Commons Sitting of 22 March 1886

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£4,457,300, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Highways Acts Amendment* [149].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) *; Drill Grounds* [143].
Considered as amended — Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SHAW v. LLOYD.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN(for Mr. T. M. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen the report of the statement made by Mr. Kisby, Q.C. Queen's Advocate, in the trial of Shaw v. Lloyd, to the effect that the affirmance of the original eviction decree, which is alleged to have been tampered with by the Clerk of the Peace of Monaghan, "had been sent to the Irish Office in London, and, owing to it being sent here and there it got lost;" did the affirmance reach the Irish Office; if so, is there any trace of it to be found; has he seen the report of the further statement of the defendant's counsel, Mr. Dodd, Q.C, that the affirmance had been sent to the County Inspector of Constabulary now in Carlow; have the Government questioned the Inspector on the subject; and, if this statement is true, can he explain of the disappearance of this document, which is an important piece of evidence on the question of classification of the county records; and, is it a fact that the Lord Chief Baron, with the consent of counsel on both sides, directed a shorthand writer to be sworn to take notes of the evidence; if so, will the Government, before coming to any decision on the dismissal of the Clerk of the Peace, or of his deputy, give directions that a transcript of the shorthand writer's notes may be made, and would there be any objection to these being printed and circulated amongst the Members, as the case is one of much importance, and must form a subject of debate in the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have made inquiries, and have been informed that there is no record of this decree having been received at the Irish Office; certainly it is not there at present. I have no information as to whether the County Inspector received it, and I really see no reason why it should have been sent to him. I am informed that a shorthand writer took notes of the proceedings by order of the Court; but the Government have no control over him, and they therefore could not undertake the printing and circulating of the evidence. As I have already indicated on more than one occasion, in reply to former Questions, the Government have no power to dismiss this Clerk of the Peace. That rests with Quarter Sessions.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—RULES OF LOCATION OF CONSTABLES.
  MR. ALEXANDER BLAINEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sergeant Finlay, county inspector's clerk at Cavan, has relations in Ralahan, Bailieborough, and Lisball, in county Cavan; and, if such be the fact, whether it be in accordance with the constabulary rules that Sergeant Finlay be stationed in the same county?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, Sergeant Finlay, who was stationed at Cavan, had an aunt residing at Ralahan, 20 miles off, and cousins at the other two places named, 25 miles distant. There was a rule of the Service that men should not be located in their native counties or in counties with which they were connected. This rule was relaxed in some cases where, as in the present, no inconvenience was likely to arise.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.
  MR. EVERETTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it has come to his knowledge that on Friday, March 5th, Mr. Ridout, Assistant School Inspector, when visiting the National School at Tattingstone, near Ipswich, Suffolk, asked the children "for whom their fathers voted at the late election;" asking those whose fathers voted for Rendelsham to hold up their hands,

  1475
  and then those whose fathers voted for Everett to do the same; and, what steps he has taken or proposes to take in reference thereto?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): I have no knowledge of this charge against an Assistant Inspector except through the Question of the hon. Member for Suffolk. As I may have to exercise a judicial function in regard to it, I would ask the hon. Member to furnish me with the names and addresses of witnesses who were present when the alleged serious indiscretion occurred. When he does so I will at once make an official inquiry. But I cannot institute an inquiry upon a mere general statement.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL GRANTS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary for Scotland, Why Caithness and Sunderland are exempted from the provisions giving increased grants to the Highland counties for increased regularity in attendance, and why graduates should receive 10s., while teachers who are not graduates only receive 4s. for the same work, tested by the same standard?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN): The counties of Caithness and Sunderland are not excluded from the increased grants for average attendance; but the Department has not thought that it would be proper, without special sanction, to extend to these counties the exemption from the 17 s. 6d. limit, which exemption under the Code applies only to those counties for which the Legislature has made special and express provision. The additional grants received for specific subjects, which are received by managers and not by teachers in cases where graduates are employed, is based upon the fact of the additional expense of employing graduates, who are specially qualified and require a specially large salary. It is very important to encourage the connection between the University and the elementary schools.

  POST OFFICE—MAILS TO THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. SAMUEL MONTAGUasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that all letters for the United States posted in Brussels, Paris, and other
  1476
  large cities on the Continent, and arriving in London in closed mails on Thursday morning, are forwarded by the British Post Office to New York by a fast line of steamers from Southampton on that day, to the prejudice of English traders, the correspondence posted in this Country being kept back for a later steamer; and, whether the Postmaster General will take steps to remedy this grievance?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Closed mails from the Continent are received in London every Thursday morning for conveyance to New York by the North German Lloyd steamers from Southampton, while the British mails containing correspondence posted as late as Thursday evening are forwarded that evening by British steamers viâ Queenstown. So long as the present agreement between the Postmaster General and the British steamship lines remains in force the Postmaster General is precluded by that agreement from sending by non-contract lines any other letters than such as bear a special superscription; any letters so endorsed are sent by the German steamers.

  IRELAND—DISTRESS IN THE TOWN OF WICKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What Report was made by the Local Government Board inspector recently sent to inquire into the distress existing in the town of Wicklow; is he aware that the inspector did not call on any of the Roman Catholic clergy, who are best acquainted with the circumstances, or on the Chairman of the Town Commissioners; why did he not do so; and, how else did he obtain his information?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the Inspector who inquired into the distress in the town of Wicklow had interviews with the relieving officers, the medical officer of the workhouse, and the hon. secretary of the relief committee, and he also visited the relief works. He also called on the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, but was not fortunate enough to find him at home. The Board considered that the inquiries he made were sufficient to enable him to make a Report.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—ESTABLISHMENT OF A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal; and, if not, whether they would be disposed to provide facilities to a private Member to introduce such a measure; and, what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the codification of the Criminal Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, that the state of Business would not permit the Government to deal with the matters mentioned in the Question. As to whether facilities would be given to a private Member, if the hon. Member meant that the Government were to give up their own time, they were not prepared to do so.

  ARMY—PENSIONS—CASE OF ISAAC HEMPTON.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Secretary of State for War, If Isaac Hempton, now living at Mount-joy East, Omagh, county Tyrone, served for 21 years in the Army, 16 years and 354 days being Foreign service, and was retired in 1875 on a pension of 11 d. per diem, having medals for Crimean and Indian service; if he is aware that, owing to a wound received by Hempton at the relief of Lucknow, he is now absolutely unable to engage in any occupation for the support of his wife and family; and, if, considering his long service and good records, the Commissioners will be prepared to consider his claims for an increase of pension?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN), in reply, said, the case was not one which would come within the consideration of the Commissioners.

