be removed by an explanation as to the precise relations between the National Aid Society and the Army Medical Department. What he wanted to know was, who, in the case of a campaign like that in Egypt, was primarily responsible for the care of the sick and wounded? There was a danger that the idea might get abroad that the soldiers there were starved, and that it was necessary to supply them with necessaries and luxuries by outside aid. He thought that was a total misconception, and that not only were necessaries, but even superfluities, supplied to soldiers in the camp, in the field, and in the hospital. All their wants were carefully and liberally attended to; and what the National Aid Society did was to step in and supplement, by means of their organization, the operations of the actual Medical Departments in the field. All he wished to know was what the precise connection was that existed between the two Departments, and if one was altogether independent of the other?

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

asked what provision was made for Militia surgeons in connection with Militia regiments when embodied? Were surgeons found from the Staff of the Army, or had the regiments to depend upon the assistance given by their own officers? It was rather an important question, and he hoped to receive a reply to it. He would like to have an explanation as to the reduction of £6,000 in the item relating to these officers.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he had received several letters from Militia surgeons, complaining of their grievances. At present they were not entitled to pensions, no matter what the attendance was which they gave in the discharge of their duties in connection with the Militia regiments. Now, it was a well-known fact that Militia surgeons had to give up many opportunities for private practice; and he thought it was extremely hard that those gentlemen, after lengthened periods of service, received nothing at all in the shape of pension or other compensation for the time they had devoted to the requirements of their regiments. He knew that Militia surgeons, in some parts of Ireland especially, had very severe duties to perform—that they had to do their work with very great inconvenience to themselves, and that they had to forego all chance of receiving pensions—

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

rose to Order. The hon. Member, he thought, would be more in Order if he brought forward the question of pensions on the Pension Vote.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, if the hon. Gentleman had heard him to the end of his sentence, he would have found that he was leading up to the point. These Militia surgeons did not receive any pension; no matter how long they served, they should receive a little more pay, and be entitled to a pension. In case he received a reply from the hon. Gentleman that there was no provision made for them, his intention was to produce facts, and move an additional sum for the purpose. If the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee now whether there was any intention of meeting the grievance of Militia surgeons—because there were many of them who had that grievance and he knew of half-a-dozen cases in his own county—if the hon. Gentleman would say how the matter stood, there might be no necessity for moving an increase of the Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out that it was not within the competence of hon. Members to make Motions for additions to Votes; and he doubted whether it would be in Order for the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Department to reply upon the question of pensions, because they were provided for in a subsequent Vote.

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

said, the National Aid Society was doing very good work in Egypt. With regard to the first question of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), he had no hesitation in saying that the Army Medical Department was not only primarily, but entirely responsible for the care of the sick and wounded. In saying that, he wished to add that they all recognized the generous and charitable aid rendered by the Society in the form of medical comforts and clothing for the men; and further that this was not regarded as in any way relieving the Army Medical Department of responsibility. Then the hon. Member asked him whether there would be any clashing between the authority of the Army Medical Department and that of the Charitable Aid Society—that was to say, whether the Society would be responsible to the Army Medical Department? He had the authority of the Director General to say that the officers who, at the instance of the National Aid Society, went to Egypt, had received instructions in all cases to defer to the authority of the Army Medical Officer on the spot; he need hardly point out that the officers of the Society would not be allowed in the camp at all, unless they recognized the supremacy of the Military Authorities there. Therefore, in case of any question arising between the doctors of the two Services, there would be a reference to the Military Officer in command. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had asked him for an explanation with regard to the foot note at the bottom of page 4, relating to a decrease of £6,000 in the amount paid for Medical Officers of Militia. The decrease of £6,000 for those officers was accounted for by the fact that there had been no new appointments of surgeons to the Militia since the establishment of the Medical Department in 1877. In case a Militia regiment was sent away from its headquarters, a Medical Officer would be appointed to it by the Department.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

asked if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to reply on the general question he had raised? If he would do so, it would obviate the necessity of bringing forward the question on another Vote.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, before the hon. Baronet answered that question, he would like to point out that the item for the pay of Militia Surgeons was only for £10,000, as against £16,000 in last year's Estimate, and £20,000 in the year before. This continuous diminution of the amount of the Vote from £20,000 to £10,000 for the present year, was very remarkable. They were only asked for one-third of what was voted the year before last, and as such an alteration suggested an entire change of the system which had until recently existed with regard to Militia Surgeons, he asked the hon Baronet whether it was proposed to abolish those officers altogether and get their work done by other persons, or whether the extraordinary diminution of the amount of the Vote was merely accidental? As the matter appeared on the face of the Estimates, it was impossible for the Committee without further information to avoid the conclusion that it was the intention of the War Office Authorities to get rid of Militia Surgeons. Then with regard to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) as to the position of Militia Surgeons, he considered that subject to be very pertinent to the present Vote; and he asked the hon. Baronet if he would explain fully the present system, and indicate such alterations as the War Office Authorities might chose to make in it?