  THE RAILWAY CLEARING HOUSE (IRELAND).
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that the Associated Companies of the Irish Railway Clearing House have adopted a form of accounts called the summary system; whether, under this system, the clerks of the clearing house are compelled to work
  1478
  from nine a.m. until ten p.m.; and, if he will take action to prohibit the enforcement of such long hours of clerical duty?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): As the Board of Trade has no control whatever over the Railway Clearing Houses, I do not feel that I can usefully interfere.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—DUBLIN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will make the Post Office, College Green, Dublin, available for the receipt of parcels, and so remove an existing inconvenience from one of the business centres of the Irish Metropolis?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Parcel Post business is not transacted at the College Green Post Office for want of space; but there are receiving offices in Grafton Street and Dame Street, the first about 370 yards, the second about 330 yards, distant from College Green—at which parcels may be posted, and which were established mainly for that purpose. The Dame Street Receiving Office is at the present moment vacant through the resignation of the receiver, but no time will be lost in filling up the vacancy.

  IRELAND-INVESTMENTS OF ENGLISH CAPITAL.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government knows, or has the means of ascertaining, the amount of money lent to Irish landlords by English Mortgage and Insurance Companies?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Treasury does not know, and has no means of ascertaining, the amount of money due from Irish landowners to English mortgage and insurance companies in respect of loans advanced by those companies.

  EGYPT—THE SYSTEM OF PENSIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as stated in the public prints, that the subordinate native servants of the Egyptian Government, and the families of deceased

  1479
  officers and soldiers, have been deprived of the pensions to which the rules of the Service entitled them, while the claims of the more highly paid Europeans are maintained intact; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will insist that, so long as the British Government occupies and defends Egypt, the natives shall not be treated less fairly than the Europeans?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The whole system of Egyptian Pensions has been for some time under examination by a Committee at Cairo, and a new Pension Law is in course of preparation. The statements referred to by the hon. Member are not confirmed by any information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, who have no reason to believe that any valid claims have been disregarded, or that Natives have been treated less fairly than Europeans. It has been, and continues to be, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take all possible steps within the sphere of their action for securing the fair treatment of Natives.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether the hon. Gentleman would cause inquiry to be made as to the truth of the statements?
  MR. BRYCE: If my hon. Friend will indicate any particular point, inquiry will no doubt be made.

  EGYPT—COST OF THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the contribution of the Egytian Government towards the expenses of the British Army of Occupation (which was originally to have been a much larger sum to cover all extra expenses) has now been reduced to £170,000, notwithstanding that the expenses have been very greatly increased, and are estimated by the War Office, for the ensuing year, at double the cost taken in the ordinary Estimates for 1885–6, and that one item alone, "Additional Expenditure for Supplies, Transport, &c. consequent on the Occupation of Egypt," is estimated by the same authority, for 1886–7, at £416,000 in excess of the amount estimated for 1885–6, while at the same time a new charge for Egyptian Troops at Suakin is entered on the British Estimates, thereby practically reducing the Egyptian contribution to about
  1480
  £100,000; whether he expects that the sums due will really be paid, and the Government has considered any proposals for remitting them; and, whether these arrangements are in pursuance of an attempt of the Financial Adviser of the Government of Egypt to establish an apparent financial equilibrium, and avoid the further inquiry into the finances of Egypt, by throwing on the British taxpayer the cost of the defence of Egypt?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE) (Mr. BRYCE): At the time of the conclusion of the Financial Convention of March 18, 1885, it was agreed that the sum to be paid by Egypt for charges on account of the British Army of Occupation should not exceed £200,000 a-year from the 1st of April following. Of this sum, £170,000 is credited to Army Funds, and £30,000 goes to the Navy, and appears as an Appropriation in Aid under Vote XVIII. of that Service for Army Transport. It has recently been agreed that the Native Force which is to be sent to Suakin to replace the British garrison there, shall be paid by the Egyptian Government, but that the cost—estimated at £41,000—shall be deducted from the payment towards the charges of the Army of Occupation. The Foreign Office are net aware of any other deduction. The sums due by the Egyptian Government on account of the charges for the Army of Occupation up to the end of last year have been duly paid, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not continue to be paid. These arrangements are, therefore, in pursuance of engagements already sanctioned by Parliament.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked if the engagements in question were international engagements?
  MR. BRYCE: They are between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE INDIAN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. JAMES MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the augmentation of the British troops in India by the addition of ten thousand men, and the augmentation of the Native Army in India by the addition of seventeen thousand men, which was agreed upon by the Governor of India and the late Government, is being proceeded with; what

  1481
  will be the full strength of the British troops in India after the trooping season 1886–7, and the full strength of the Native Army in India at the same time; what progress has been made towards raising the four additional Sikh and the five additional Ghoorka regiments; and, when these regiments will be added to the effective Military strength of India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): The authorized addition to the European Force was 10,657 men. Of these about 6,400 were sent out last trooping season. The total permanent addition to the Native Army is between 16,000 and 17,000 men. Orders have been issued for the increase of some 4,500 men to the Cavalry; and two at least of the five additional Ghoorka regiments have been raised, and recruits for the others are, it is understood, coming in satisfactorily. If the remainder of the Europeans are sent out during next trooping season and the whole of the additional Native Forces are raised, the full European Establishment will be 69,764, and the Native 141,000. No Orders have yet been issued for raising any of the Native Forces except those I have already specified; and it rests with the Government of India to use its discretion, having regard to financial and other considerations, as to the time of issuing them.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-IRREGULAR ATTENDANCE OF OFFICERS.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND(for Mr. H. CAMPBELL)asked Mr. Attorney General, Who is responsible for the punctual and regular atendance of the officers of the Royal Courts of Justice; is it the fact that there is great irregularity in the attendance, some officials arriving about 11.30, and leaving before 3, and, in consequence, much loss of time to the public and suitors generally; and, is there any time or attendance book for signature by the various officers and clerks, and who has the supervision of it?
  MR. ADDISONinquired whether it was not within the knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the officials in question gave great satisfaction both to the Bar and to the public attending the Courts, by their civility and punctual attendance to their duties?
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished to know whether some of the Taxing Masters in Chancery were not Directors of Public Companies, and as such went away to attend to meetings of the Directors during official hours?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, he could not properly be asked to join in the general commendation which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) had expressed; and with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) he had no information. He was not yet in possession of the facts in regard to the Question on the Paper, which perhaps the hon. Member would renew on a future occasion.

  DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—THE COLONIAL AND IMPERIAL NAVAL FORCES.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Governments of any of our greater Colonies have expressed willingness to consider some scheme for the amalgamation of the Colonial and Imperial Naval Forces; whether negotiations have been opened with any of those colonies for the purpose of considering any definite scheme: and, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers explaining what has been done in this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I am afraid it would be difficult to give a complete reply to the hon. Member within the limits of an answer to a Question. But I may state generally that such of the Australian Colonies as possess Navies of their own have, with the loyalty and patriotism which all the Colonies have always exhibited when Imperial interests were at stake, expressed their willingness to co-operate with the Home Government in any measures which might be found necessary for the defence of that part of the Empire. In order to give practical effect to that desire, Lord Derby, when Colonial Secretary, formulated a scheme for the naval defence of the Australasian Colonies, which was adopted with some slight modifications by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley). That scheme will be submitted and ex-

  1483
  plained by Admiral Tryon, the Admiral in command of the Australian Station, to a meeting about to be held at Melbourne, at which most of the Australasian Colonies will be represented, and the Colonial Governments which will not then be represented are considering the subject separately. From what I have stated, my hon. Friend will, I think, see that the time has not yet arrived when any Papers explaining what has been done in the matter could be usefully laid before Parliament.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT—POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS.
  MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that party political associations were, as a matter of form, dissolved for the period of the last General Election; and, whether the Corrupt Practices Act makes these associations illegal; and, if so, whether this temporary dissolution of the associations carries out the provisions of the Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I have no information as to the first part of this Question, other than that in the hands of every Member; but, so far as I understand, the main purpose sought to be accomplished by a dissolution of these associatious is to narrow the area of agency, and has nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the association itself. I will not express any opinion as to the legality of any particular association; but, generally speaking, I may say that I am not aware of any provision of the Corrupt Practices Act which makes illegal any political association properly constituted and conducted.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, How many schemes the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department have at the present time in preparation or under consideration; and, whether he will order that in future a list of all schmes and charitable or educational trusts, for the time being under consideration of the Charity Commission, be exhibited daily for public inspection free of charge in the office of the said Commission?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): I am unable to
  1484
  answer precisely the first Question of the hon. Member, for the words "schemes in preparation or under consideration" represent no formal stages of the procedure of the Charity Commissioners. But I may refer him to pages 23 to 27 of their Report for 1885, just issued, in which he will find the state of progress of all schemes published by the Commisioners. I am not prepared to recommend that a daily list of schemes under consideration should be made for public inspection, as this would be a restriction on administration which should not be imposed on any Public Department. All information as to the progress of any particular scheme or case can now be obtained by application to the Office of the Charity Commission.

  EGYPT—OCCUPATION BY ITALY OF MASSOWAH.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when the Italians took possession of Massowah, any arrangement was made with them for the permanent occupation of that place; and, if so, can he state the terms of the agreement; and, whether, in the event of the British Army leaving Suakin, any arrangement has been made with the Italian Government for the permanent retention of Massowah, or for keeping the peace of the Soudan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): No arrangement has been made with the Italian Government for the permanent occupation of Massowah. Lord Granville informed the Italian Ambassador, on the 23rd of December, 1884, that if the Italian Government wished to occupy any of the ports in the Red Sea relinquished by the Egyptian Government, it was a matter for arrangement between the Italian Government and the Porte. (Blue Book, Egypt, No. 14, 1885, page 70.) No arrangement has been made with the Italian Government for the retention of Massowah, or for keeping the peace of the Soudan in the event of the British Army leaving Suakin.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Are the Italian Government paying the expenses of the occupation themselves, or the Egyptian Government, or is any other Government contributing to the expenses of the occupation?
  MR. BRYCE: So far as I can answer that Question without Notice, I believe the Italian Government are paying it all themselves.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE ANTRIM GRAND JURY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Mayor of Belfast, Sir Edward Harland, was summoned to serve on the county Antrim Grand Jury at the current Spring Assizes; whether a number of local gentlemen regularly summoned for many years past were not summoned on this last occasion; whether amongst those who were summoned by the high sheriff, Mr. Samuel Allen, and who served at the Spring Assizes, was Mr. John Leslie Beers, formerly governor of the county Antrim prison, and now governor of the Kilmainham prison, Dublin; and, whether a governor is permitted to absent himself for several days from his post for the purpose of acting as a grand juror, and, in that capacity, aiding the adoption of a political resolution, which formed part of the transactions of the Antrim Grand Jury?
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONBefore answering the Question, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House whether it is not the case that Mr. Beers was on leave at the time, and also inform the House whether there is any Statute which prohibits gentlemen holding the position which is filled by Mr. Beers—and being at the same time the landowner of a county—serving on a Grand Jury; and also whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the High Sheriff of Antrim was not quite as justified in summoning Mr. Beers, a landowner, as the National Party were justified in choosing a leader from the same class? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The latter part of the Question is irregular.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)said, he was informed that the fact was as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. He was not aware, however, whether, as stated in the second paragraph, any gentlemen who were usually summoned were not so summoned at the last Assizes. The duty of summoning Grand Jurors rested with the High Sheriff
  1486
  under the provisions of the Grand Jury Act. He was informed that Mr. Beers was not given leave of absence for the purpose of attending, but he was on leave, and, being summoned, he attended.

  IRELAND — HOME RULE—ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF LANDLORDS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Constabulary have information that a landlord named Waller, residing near Navan, county Meath, has sent round his steward to his tenants and labourers to call for their signatures to a petition against Home Rule, and to extort compliance by the intimation that, if they refused, "the master wouldn't be their friend;" whether another landlord named Tisdall, in the same district, has acted in a similar manner; whether attempts are being made, in various parts of Ireland, to compel tenants and labourers to sign petitions against Home Rule, by threats of eviction and disemployment; and, whether the Constabulary will be instructed to inquire into and report upon such proceedings?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I find on inquiry that the Constabulary have no information to bear out in any way the allegation mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Notice.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — CHISLEHURST SCHOOL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention, or that of his predecessor, has been called to the Correspondence relating to the Catholic school at Chislehurst; whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's inspector has reported that during the last school-year there was an average attendance of more than thirty, and that all the other conditions for gaining the grant had been fulfilled; whether it is true that the Department has refused the grant for that year, although the school has been under inspection, and the managers have been claiming the grant for the past nine years; upon what section of what Act of Parliament such refusal of the grant is founded; whether the Code (Section 19) explains "the annual grant list" as "the list of schools