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

said, he had already answered the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), as to whether the diminution in the item for pay of Militia Surgeons was accidental, to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil). It was the intention of the War Office that the Militia Surgeons should cease to be appointed. They would be replaced, as he had stated before, by Regimental Surgeons, who took charge of the Militia when they were at the depots. The decrease was not only in the number of Militia Surgeons, but also in the number of Civilian practitioners, all of whom were superseded by the officers of the Army Medical Department. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Red- mond) when the Pensions Vote came forward, he should be in a position to reply.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, as one who took a great interest in the Medical. Department, and particularly with regard to the efficiency of subordinates, he wished to know how many lady nurses, who added so much to the efficiency of the Medical Service in the Army, had been appointed in order to carry out the recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee? He would also be glad to know the number employed in India? Having several times called attention to this on the Army Estimates, when the hon. Member in charge had not been able to give the number, he trusted that the hon. Baronet would now be in a position to take notice of his observations on the subject.

MR. LEAHY

said, it was stated that small-pox was present at Manchester, and it would therefore be apparent to the Committee that the removal of troops from that city to the Curragh Camp involved some danger. He asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, whether he had seen a communication from a Board of Guardians remonstrating against the removal of troops from Manchester to the Curragh Camp under the circumstances? He said it would be a serious thing if troops were sent there from a place whore there was infection.

MR. BRAND

pointed out that this sub-head of the Vote under discussion only provided for medicine and medical comforts for the sick.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he had no information on the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Leahy). No doubt, if it were known to the Military Authorities that small-pox was present at Manchester, in a manner likely to affect the health of the troops, it would be mentioned to the Quartermaster General, and the removal would probably not take place.

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

said, in reply to the first question of the hon. and gallant General (Sir George Balfour), £3,000 had been added to provide 40 additional lady nurses in order to carry out the recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee. He did not think that any charge in respect of the other matter referred to by the hon. and gallant General could appear on the Estimates.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, the charge used to appear on the Estimates.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £526,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances of a Force of Militia, not exceeding 136,175, including 30,000 Militia Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, upon this important Vote he should like to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, what steps had been taken, or what steps were being taken, to fill up the Militia? On looking through the Returns, he found that the number of officers proper for the Militia was 3,754; at the last training, however, there were only 2,484 officers out, the deficiency in respect of absentees being 1,270. He also found that of non-commissioned officers and men the number voted was 132,421, while the number actually out was 95,794. Now, having regard to the aspect of affairs all over the world at the present time, and looking to the Vote of Credit which had been given to the Government, he should be particularly glad to know what steps Her Majesty's Government were going to take, or had taken, to make the Militia as efficient a Force as it ought to be? He thought that no one would deny the great advantage to the country of the Militia. Nor would anyone deny the great services they had rendered in times past, and for his own part he was quite certain that those services would be repeated on future occasions. But he was bound to say that, with all the other Services, the Militia had been badly treated, and he believed that that bad treatment had led to the present state of affairs. Whatever it might cost to put the Militia into a state of efficiency, he held that no expenditure would be too great to put the Militia as well as all the Reserve Forces into an efficient condition, particularly at the present moment. He did not wish to labour this point, because these were plain facts, and he believed that the noble Marquess would see for himself that the state of things which now existed ought not to be allowed to continue, and that he should do everything in his power to raise the Militia from its present condition. With the permission of the Committee, he would refer for one moment to an Order which he saw by The Times of that morning had been issued with respect to Militia officers. The Order stated that Militia officers were accepted to serve now in the Line, and that they were to be appointed to regiments, and to fill the vacancies now existing in the Line regiments. He was particularly desirous of ascertaining from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War what would be the status of the Militia officers in the regiments to which they were to be appointed. Was it proposed that they were to join the Line regiments temporarily only, or that they were to be permanently appointed if their services were found to be efficient? He thought the question was one which deserved serious consideration at the hands of the noble Marquess. If they were to be permanently appointed in the way he described, which he could hardly believe, he thought the noble Marquess might go a step further. There were many men which had passed an excellent examination, although, unfortunately for them, they were not amongst those who obtained the highest number of marks, and had been passed by. Now, he thought that there should be some recognition of the trouble and expense those gentlemen had incurred; it should certainly be taken into account, and he thought they might also have some chance of getting appointments at the present time. Another point that he wished to mention in connection with the Militia was the case of a very small number of Militia quartermasters. He referred to those quartermasters who had been promoted from the Line, and who had served 21 years, and had risen to be sergeant majors or to some other high grade of non-commissioned officers. There were but few of those men—they were 16 in number—who would think they would be badly treated if something were not done for them. They were men, who having served 21 years as sergeant majors or quartermaster sergeants, drew their pensions, or be- came entitled to them, took the appointment of quartermaster under the Royal Warrant of 1878, thereby forfeiting the pensions they had earned for their services in the ranks. Those officers were compulsorily retired at the age of 55, so that if they arrived at that age before they completed 10 years' commissioned service they were obliged to take a retiring pension of 7s. a-day, and were debarred from counting the rank service or drawing the pension they had earned. For those 16 men a special case should be made, so that if they attained the age of 55 before they completed 10 years' service as quartermaster, they should be allowed to remain on their appointment, so as to complete the full 10 years, and then retire on the maximum pension of £200 a-year and honorary rank. He would say no more upon the subject than that he considered it was a case deserving of serious consideration at the hands of the noble Marquess, because the persons in question were men of the highest character and with the best testimonials, several of them having seen Crimean and Indian Mutiny service as well. He knew very well promotion was wanted for men of the Line regiments; surely then they ought to take into consideration these old soldiers who had done their duty so well to their country.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

begged to endorse what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Baronet. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had several times put a question to the noble Marquess on the subject, and he had understood from him that he was going to make an explanation on this Vote, and tell the Committee what steps he proposed to take to increase the men up to the establishment, which was 24,000 below the number voted by Parliament, and also, what was still more important, that he would tell them something about the subject his hon. and gallant Friend had touched upon—namely, the number of officers, which was still below what it ought to be. But there was another point. He was sure the Committee and the country would be of opinion that the Militia, the old Constitutional Force of the country, should be in a state of the highest efficiency; but he was bound to confess, from what he had seen in the papers and had heard from some commanding officers, that the state of the equipment of the men was far from what it should be. He had been told by the commanding officer of one of the Bedfordshire regiments, that most of the belts were rotten, the knapsacks were worn out, and that they had no pouches or water bottles. All these matters should be attended to. The Government had an opportunity now which did not fall to every Government. They were going to get a large amount of money in the shape of a Vote of Credit, and that would afford a good opportunity for putting the Militia into a thoroughly efficient condition. The complaints which were made with regard to this Force were most time honoured; they had been made time after time, year after year. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had sat in this House a great many years, and he declared that every time the Army Estimates had been discussed the same complaints had been made. That was the case, notwithstanding that the Militia was the Force which ought to receive the very first attention, for the reason that before the Regular Army was thought of, the Militia, or what served for a Militia in old times, was the Force that the country had to depend upon in case of an invasion. That subject spoke for itself, and, therefore, there was no reason for him to enlarge upon it. If the noble Marquess would be good enough, in the explanation he was about to give them on this Vote, to tell them what conditions he was going to offer, and what he proposed to do to fill up the ranks of both the men and the officers, now that he had armed the Militia with the Martini-Henry rifle, to put the Force in an efficient state to take the field if necessary, he should be glad, and he was sure such a statement would be received by both the Committee and the country with satisfaction.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) made some observations as to the number of Militia officers; other attention was also called to this subject, and I am very glad that it has been raised, because it gives me an opportunity of stating what are the facilities and what steps we are taking to enable Militia officers to obtain commissions in the Line. That opportunity is, I believe, one of the greatest inducements to young men to enter the Militia. I gave an answer on this subject on the 28th February; and since that time there has been a considerable increase in the number of Militia officers. On the 2nd May, the actual increase in the number of Militia officers was 88, besides 32 who had obtained commissions in the Line at that time; so that the actual increase in the number of Militia officers who had entered the Line was 120. The number of vacant commissions on the 28th February in the Militia was 797, and now it is only 685. That, I think, is satisfactory, and shows the efficiency of the men, and also that the inducements to join the Militia are now better understood, and that there is a better prospect, without violent measures, of the commissions in the Militia being filled up. The hon. and gallant Member also asked me about a Circular, which I have seen, as to the service of Militia officers being accepted for duty in the Line battalions. Of course, that was owing to a mere displacement during a period of pressure—to the great and unusual call upon the services of commissioned officers. Militia officers so joining would, of course, serve in the rank which they now hold; but the hon. and gallant Member will observe that no officer would obtain permanent promotion except through the ordinary channels, and that he would have to enter as lieutenant. Well, the hon. and gallant Member also referred to certain old Militia quartermasters. He cannot expect me to follow the technical grievance he expressed to the Committee, and I must confess I am not prepared to enter into details upon this matter. I have some recollection, however, that the case has been repeatedly brought forward—I think it has been repeatedly brought forward by memorial and representation to more than one Secretary of State for War, and that it has been referred to more than once in this Committee—and though I cannot refuse to look into the matter again, I must tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I think the case of these officers has been minutely inquired into, and that I cannot hold out any hope of arriving at any other conclusion, substantial justice having been done to them. The noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) said he expected I would make some statement on the subject of the Militia. I am not aware that I held out any prospect that I would make a statement on this subject. I have informed the Committee of what has been done as to the officers of the Militia, and as to the special measures taken for increasing the numbers under the establishment. I am not aware that it is in our power to take any special measures, except to impress upon officers commanding districts to do everything in their power to obtain Militia recruits—to impress upon the officers to make the Service as popular as it can be made. The noble Lord speaks of the deficiencies in the ranks of the Militia as of something about which complaint has to be made.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

What I said was that I had heard it mentioned year after year.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

The noble Lord is aware that, under the present arrangements, the establishment of many Militia regiments are larger than the districts are able to supply. However, with all the means now at work, and which cannot be said to be in complete order yet—with these means, when they have been thoroughly tested and tried, it will be found unnecessary and inadvisable to make any alteration in the establishment. I think I cannot do more than assure the Committee that the importance of this Force is fully appreciated by the Military Authorities, and that every effort is being made to raise the Militia and keep them up to a proper state of efficiency.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

The noble Marquess has not referred to the equipments of the Militia, with regard to which I made some observations.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I hope on that point the noble Lord will address his observations to the Surveyor General of Ordnance.