  1487
  claiming annual grants;" whether the managers of Chislehurst school have been claiming the grant for several years; whether this refusal of the grant for the first year in which it has been earned is ever extended to Board schools, or to schools within a School Board district; and, whether he will examine into the circumstances of this case, and consider whether the grant should be conceded; and, in case of an adverse decision, lay the Correspondence upon the Table?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): On the 1st November, 1885, the Chislehurst Roman Catholic School established that it had had for 12 months an average attendance of more than 30, and, according to Article 91 of the Code, it was at once put on the annual grant list. For several years before it had claimed a grant without fulfilling this condition of the Code; refusal was then based on the 97th section of the Act of 1870, which makes compliance with the Code essential. The 19th Article of the Code is ambiguous in language, but it has always been held to mean that "schools claiming grants," are schools establishing their claims to grants. There has been no refusal to give the grant when the condition of 12 months' precedent average attendance was established. Article 91 does not apply to School Board districts, and the case could not arise with Board Schools, as they could make no claim under it. I am not prepared to lay the Correspondence on the Table, as it is voluminous and refers to more details of administration.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been drawn to a recent case in the country Longford, wherein three orders for attachment had been issued against three persons for contempt of court; whether the contempt of court consisted in forcibly retaking possession of a farm from which they had been evicted; whether the sheriff had only been successful in arresting one of the parties, John Clarke, now in Sligo Gaol; whether, in alluding to the other two cases, Judge Boyd had said, as follows:—
  1488
  "That it was a strange state of affairs to which the Country was reduced, when there was a warrant issued by one of Her Majestys' Courts, and the authorities refused to give the police authority to execute the warrant. The idea of a sheriff making a return that, in consequence of the refusal of the authorities to give police protection before 8 a.m., the two persons could not be arrested;"
  and, whether the Irish Executive contemplated taking any steps to carry out the Law?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)said, he was not in a position to reply now, and asked that the Question should be repeated.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF DISTRICT INSPECTOR TILLY.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether District Inspector R. H. Tilly, of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed now at Cavan, was, twenty-five years ago, admitted to the Constabulary Force as a cadet, having duly passed the medical and competitive examinations; whether a month or two after his examination, a question arose as to defect, due to hesitation in Mr. Tilly's manner of speech, and he was medically examined a second time and declared to be fit for service; whether in November last, it having come to the turn of Mr. Tilly to be promoted to the rank of County Inspector, he was summoned before a Council of three Officers at the Castle without being informed of the purpose of the summoning, and was informed two days after, by the Inspector General, that his character, private and official, was without reproach, but that, so far as concerned promotion, he was to be passed over; whether the defect of speech referred to is of greater moment in regard to the office of District Inspector than to that of County Inspector; and, whether, in view of the length of Inspector Tilly's service, and of the fact that he has a large family dependent upon him, the Government will allow him the promotion to which, in the regular course of seniority, he has become entitled?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, this case came by way of appeal before the Earl of Carnarvon and the late Chief Secretary. The facts were laid very fully before them both in the

  1489
  reports of the examiners and of heads of the office, and also in memorials and testimonials submitted by Mr. Tilly. The conclusion arrived at was that no sufficient reason had been shown for interfering with the decision arrived at after full and careful consideration of all the circumstances.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any remonstrance from commercial quarters with reference to the absence of a sufficient representation of commercial interests upon the Indian Committee; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the most important tie between this Country and India is a commercial one, he will undertake to examine the matter, with a view to acceding to the desire of the remonstrants, and so as to give a practical direction to the inquiry?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): To the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question I have to reply that the only suggestion which has reached me from any commercial body is that which he handed to me on Friday from the executive committee of the London Chamber of Commerce. In answer to the second paragraph, I am not prepared to admit, having regard to the nature of the inquiry, which involves many questions not connected with commerce, that the proposed selection of members is otherwise than a fair one. I may remind the House that if our proposals are accepted there will be on the Joint Committee one Peer and one eminent Member of this House closely connected with the commercial interests of the City of London, and at least one other Member identified with the commercial interests of the cotton districts of England.

  AFRICA (CENTRAL)—MURDER OF BISHOP HANNINGTON.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give any authentic information relating to the murder of Bishop Hannington; and, whether it is proposed to take any steps
  1490
  with the Native chiefs in reference to this outrage?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): All the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this sad occurrence has been forwarded to the Church Missionary Society by whom it has been published. Sir John Kirk, Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar, endeavoured by means of letters from himself and from the Sultan of Zanzibar to influence the King of Uganda in the Bishop's favour; but it is not known whether these letters reached the King before the event. The distance of this powerful Kingdom from the coast makes it difficult to take steps for the exaction of any reparation.

  EGYPT—THE GARRISONS IN THE SOUDAN.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw Her Majesty's troops from the posts they have occupied on the Nile Railway, and from Wady Halfa, to Assouan; if it is intended to abandon the Nile Railway, and the frontier at Wady Halfa, or whether they are to be held by Egyptian troops; and whether, if so, the course proposed has had the unreserved concurrence of the Khedival Government, and has been recommended by the English and Turkish Commissioners now in Egypt; when the decision arrived at will take effect; what forces at present constitute the Army of Occupation in Egypt; and, what will be the strength and composition of the troops which will remain there?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government gradually and with due regard to local circumstances to withdraw Her Majesty's troops to Assouan. The frontier at Wady Halfa would then be held by Egyptian troops. This decision has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government on their own responsibility; and they will be ready to make to Parliament at the proper time such communication of details as may be required. With regard to the matter of

  1491
  fact as to which the right hon. Gentleman inquires, the number of our forces in Egypt, by the latest Report, was 17,108 officers and men.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that portion of my Question relating to the railways. I should also like to know when the decision arrived at will take effect?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have stated that Her Majesty's troops are to be withdrawn from Wady Halfa to Assouan. The right hon. Gentleman can judge for himself what effect that will have upon the railway. As to the other Question, we shall have regard to local circumstances.

  COMMISSION ON DEPRESSION OF TRADE—THE SILVER CURRENCY.
  MR. GOSCHENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the deep and increasing interest shown in various parts of the Country in the silver question, he will consider the expediency of separating this urgent subject from the other matters referred to the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade, and of appointing a separate Commission to inquire into the position of silver, the condition of the currency, and the various plans of utilising silver to a greater extent for currency purposes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I have communicated with the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade, and I learn from him that the Commission has undertaken and already begun to inquire into this question. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government do not feel disposed to interpose in this matter.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention had been drawn to a letter sent from the India Office to the Treasury in January with regard to the fall in the value of silver; and, whether he could lay that letter on the Table of the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot say until a decision has been taken on that matter, which has not yet been done.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—PATENT BALLOT MACHINE.
  MR. COOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the "patent model," now on view in the Conference Room, for recording the numbers of votes at elections, and momentarily ascertaining the state of the poll for each candidate; and, whether he will be prepared to recommend its adoption generally throughout the Country, especially in counties, so as to afford facilities to the returning officer to declare the poll on the day of the election?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir, I have carefully examined the model in the Conference Room, which appears to me a very ingenious and not too elaborate contrivance for recording the votes given to candidates at elections. Its object is to record the number of votes given at each polling place to the respective candidates, so that the total poll may be made up in a few minutes after the returns from those polling places have been received. This, however, is inconsistent with one of the chief objects of the Ballot Act, Section 34 of which provides that the whole of the ballot papers from all the polling places must be mixed together before they are counted. It appears to me that this provision of the Act is one of great importance, and if it is to be maintained the proposed machinery could not be adopted.
  MR. COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many places the ballot papers are not mixed, but counted from the boxes from the different polling stations?
  MR. CHILDERS: Where that is the case, all I can say is that the Returning Officers and all concerned are violating the law.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—"BOYCOTTING"—CASE OF JOHN FORAN, GALLEY, CO. KERRY.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government is aware of the fact, that a man named John Foran, of the parish of Galley, county Kerry, has been boycotted for a long time past, and was unable to procure a coffin last

  1493
  month, in either the town of Listowel or Ballylongford for his wife's remains, and had it not been for the humanity of Mr. Sandes of Sallowglen, who got his own carpenter to make him one, the body would have had to be buried without a coffin; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to enable Her Majesty's subjects to provide the means of decent interment for deceased members of their family?
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was not a purely local matter; whether Foran was convicted of fraud; and whether he was not generally odious in the locality?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am afraid I cannot say what was Foran's popularity in his own district. It appears that he has been more or less "Boycotted" for some time past. He was at one time under personal police protection, but this was withdrawn at his own request in February, 1885. The allegation with respect to the coffin is, I am informed, unfounded. It is quite true the coffin was supplied by Mr. Sandes's carpenter, who was the first person to whom Foran applied, and he was not refused one at Listowel, Ballylongford, or any other place.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—LOSS OF THE "OREGON."
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If there is any regulation requiring seagoing vessels to carry boats to accommodate the number of persons they are permitted to carry; if this regulation is enforced; and, if the Oregon had such a supply of boats; and, if not, on what grounds are such vessels excused from carrying a full complement?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): By Statute a passenger steamer is required to carry boats according to her net registered tonnage, and not according to the number of persons she is permitted to carry. This regulation is strictly enforced, and the Oregon was not excused from carrying her full complement of boats. The law requires seven boats, of 1,893 cubic feet capacity, or six boats, of 2,035 cubic feet; in each case two of them must be lifeboats with 1,000 cubic feet aggregate capacity. The Oregon had 10 boats,
  1494
  of the capacity of 3,650 cubic feet, of which four were lifeboats with an aggregate capacity exceeding 2,000 cubic feet; and the Board of Trade had ascertained, as they do in all cases of steamers carrying more than 12 passengers, that these boats, with their equipments and lowering gear, were in good order and thoroughly efficient. Besides this, she had on board 120 cork lifejackets and 600 lifebuoys. The passengers and crew were all saved.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if the right hon. Gentleman could state the number of passengers that were on board the Oregon, and the carrying capacity of the boats?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot tell that; but I have already stated that the capacity of the boats depends on the tonnage of the steamer, and not on the number of passengers.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman another Question on the subject.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE LAND TAX COMMISSION.
  MR. FRANCIS POWELLasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether he has any objection to giving a Return containing the names and addresses of the persons whom it is proposed to name as additional Land Tax Commissioners, in order that the same may be published before the next stage of the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill?
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER), in reply, said, that the names of the additional Land Tax Commissioners were published in The London Gazette. If it could be shown that there was any general desire for the Return for which the hon. Member asked, he would agree to its publication.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CO. DONEGAL QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on the inhabitants of the Barony of South Raphoe in county Donegal, in having to go all the way to Lifford, he will suggest to His Excellency the desirability and the convenience of having quarter ses-

  1495
  sions held at least twice a year at Stranorlar?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Quarter Sessions of the County Donegal were, after inquiry, re-arranged by Proclamation in May last year, and in the following October a further Memorial was presented to the Privy Council; but that Body decided that it was inexpedient to make any further changes until the effect of the Proclamation was better ascertained.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the matter will be reconsidered?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I cannot say at present.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What action, if any, has been taken as to the carrying out of necessary improvements on Kingstown East Pier, for which estimates were furnished by Mr. P. A. Doyle, C.E.; and, if no action has been taken, whether the Lords of the Admiralty will, within a reasonable time, take the matter in hand?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The improvements in question are wholly intended to promote the recreation and amusement of visitors to Kingstown; and Mr. Doyle and other gentlemen interested in Kingstown were recently informed by the Commissioners of Public Works as Harbour Commissioners that no objection would be raised to the execution of the scheme if carried out from other than public funds.

  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS—APPOINTMENT OF DR. DONALDSON.
  MR. BOYD-KINNEARasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that Dr. Donaldson, Professor of Latin in the University of Aberdeen, has been appointed Principal of the University of St. Andrews; and, if it is true, whether he will state the grounds on which a stranger to the University has been appointsd over the head of candidates connected with it?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN): It is the case that Dr. Donaldson has been appointed Principal of St. Andrews University, on the ground that he is a very learned man, of varied experience in teaching, who holds very enlightened views on University education. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] Well, it appears from the exclamation of the noble Lord that he thinks no one should be appointed Principal who is not a Conservative. While duly appreciating the qualifications of other candidates, I came to the conclusion that he was the best man for the position. I am not aware that there is any usage of appointing Professors to the Principal-ship of the University with which they are connected.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT — THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause inquiry to be made whether the following statement is substantially correct, viz.: That 36,000 employés of The London and North Western Railway Company met in London not many days ago to consider their position with regard to the proposed Amendment to the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and unanimously resolved to petition Parliament to have their case specially considered, as they are better protected by their present Insurance Society than they would be under the Act; that their agreement to contract out of the Act was an entirely voluntary arrangement between themselves and the Company, and has resulted far more beneficially for the employés than if they had not done so, the compensation paid in respect of claims for accidents being relatively far greater, and moreover such compensation having been frequently paid for accidents in respect to which they would have been unable to claim under the Act; that the said employés look with apprehension on any measure that would deprive them of the right to contract themselves out of the Act where the Company contributes to the funds of their Insurance Society, as any such legislation would throw on the men burdens of a much larger contribution than at present paid by them, without any corresponding benefit; whether

  1497
  he will make inquiry by whose authority the aforesaid meeting was convened, and whether any but employés were present; whether the suggestion that the employés have signed a document, to the effect that they are satisfied with the Act as it now stands, only under compulsion is in the slightest degree compatible with the foregoing statement; and, what steps the Board of Trade intend to take in order to ascertain and give full effect to the true and unbiassed wishes of the aforesaid employés and others in a like position?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): I have been informed by the London and North-Western Railway Company that the statement contained in the hon. Member's Question is correct, and that the meeting referred to was convened by the workmen. It would appear that the suggestion that the workmen signed a document under compulsion to the effect that they are satisfied with the Act as it now stands is not compatible with the foregoing statement. As I understand that the Bill in question will be referred to a Select Committee, before which the delegates of the workmen will be able to express their own views, I do not think it is desirable that I should take any further steps in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the Question had reference to one which he placed on the Paper on Friday. After he had asked that Question a deputation from the men employed by the London and North-Western Railway Company waited upon him, and explained that the document referred to in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman had been signed with the greatest possible willingness and without pressure by all the men who belonged to the Insurance Society. It was clear, therefore, that in the first instance he had been misinformed, and he wished to state so to the House.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic curate of the Stradbally District of the Queen's County gave notice to his flock that he would require to see each of their Poor
  1498
  Law voting papers before they were collected by the police; and, whether the Constabulary will be instructed to inquire into and report upon such proceedings?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Every possible inquiry has been made by the police, and they cannot find that there is any truth whatever in this allegation. It appears that there has been no contest in that electoral division this year.