COLONEL GUNTER

said, that after the remarks of the noble Marquess and his expression of a desire to put the Militia into as good a position as possible, he (Colonel Gunter) would venture to put before him a matter which he thought it important to consider at this time. The point he wished to raise was as to the Army Reserve. Army Reserve men as a rule, enlisted at the age of 18, and left the Army at 30. When they had done their service in the Line and Army Reserve they were dismissed altogether. Would it not be well to adopt some plan whereby those men could be brought into the Militia, where their presence would be of the greatest value? They would be of the greatest service in forming a nucleus of steady soldiers, and adding stability to the Militia regiments. Such an arrangement would be extremely valuable for this reason—and he spoke upon this point with considerable knowledge —that when a Militia regiment was called on for its Reserve men, as it was in the case of the last Russian scare, it took the best men away, at any rate the best non-commissioned officers. In most Militia regiments the commanding officers made it a point of giving their best men the option of belonging to the Militia Reserve. If they did not do so, non-commissioned officers would give up their stripes and return to the ranks rather than lose the extra bounty given to them for being in the Reserve. Sometimes the fourth of a regiment belonged to the Militia Reserve, and when that fourth was taken away the commanding officers were deprived of their oldest and ablest and best men, and most of the ablest non-commissioned officers. If the noble Marquess could see his way to induce the men of 30 years of age, when they had done with the Army Reserve, to join the Militia, by giving them a larger bounty—say, an annual extra bounty of £1 a-year—when the Militia Reserve was called out the effect would be that, instead of the Line regiments denuding the Militia of all its best men, there would be in the Militia a largo number of men who had served in the ranks of the Regular Army to give stability and steadiness to the regiments. The men in the Militia Reserve were not expected to remain there after the age of 34 years; but then, on joining the Line regiment, they could be sent to any part of the world. On the other hand, if they could get back into the Militia Reserve, by a trifling increase of bounty, Linesmen who had done their service in the Line, they would be forming an excellent nucleus of steady soldiers. He ventured to bring this matter before the noble Marquess, because the last time the Militia Reserve was called out the best of his men and the best of his noncommissioned officers were taken away from him; and if his regiment had been called out and sent to the Mediterranean, he should have been unable satisfactorily to fill the places of those men. There was no means of getting at these men otherwise than by re-enlistment. He would ask the noble Marquess whether he could not see his way to increasing the bounty? Supposing £2 were given when the men came in, and an extra £1 a-year bounty whilst they served, avaluable class of men would be got into the Militia. At the present moment these men were thrown away, for after they had served about 12 years in the Line, notwithstanding they had become excellent and good soldiers, they ceased to have connection with the Army. He ventured to bring this matter under the notice of the War Office, because he believed it was a subject capable of being dealt with to the great advantage of the Army and to the country generally. There was another point upon which he ventured to touch. The noble Marquess had said he was anxious for the efficiency of the Militia, and he (Colonel Gunter) would therefore recommend that when the men came up on their enlistment, and for training in the barracks, they should be put under their own officers. At the present moment they were put with the soldiers of the Line. He knew very well the object of the arrangement at present adopted; it was to get the men who came into the Militia to go into the Line. That object was a good one, and he did not object to it; but what he asked was that the men, when they came up, should be put under their own adjutant, and in their own barrack-rooms. He wished to bring these matters under the notice of the noble Marquess, because probably they had not struck him before. He wished to recommend the plan, by which they could induce the Army Reserve men to serve in the Militia up to 45 years of age. If they could do that, they would be bestowing a great boon upon the country. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he thought, had said he was very anxious to do everything he could for the good of the Service—everything in reason. Well, if he could venture to put it before the Government in a very humble way, he would suggest a means by which they could add greatly to the satisfaction of the men. They enlisted men, and told thorn they were to have free rations. Well, "free rations" was known in this country now—it used not to be in the olden time—to consist of three meals—namely, breakfast, dinner, and tea. Now, a man could not have breakfast and could not have tea unless coffee and sugar or tea was supplied to him. He (Colonel Gunter) had gone into this question, and he found that if they wanted to carry out the wording of the enactment which provided for "free rations," they must not make the charge at present imposed on the men of ½d. a-day, but should find them breakfast, dinner, and tea without any charge. It was impossible to say that a man had "free rations," when he had to put his hand into his pocket and pay for any of these things out of his own money. It would be a source of great satisfaction to the men, if they found their breakfast, dinner, and tea supplied to them, instead of having to put their hands in their pockets to pay this ½d. It might be said that ½d. was a very small amount; still, it was a consideration with the men, and it was only right that the Government should carry out the undertaking it entered into when the men enlisted, and give them free rations. He brought these matters before the War Office because he thought it was his duty to do so.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, that a few years ago the scheme of compulsory retirement on account of age was fixed for officers commanding Militia regiments, and it was found afterwards that the compulsory retirement was not applicable to officers commanding regiments of the Channel Islands Militia. He thought the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had said he had no power whatever over this Militia, and that he had nothing whatever to do with the Channel Islands Forces, and that the ages of the commanding officers were not known. In order to test the case, he (General Alexander) had asked the noble Marquess to give him a Return of the ages of the officers commanding the Channel Islands Militia. That Return had been supplied, and he (General Alexander) now held it in his hand. He found that out of nine officers commanding regiments in the Channel Islands, three, if they had been commanding in England or Scotland, would have been disqualified by age; one of them was actually 77 years old. Surely that was too great an age for any officer commanding a regiment. He thought himself that the Secretary of State for War had gone too far in fixing compulsory retirement on account of age where it had been fixed in the case of the British and Irish Militia, because in that way they lost a great many officers who were still in the prime of life, and great difficulty was felt in filling their places. But he thought that whatever rule was applicable to the British Militia and the Irish Militia, it ought certainly to be applicable to the Channel Islands Militia. The object of the rule which had been adopted in the case of Great Britain and Ireland was, no doubt, to increase the efficiency of the Militia. He did not know whether or not that result was attained; and, therefore, to give an opportunity to the noble Marquess to reply to the question, and, if necessary, to raise a discussion upon the matter, he begged, as a matter of form, to move to reduce the Vote by £7,000, being the amount put down for the Channel Islands Militia.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £519,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances of a Force of Militia, not exceeding 136,175, including 30,000 Militia Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."—(General Alexander.)