  STATE OF IRELAND — CONDITION OF CORK AND TIPPERARY — CHARGES OF THE JUDGES OF ASSIZE.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the charges delivered to the Grand Juries of Cork and Tipperary, on Wednesday last, by Mr. Justice O'Brien and Mr. Justice Johnston, in which they are reported to have said as follows:—
  "Mr. Justice O'Brien (Cork)—'I am forced to say that I can observe no sign whatsover that the waters have subsided. For although the aggregate of crime, of reported crime, comprised within the interval, hardly exceeding two months, must necessarily be very small, yet within that aggregate are elements that can lead certainly to no very satisfactory or favourable conclusion with reference to the condition of this part of the country. I find that in all those forms of outrage and violation of the law that must be taken to be certain and unquestionable indications of the state of public feeling, the late account of this county is less satisfactory than the former one. For example, in the cases of killing and maiming cattle, a large increase has appeared in it. In the cases of malicious injury to property there is also an increase; an increase, perhaps, in the number of cases, but certainly no decrease whatever in the quality and degree. In the cases of notices resulting from the object and design of intimidation, there is at least no decrease in one part of the county, and a great increase in the other, and even the character of the offence or the form of outrage has apparently become more bold and more alarming.'
  "Mr. Justice Johnston (Clonmel)—'Turning to the report that I have received from the authorities, I am sorry to say that the return which has been presented to me of those cases specially reported for this riding of this great county, as compared with the corresponding period of last year, shows that crime has increased by nearly one-fourth. The increase appears to be in housebreaking, in robbery, in killing and maiming cattle, and in what are known popularly as Whiteboy offences, in assaulting houses, and in threatening letters. This report is not a state of things on which this riding of the county is to be congratulated;'"

  1499
  and, whether the Irish Executive have any reason to believe that the state of these counties is inaccurately described by these Judges?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question I would like to ask this further Question, Whether his attention has been called to some remarks of Mr. Justice O'Brien in the Court in Cork on Saturday last with reference to Mrs. John Lucas, who was charged with setting fire to her husband's house, and pretending that it was an agrarian outrage, her husband being a J.P., in which his Lordship stated that Mrs. Lucas had been guilty of an offence of the greatest heinousness to be dealt with in the strictest manner, more especially as the state of the times furnished many with a pretext for covering their crimes and casting the blame on those who were in no way responsible for it?
  MR. HOOPER: I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this case, in which a magistrate's wife was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, was not the most serious case at trial at the Cork Assizes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): My attention was naturally directed to the remarks of the learned Judge in the unfortunate case of Mrs. Lucas. It scarcely falls, however, within the scope of the Question on the Paper. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I have, of course, seen the charges referred to both at Cork and Tipperary. As regards Cork, the observations of Mr. Justice O'Brien are weakened by the fact that he appears somehow to have regarded the Return presented to him as extending over a period hardly exceeding two months, whereas in reality it covered some days more than three months. Turning from that, and looking to the recent Returns of agrarian crime, I find that the number of such outrages in the County Cork was in November last year 9, in December 11, in January 17, and in February it fell again to 11. In Tipperary county the number in November was 14, in December 13, in January 8, and in February 9. There are, therefore, no indications in our Returns of the growth at present of crime of this kind, but rather the reverse.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) — THE "EXCELLENT" MERIT GRANT.
  MR. WOODHEADasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, under the present Government, or during the period of Lord Salisbury's administration, the Education Department has given instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors to reduce or limit the number of schools receiving the "Excellent" merit grant; and, whether there is any uniformity of standard in awarding such merit grants,—as between different Inspectors; as between Town and Country; and as between Board Schools and Denominational Schools?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): No instructions have been issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors to reduce or limit the number of schools receiving the "Excellent" merit grant. The greatest possible efforts are made to secure uniformity of standard all through the country and among all classes of schools in awarding the merit grant; and I have reason to believe that they are to a great degree successful, although, no doubt, as the decisions depend upon individual judgments, the uniformity as between different Inspectors cannot be absolute.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WRITING ROOM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. LALORasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is aware of the very defective lighting of the "Writing Room" of the Library of this House; and, if so, will he adopt measures to remedy the defect?
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER): If the hon. Member will be so good as to point out to me what are the precise defects of which he complains I shall be happy to endeavour to remedy them.

  IMPERIAL FEDERATION — CONFERENCE DURING THE COLONIAL EXHIBITION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If advantage will be taken of the presence in the mother country, during the forthcoming Colonial Exhi-

  1501
  bition, of many leading statesmen and representatives of our Australasian, Canadian, and South African brethren, to assemble a Conference, under the official auspices of Her Majesty's Government, to inquire into the practicability of Imperial Federation, and so formulate, if possible, proposals for the consideration of the Imperial and Colonial Parliaments, calculated to strengthen the ties uniting the British people, and to consolidate the Governments of their Territories for such Imperial purposes as defence, commerce, and Foreign affairs, while reserving local legislative independence for all portions of the Empire now separately administered; and, in such case, if notice thereof will be telegraphically transmitted to the several Governors, for the information of their Ministers, that the most fitting delegates may be selected?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): We should be very sorry to omit any opportunity which appeared to afford an opening for strengthening in any way the relations of the Colonies with this country; and I need not say that subjects of that kind are constantly under consideration—as, for instance, the subject of defence at the present time; but I do not perceive that the occasion referred to by the hon. Member could be turned to account in the way he proposes. I do not think we should take measures for assembling a Conference for the purpose of considering the subject of Federation unless we were prepared to lay before them a plan. They would have considerable ground of complaint if we had not such a plan. We have no such plan to lay before them, and therefore cannot agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  STATE OF IRELAND—"BOYCOTTING"—STATEMENTS OF CLERGYMEN OF THE IRISH CHURCH.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, among other expressions of opinion elicited by his appeal as to the state of feeling in Ireland in relation to the establishment of a separate Parliament for that Country, his attention has been drawn to the very grave condition of things in that portion of the Empire, as evidenced by the communications addressed to The Record by four hundred
  1502
  and sixty of the beneficed clergy of the Irish Church in the provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, showing that there were three hundred and fourteen cases of boycotting; whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ascertain whether such cases are authentic; and, if so, how do they propose to redress that condition of things; and, in view of the fact that the present revenues and the security of the invested capital of the Church of Ireland have been seriously affected by the present crisis, whether he will take steps to have transferred the mortgages of the Irish Church body from the threatened security of Irish land to Government securities, in order that the Church may not lose any large portion of what was left her of her diminished patrimony?
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the last part of the Question is in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have noticed the paragraph; but I do not perceive that it is out of Order.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTOKE): The courtesy of the editor of a newspaper has supplied me with a copy of this information which is not otherwise in our possession in that form; but I have no reason to suppose that it adds to the information already placed before us by the observations and inquiries of the police. If there are any cases not known to the police I should be very happy to make them the subject of inquiry. Of course, we are aware that there is a serious amount of pressure upon individuals from the system known as "Boycotting" in Ireland. In the month of October last there were 800 or 900 cases of that kind; but that is now five months ago. Since that time there has been no increase in the number of these cases. In regard to the closing paragraph of the Question, I am bound to say that I do not regard the matter referred to as in any way connected with the duty of the Government. I think it would be a very unmanageable responsibility for us to recommend or procure investments of funds belonging to the Church Body in Ireland, which is, of course, essentially a private association; and I am not at all sure that the members of that Body would feel themselves placed under any obligation to us if we were so to interfere.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I am anxious to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question affecting the Business this evening. I understand that it is necessary, in point of law, that the Votes for the men and money in the Army Estimates should be taken to-night. The House will perceive that there are several Notices of Motion of interest and importance on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, and they will probably occupy a considerable time. It may very well be, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will not be able to make his statement until a late hour in the evening, so that no opportunity for debate on that statement will be afforded to the House to-night. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Votes be taken to-night, there will be an opportunity given to us on Thursday next of debating the question?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; unquestionably, if the course of the debate to-night should render it difficult properly to discuss the statement of my right hon. Friend, we will give the earliest opportunity in our power for the purpose of that discussion, and that, I believe, will be arranged on Thursday next. We are very anxious to get forward with the Crofters' Bill, and that Bill should not give way to anything excepting the Army Estimates in the event anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman.

  RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE—PROCEDURE AT QUESTION TIME.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged extraordinary conduct of the police at Leeds last Friday?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that the Question of the hon. Member comes within the new Rule requiring that Notice of Questions should be given beforehand to the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsubsequently rose and commenced to put the same Question.
  MR. SPEAKERagain interposed, and refused to allow the Question to be put.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood that, according to the Rule, although a Notice of a Question could not be given orally, it would be open to Members to ask supplementary Questions in addition to those on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have endeavoured to put the best interpretation in my power upon the Rule. Supplementary Questions purely seeking for the elucidation of former answers are in Order; but supplementary Questions which it cannot be in the power of a Minister to answer at the moment, I regard as belonging to those of which Notice should be given.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that his Question was one which it was entirely in the power of the Home Secretary to answer. Would the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police at Leeds?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now evading my ruling.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the rules and conditions laid down, and the views expressed by him on the 8th of June, 1883, the circumstances which occurred at half-past 10 on Friday evening last, when the Government declined to set up Supply, constituted one of those rare occasions when the Government were justified in taking that course?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Yes, Sir; in our opinion they did constitute one of those rare occasions.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to give Notice—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that Notice would be required of any further Question the right hon. Gentleman might desire to put on the subject.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, rising to Order, asked whether the Resolution come to last week by the House on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin - Ibbetson) excluded Notices of Motion from being given vivâ voce?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not. I understood the right hon. Gentleman

  1505
  began his remarks by saying—"I propose to ask."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was about to give Notice of a Motion in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts in the same terms as those used by the right hon. Gentleman on the 8th of Juno, 1883.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the second reading of this Bill would be taken?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA)said, he was afraid he could not give a definite answer.
  SIR RICHARD PAGEThoped the right hon. Gentleman would give ample Notice of the day on which he proposed to take the second reading.

  AFFAIRS OF BURMAH.
  Mr. WODEHOUSEIn reply to Mr. WODEHOUSE (Bath),
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir UGHTRED KAYSHITITLEWORTH)said, a telegram, dated March 21, had been received at the India Office from the Viceroy in the following terms:—
  "General Prendergast telegraphs that he has dispersed the large body of insurgents collected at Yemethen, and that the neighbouring Woons are in friendly communication with him."

  ARMY—THE INFANTRY OF THE LINE (NUMBERS).
  MR. BRANDasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the number of the Infantry of the Line (exclusive of depôts) now serving at home; what is the number serving abroad; what is the number serving in India, and in the Colonies; and, what will be the probable distribution on 1st January 1887?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): The strength of the Infantry of the Line at home (exclusive of depôts) is 33,803. The Infantry depôts at present contain 14,615 men. There are 81,746 abroad, of whom 52,217 are in India, 15,765 in the Colonies, and 13,764 in Egypt. It is at present proposed that on the 1st of
  1506
  January next the Establishment of Infantry of the Line should be thus distributed—At home, 52,956; in India, 50,998; in the Colonies, 16,110; and in Egypt, 6,269. As the number of battalions in Egypt will have been reduced, the establishments of the depôts will be 9,459.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEER CAPITATION GRANT.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, for the efficiency and development of the Volunteer Force, an immediate increase in the Capitation Grant is absolutely and urgently necessary,"
    said: There are so many hon. Members around me intimately acquainted with the condition of the Volunteer Force from service therein, that it will not be necessary for me, I hope, to detain the House at any great length. The circumstances attending the formation of the present Volunteer Force will be well within the recollection of the House. At the mere rumour of the possible invasion of this Island by a foreign nation, tens of thousands of all ages, of all callings, and of all classes, flocked to arms. As you, Mr. Speaker, doubtless remember, working men vied with nobles and with each other in their demonstrations of patriotism and of loyalty. The danger, if it ever existed, passed away; but not so the National Army created by the apprehension. In 1859 the supreme importance of national defence was indelibly impressed upon the hearts of a large proportion of British subjects; and it is there, Sir, to-day, after 27 years of stern proof, stronger than ever. Few, indeed, were able to believe that so vast a force could be long held together by national spirit alone. Prophets were not wanting, as they never are, who loudly declared that so soon as the danger disappeared, and, forsooth, that as soon as the novelty of military exercise or of uniform wore off,