SIR ARTHUR HAYTER

said, that in reply to the hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander), all he had to say was that the Secretary of State for War had nothing to do with this matter. It was not in the power of the Secretary of State for War to fix the limit of age of commanding officers in the Channel Islands Militia. Service in that Force was compulsory, and the age of retirement for commanding officers, and everything else connected with the Force, was regulated by the laws of the Islands, and could not be altered by the Secretary of State for War.

GENERAL ALEXANDER

said, that nothing to that effect was stated last year, and the Return which he had moved for had been granted. However, he did not wish to press the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that with regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Gunter), the hon. and gallant Member would see that the subject had been brought forward in the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting this year. The Inspector General, in the figures he presented, showed that the number of men who had served 12 years in the Army, and had gone to the Reserves, had increased since 1883 from 893 to 1,652. He showed that the number of men whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite thought it desirable to obtain for the Militia, was increasing. The Inspector General had suggested that more liberal terms should be offered them.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £72,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, he wished to draw attention to a small grievance, which he thought was of some importance in connection with this Vote; it was a small one, but it militated against the whole Force. It had reference to a Regulation of 1862. He would refer the noble Marquess to page 66 of the Regulations, to the subject of grants for compensation, and it would be seen that a yeoman was entitled to compensation if his horse was killed in the field during drill. If, however, in attending troop drill, or permanent duty, his horse happened to meet with an accident on his way to or from the field, he was entitled to no compensation. He would like to quote a case in which some hardship had been inflicted on an unfortunate farmer in consequence of this Regulation. There was a trooper belonging to a Yeomanry regiment in Lancashire going to drill in the town of Rochdale—either going to it, or coming from it, he did not know which. That trooper happened, unfortunately, to meet with a detachment of the Salvation Army with its drums, trumpets, and tambourines. The consequence was that his horse, which was perfectly accustomed to military operations, not being accustomed to the operations of the Salvation Army, reared up and fell over, breaking its back. It was killed in the streets of Rochdale. A claim was made on the War Office for the small grant of £20—-an amount which, of course, did not by any means cover the value of the horse. There had been a great deal of correspondence on the subject, and the claim had eventually been refused, in consequence of the Regulation to which he had referred. Well, he ventured to think that the Regulations pressed very hardly on the yeomen. He could quote another case which was brought under his notice in connection with a regiment of Yeomanry with which he had been for some time connected, and in which he himself had served. In this case, a horse was attacked with pneumonia during permanent duty, and died a day or two after. No compensation was given by the Government, and in the result compensation had to come out of the troop officer's pocket. He had to pay £20, or whatever the sum was, the value of the horse, otherwise it would have been impossible for him to have kept his troop together. It might be said that the alteration of these Regulations might lead to abuse; but he believed it would be very easy to adopt safeguards to prevent the Regulations being abused, and to provide only for accidents to horses going to or coming from the field, as well as those engaged in field operations. Claims of this kind should be certified by the commanding officer or adjutant, or, if necessary, by the General Officer commanding the district. This was a small grievance, but it was one of the small grievances which conduced to the inefficiency rather than the efficiency of the Force. He commended it to the consideration of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington).

MR. RYLANDS

said, that he had almost allowed the Chairman to put the Question before rising, because he was waiting for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) to rise. He fully expected the hon. and gallant Gentleman to express some opinion upon this Vote. He believed he was correct in saying that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was an acknowledged authority upon questions of this kind, was not prepared to justify the present administration of this Vote, and he should have been very glad indeed if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given the Committee the benefit — he hoped he would still give them the benefit—of his experience. He (Mr. Rylands) recollected perfectly well that for a great many years past this Vote had been received with a considerable amount of objection and criticism on the part of hon. Members. He recollected reading, before he was a Member of the House, the admirable speeches of the late Mr. Henry Berkeley, in which that gentleman ridiculed the various branches of the Yeomanry Service in different parts of the Kingdom, and in which he showed the Committee that the Yeomanry was an altogether absurd and inefficient Force. Of course, he (Mr. Rylands) could not speak with the authority of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay); but he could say that, in regard to the corps with which he was personally acquainted, and of which, in his early years, he was in the habit of seeing something—he meant the Cheshire Yeomanry, or, as they were popularly called, the "Cheshire Cabbage Cutters"— there was a general impression that that corps would not prove very efficient unless it was in cutting down cabbages. His objection to the Yeomanry Force was that it was altogether a sham Force. If there was any necessity to make any demand upon the Reserve Forces of the country, the Yeomanry Force would be found absolutely useless for fighting purposes. He did not doubt for a moment that some of the yeomen with their horses could limber up waggons, and do work of that kind; but that could be done without keeping up an establishment of this kind. If ever they were, unfortunately, in a position to require assistance in the Commissariat Department, there would be no difficulty whatever in getting the number of waggons and horses wanted. Military men, and, in fact, the Inspecting Officer of Yeomany himself, were distinctly of opinion that the Yeomanry in its present state was an unsatisfactory and inefficient Force. It did seem to him (Mr. Rylands), that at a time when they were called upon to pay large sums of money for the Military Services of the Crown, it was most ill-advised that they should persist in voting, year after year, a sum of £60,000 or £70,000 for a Force which was condemned by the very highest authorities. He did not grudge the Vote which was given to the Volunteers; he thought that, probably, in some respects that Vote might with propriety be increased. The Volunteers formed a Force of the most valuable description, and the money given to them was money well laid out. Not so with the Yeomanry; they were not worth the money the country spent upon them, and therefore he should certainly say "No" when the Vote was put.

COLONEL O'BEIRNE

said, that this Vote did not concern Ireland either directly or indirectly; indeed, it was very unjust that Ireland should have to pay even the smallest fraction of this Vote, or of any Vote for Volunteers, when it was not allowed to have Volunteer corps. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that £70,000 was a most extravagant sum to give to a Force like the Yeomany, which did not even supply recruits to the Regular Cavalry. The country ought not to be called upon to supply the money, especially when they were required to meet large bills for military operations in all parts of the world, which up to this had not been very successful.

SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM

said, the Reports of late years with regard to the Yeomanry regiments had been very favourable. There were, as the Committee were aware, two Inspecting Generals of Auxiliary Forces. All the Reports of these officers passed through his hands during his late period of office, and he found that the Reports made with regard to the Yeomanry were to the effect that that Force of late years had improved, and that they were still improving. That improvement was due to the establishment of a School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot; and up to 1882 that School was a great success. The Commandant-ship of the School was, up to that year, a five years' appointment. In 1882, for certain reasons, he believed connected with economy, it was decided to make it an annual appointment, and to give £100 to a captain who would take the place for a year. It was impossible that the School could be a success when the Commandant was changed every year. He believed that the appointment of a Commandant for five years was absolutely necessary for the success of the School. As a matter of fact, of late the Commandantship had been changed even more than once every year; he believed there had been three changes in the office during the last 12 months. A Yeomanry School was required as much, if not more, for non-commissioned officers as for commissioned officers, and for the very reason that of late years Cavalry had been largely engaged in scouting and reconnoissance duties; indeed, latterly, such duties had become almost the primary duties of Cavalry. Now, the Yeomanry sergeants were, for the most part, men who had been in the Cavalry for years, men who belonged to the Cavalry before the days when the new duties were much considered or taught. He, therefore, believed it was of the utmost necessity that a School should be open, say, six months in each year, for Yeomanry sergeants. For three months of the year, the School, under the same Commandant, could be open to officers. Now, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had attacked the use of the Yeomanry. He (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had seen a good deal of the Yeomanry and of the Cavalry too, and his own impression was that the Yeomanry formed a very useful portion of the Auxiliary Forces; and he believed from what he saw of them that, in the intelligence and zeal which they brought to bear on their duties, they would compare very favourably with any of the Volunteers of the country. He believed that if the necessities of the Empire required the employment abroad of a large portion of the Cavalry, the Yeomanry would be found very useful. Nearly all of them were men who could ride, men who knew how to get about, men very well suited for outpost and scouting duties, and he believed they formed as valuable a portion, if not the most valuable, as any of the Auxiliary Forces. He hoped this Vote would be given willingly, and that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War the Marquess of Hartington) would see that the School for Auxiliary Cavalry, which was absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Yeomanry, should be placed on a proper footing, with a Commandant appointed for at least five years. He never wished to throw any burdens on the Estimates. If it was necessary that the Estimates should be kept down, he would suggest that one or two of the smaller and least efficient corps should be disbanded, so that they would be able to have all that was requisite for the efficiency of the Force. He felt that a smaller number of Yeomanry thoroughly drilled and taught, both with regard to officers and non-commissioned officers, would be far more useful than a slightly larger but less efficient body. He would willingly assent to a reduction of strength, in order to make the remainder as efficient as they could be made.

MR. DIGBY

said, he could not approach the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) who had just addressed the Committee; but he thought it would not be out of place if he, as a humble member of the Yeomanry, said a word or two in favour of that body. The Yeomanry had before now proved its usefulness, and he submitted that it was fully entitled to the small amount of money which the country allowed it. It had been said that it was not an efficient Force. Now, while a man in the Regular Cavalry regiments cost eight times what an Infantry man cost, a Yeoman cost only four times what a Volunteer cost. In the Yeomanry, therefore, the country obtained the services of a man and his horse for only four times the amount which a Volunteer cost the country, and, therefore, in proportion, the Yeomanry were only half as expensive to the country, per man, as the Cavalry were. It was quite news to him to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) say that the Yeomanry were expected to do Commissariat work. He did think that farmers could be very usefully employed in their own counties as scouts, as eyes to the Army, if the Navy proved inefficient. It ought to be remembered that, at the present time, there were Yeomanry officers doing duty in the Regular Cavalry regiments.

SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAY

said, he must confess that there was nothing more invidious than for any hon. Member of the House to point out the shortcomings, or what any Member might suppose to be shortcomings, of any Force, and therefore far be it from him to say anything against the individuals who composed that old and much respected Constitutional Force, the Yeomanry. But, as his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had somewhat challenged him in a pointed way, he felt he could not do otherwise than express the opinions he held with regard to the Yeomanry Force. Now, he was of opinion that in England they might have the very finest Irregular Cavalry in the word. Englishmen were devoted to horsemanship, and they were shown to excel in rifle shooting, and it was this latter consideration which kept the Volunteers together. Rifle shooting and horsemanship might be said to be the genius of the English people, and the two combined were what, in his judgment, would make the finest Irregular Cavalry in the world, if, by any piece of good fortune, they could persuade their friends, the Yeomanry, to turn their attention to that mode of military training. Those hon. Members who could go back as long as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) and others, would remember that Mr. Cardwell deliberately stated in the House of Commons that it was intended to train in future the Yeomanry as mounted riflemen. From time to time, the desirability of doing what Mr. Cardwell wished to do had been shown in the House; Committees had sat to consider the question, and they had almost invariably recommended it should be done; but the Yeomanry had presented the most determined opposition to being trained in that way. He was not altogether astonished at that opposition, because the men who taught the Yeomanry their work were, in the first place, old men; they were captains or adjutants of Cavalry regiments, or old Dragoon sergeants, who had been trained under the old conditions of Cavalry services—tight trousers and spurs, entirely unsuited for the purposes of mounted rifles. They would rather perish than take up the teaching of rifle shooting. Their thoughts were bent in the one direction; and it was impossible to get these old Cavalry sergeants to take up Infantry duties which many of them regarded as less noble than Cavalry duties. It was vain, therefore, to hope that the Yeomanry could ever be turned into anything like efficient mounted riflemen. Some of the Yeomanry officers themselves — he might mention one, Colonel Edwards — were particularly anxious that the change should be made. Colonel Edwards gave evidence before a Committee of the House, and he had delivered lectures on the subject at the United Service Institution. General Hamley, writing on the subject, said he was only delighted to find it was recommended that the Yeomanry should be trained as mounted riflemen; he was pleased the recommendation came from the Yeomanry themselves, and he hoped that was a good augury that something would be done in that direction. But year after year had gone by, so it was evident that the change was not to be made. If, therefore, the Yeomanry were to be maintained, they must be used to the sword and not to the rifle. He was sorry that so many county gentlemen went into the Yeomanry, because he wanted to see them joining the Volunteers. He wished county gentlemen supported the Volunteers more than they did. As it was, they went into another Force, and did not give the Volunteers the assistance which it was so very desirable they should give. He should be very glad indeed if the Yeomanry were to become Mounted Rifles. An hon. and gallant Friend who sat near him said—"We should be very pleased if we could bring our Yeomanry to the butts; but we have not got rifle ranges." The Volunteers had rifle ranges, which were at the service of Mounted Rifles. The Volunteers had drill halls as well; therefore Mounted Rifles could be trained with the greatest facility, and very economically. If the proposed change were made, he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) felt sure they would have the finest Irregular Cavalry in the world, instead of having an Auxiliary Cavalry Force which he believed was the worst trained—he meant for useful purposes—and the worst armed in the world. The Yeomanry were not even armed. He believed it was intended to give them shortly a better arm; but at the present time they had not even got the carbine. Formerly there was at Wimbledon a competition for Mounted Rifles. It was a very interesting competition; but the Yeomanry now said that they could no longer come to Wimbledon, because they were beaten out of the field by the Mounted Infantry. Consequently, the competition had ceased—a fact very much to be regretted.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) had called attention to a grievance with respect to the compensation for the loss of horses. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that the grievance had been the subject of very prolonged correspondence between the War Department and the corps concerned. It seemed to him (the Marquess of Hartington) that the line must be drawn somewhere, and he believed that such claims were dealt with in a liberal spirit. But it was an altogether different thing if a horse was lost while it was going to or coming from duty. There must be a line drawn between the time when a horse was on duty and when it was off duty. The accident to which the hon. Member referred was one which might have happened to the horse when it was not in the service of the State at all; and, therefore, he did not think that any great grievance was made out. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had called attention to the good service done by the School of Auxiliary Cavalry, and he had pointed out that more good service would be rendered by the School if the Commandant held his office for a longer period. He understood from his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Arthur Hayter) that under the present system there was considerable difficulty in obtaining competent officers to accept the appointment. The subject would be brought up again, and when that was done he would give it his best consideration. He did not think he need take up much time of the Committee by replying to the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He could not altogether congratulate his hon. Friend upon the opportunity he had taken to display his economical leanings. For many years past this Vote had been the chief object of attack from the economical Party, and, so far as he could see, his hon. Friend had not brought forward any novel argument against the Yeomanry. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) was a great authority upon Cavalry questions; but so was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire, who had borne testimony to the substantial value, under certain circumstances, of the Yeomanry-Force. There might be a good deal of advantage in the Yeomanry Force being converted into Mounted Infantry as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) suggested. It was a fact that this Force was capable of producing the finest Irregular Cavalry in the world. There was a great passion for equestrian exercise, and for rifle shooting, and those conditions were extremely favourable for the formation of a Mounted Infantry Force. However, for one reason or another, which he could not now undertake to explain, Mounted Infantry had not been successful. At the present time, there was only one company of Light Horse Volunteers, numbering about 60 men. That fact alone showed that there was one reason or another which prevented the formation of Mounted Infantry. Parliament ought to be very careful before they attempted to get rid of the present Yeomanry Force, which, as had been said in the course of the debate, was of very considerable value—they ought to pause before they attempted to convert the Force into something which did not appear to be equally popular. If there was a disposition voluntarily shown to convert the Yeomanry into Mounted Infantry, the matter would be worth consideration. At the present time, the Yeomanry was extremely popular, while the popularity of Mounted Infantry was not great. He did not think it was wise that he should do anything to disturb the popularity of the Force, which, under certain circumstances, was calculated to be very valuable.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was disposed to follow the recommendation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and not allow this Vote to pass without a division, unless they got a proper opportunity of getting some information in regard to the Antrim Militia. From the opinion he got from a good many military gentlemen, it appeared to him to be a waste of money to spend it upon the maintenance of Yeomanry Cavalry. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had said that the Vote was criticized each year, but that there was nothing new said about it; but he (Mr. Biggar) did not think that was a strong argument in favour of the Vote. He heard, last Session, from an hon. Member who had come from a very remote part of England—the county of Chester—that the Yeomanry Cavalry were a very dangerous body of men, because they were so unhandy with their swords that there was considerable risk of their cutting each other's heads off. If that was an example of their skill, he thought it would be much better to give a grant of money to get rid of them altogether. The Yeomanry were supposed to be a Military Force, but they had no miltary training whatever, and if they were called upon to vote on the question, he should certainly vote against the Estimate. If the Yeomanry were properly trained they might become proper soldiers; but, in point of fact, the Force was so mismanaged at present that it would be better to get rid of it altogether. They never went on foreign service, or did any good whatever, and therefore it would be better to get rid of them.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, that notwithstanding the disparaging remarks of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), he would venture to say a word in support of the argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands). Now, the noble Marquess had said this question was brought forward year after year without result; but he (Mr. Illingworth) was inclined to think that, by returning to the Vote, again and again, they would eventually bring conviction that this Force was altogether a useless one. He did not pretend to be a military man, but he was the Representative of taxpayers. Now, what had they heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) and the hon. Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay)? They had assured them that if this Force was made into something entirely different from what it was at present, it might be of some use to the country. That was the argument which had been brought forward year after year. There was a time when it had a use; when the Government of the day thought it might be badly treated at home; but, happily, such times had gone by now, and if it was to be made of any use at all, it would have to be made a part of our ordinary Military Service. But he would ask this question. Would any military authority in that House say that this Force, for a century past, or as it was likely to be in the future, could have been, or could be now, utilized for any kind of modern warfare? He ventured to say it could not; and, therefore, its existence was a sham, and the sooner it was wiped away the better. How was it possible that there could be anything like discipline or military knowledge acquired in one week's training a-year? It was true that young officers who had acquired a good deal of technical knowledge at training schools might obtain a little practical experience by means of this Force; but it was impossible that they could impart any efficiency or knowledge on military matters to the men. The whole Force was a bye-word and a laughing-stock from one end of the country to the other. Although the noble Marquess had defended the Force, he had not indicated how it could be made useful; and his (Mr. Illingworth's) conviction remained as strong as ever, notwithstanding what had been said—namely, that this was a wasteful and useless expenditure.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 80; Noes 27: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 159.)

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.