    1507
    the Volunteer Force would fall away and die. But, as every man in this country and every hon. Member of this House knows, the prophets and the critics were wrong, as they usually are. The Volunteer Force encountered much ridicule, much discouragement, and much opposition. But, to the glory of the British nation, it has come triumphant through it all, and now is entitled, I submit, to take rank as one of the most remarkable national institutions in the world. It evokes the admiration, it excites the envy of foreign nations. They cannot understand how an Army now nearly 250,000 strong can possibly be maintained, not only without compulsion, but without pay, or the receipt of any civil advantage of any sort or kind. The British Volunteers gladly sacrifice both leisure and money, and undergo much discomfort and inconvenience, to submit themselves to military discipline, and undergo military training. It cannot fail to be a source of pride to be associated with such splendid men in a position of authority; but many hon. and gallant Members will share the difficulty I feel, after commanding two Metropolitan regiments, in understanding why men should go through so much as do the Volunteers for such scanty recognition at the hands of their countrymen. Let the House but reflect for a minute upon what the Volunteer Force has done, and is still doing, for the country. There can hardly be a doubt, Sir, that had it not been for this glorious institution we should ere this have been compelled to adopt some form of compulsory service. Some hon. Members may disagree with me; but I submit that it would have been impossible for Great Britain to have remained passive while every European country converted their able-bodied manhood into soldiery. Our concern with Continental affairs may be small by comparison; but a few miles of sea would not have been sufficient to insure our insular safety, if we had not felt that a large proportion of the male population were training themselves to defend our shores against any invader. I do not hesitate to say that we owe it to the Volunteer Force that the yoke of conscription does not oppress the necks of our youth. But the Volunteer Force has rendered yet another service to the country, and this not of a military character. It has promoted the physical development of
    1508
    the nation, and it has added a great interest to the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men. It has fired their laudable ambition, and provided them with honourable recreation. There is, I feel sure, not an hon. Member having many persons in his employ who does not look with favour upon those under him joining the Volunteer Force. He knows that healthy recreation is the surest preparation for good and useful work. It is for this, among other reasons, that great mercantile houses such as Shoolbreds, Maples, Broad woods, Trollopes, Lamberts, and dozens of other patriotic firms, spend large sums annually upon the Volunteer Companies recruited, among their employés. They recognize the great moral value of the Volunteer Force. My hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite will agree that many working men share this feeling. There is, indeed, hardly a place of business in the country whose best hands have not been, or are not, Volunteers. The national and patriotic feeling, I say without fear of contradiction, is strong among the working men of Great Britain; and it is glorious to see them, after their labour is done, shouldering their rifles in their country's cause, and drilling for hours without fee or reward, and often in the cold and wet. But the Volunteer Force has not only averted conscription, not only been of moral advantage to the nation, but it has also, I feel assured, earned a claim to the gratitude even of those whose opinions are ably reflected in this House by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), for it has preserved peace by showing a readiness for war. What then, Sir, has been the attitude of the State towards the Force? I am glad to be able to say that the prejudice and discouragement it had at one time to encounter are now of the past. At the present time the Volunteer Force receives every encouragement and assistance from His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and the whole of the Military Authorities. The Army no longer regards the Volunteer Force with jealousy and ill-disguised contempt, but as a valued Auxiliary Service, providing many of its best recruits. The House will learn this, I trust, this evening from far more competent lips than mine—as, for instance, from the distinguished and gallant Ge-

    1509
    neral who represents Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley), and the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite the Member for Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). The Volunteer Force, Sir, now consists, as I have already stated, of nearly 250,000 men. They are divided into 213 battalions of Infantry, 60 corps of Artillery, 17 corps of Engineers, and 4 corps of Volunteer horse. Of the total strength of 224,012, no less than 218,207, or 97 per cent were returned last year as efficient according to the requirements of the War Office. These are that they should do 60 drills in the first two years of their service, and subsequently nine drills, besides firing either 60 rounds of ball cartridge on passing into what is technically known as the second musketry class. The War Office conditions being fulfilled, an allowance of 30s. per man is granted to the corps six months after the lapse of the Volunteer year, which begins on November 1, and terminates on October 31. I ask the pardon of the House for entering on these details; but it is of the utmost importance that hon. Members should thoroughly understand the present position of affairs, and I and my hon. Friends who will support me are but the spokesmen of a very large section of our countrymen. The Government gives a further allowance of £1 a-year for those officers and non-commissioned officers who have gone through a course at a school of military instruction, or have passed an examination. The House will be glad to learn that there were last year no less than 18,368 proficients under this head. They also allow 10 s. a-year to the 727 zealous officers who have passed an examination in tactics. Out of the aggregate of these sums every single expense has to be defrayed by the officers and members of Volunteers corps, with the exception of the pay of one Adjutant, an officer of the Regular Army, detached for five years for drill purposes, and three or four Sergeant Instructors per battalion. Rifles and bayonets are, it is true, provided, and there is an allowance of 2s. per day for a limited number of men to go into camp. With these exceptions, and one or two small allowances, everything has to be furnished by the corps. They have to provide uniform, clothing, and equipment for the men, and to hire head-quarters and offices, to rent drill places and ranges, to pay journey ex-
    1510
    penses in transit to and from reviews—in short, to find everything. When it is considered that the provision of uniform alone, without great-coats, costs nearly the whole of the Capitation Grant of 30 s. a man for three years, and that the men, in default of private agreement, are by law entitled to leave after a fortnight's notice, the House will readily understand that the expenses are very much in excess of the Government grant. It is, of course, highly essential that in the consideration of this matter the House should confine its attention entirely to necessary expenditure. If I were to seek to lead hon. Gentlemen into other channels I should be taking up the time of the House unnecessarily, and entering upon the endless field of individual extravagance. In 1878, following a conference of Volunteer officers at the Royal United Service Institution, in which I bore a somewhat active part, a Committee was appointed by the War Office to inquire into the requirements of the Volunteer Force. Many changes for the better resulted therefrom. But as they were precluded from entering into the financial question the position of the Volunteers was not improved, and this notwithstanding that a Return called for elicited the fact that the expenditure of 23 Metropolitan regiments was £9,135 in excess of the receipts from Government. I have lately been favoured with details of the necessary expenses of nearly every regiment in the force, and have them here open to the inspection of hon. Members. Under this head of necessary expenses I include rent of head-quarters or drill places, payment of interest on money borrowed for the purchase of buildings, rent of rifle ranges, uniforms and equipments, travelling expenses to and from reviews, united drills, parades, and ranges, salaries and allowances, bands, issue of orders, printing, and other necessary incidentals. I venture to think that hon. Members will agree that every one of these items is absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the force. A regiment must have a head-quarters, a drill hall wherein to train in the long winter nights, and ranges whereon to shoot. It must be clothed in uniform and pay for transit to reviews, have a certain staff for the transaction of necessary business. It is very desirable that it should go into camp for a few days in the year, and a

    1511
    band has always been found necessary, at all times, in every military body. I will not weary the House by going through the whole of these Returns; but taking 100 regiments, representing about 75,000 men, at random from the whole, I find that for head-quarters, drill places and drill halls, or interest on money borrowed for their erection, they paid last year, in round numbers, £28,000; for rifle ranges, £14,500; for uniform clothing, £53,000; for travelling expenses, £20,000; for salaries, £9,600; for camps, incidentals, and bands, £34,000. The total obligatory expenditure, then, last year of these 100 regiments, representing about one-third of the force, was more than £32,000 in excess of the Government allowances. How was this enormous deficiency of £32,000 provided? It had to be found, in greater part, by the officers, in addition to the expenses they incur of uniforms, prizes, social gatherings, and a dozen other claims. What is the inevitable result of such treatment at the hands of the country to whom we give our time, our study, and the best service we are able to render? It is that great difficulty exists in finding suitable officers. Men without private means are almost excluded from the commissioned rank. Those military men who are compelled by existing Regulations to leave the Army in the prime of life are debarred from continuing their military work, are shut out from the Auxiliary Service, to which they would be simply invaluable, by the great expenses involved. The Volunteer Force now lacks upwards of 1,100 officers, and the difficulty of obtaining them increases from year to year. Surely, Sir, the House will no longer tolerate this short-sighted policy. I trust that hon. Members have noticed the remarkable letter on this subject in to-day's Times from Lord Bury—one of the most competent authorities on the subject. He points out what is undoubtedly the fact, that in the early days of the Volunteer Force many rich men were in their ranks. They have, however, now given place to others less blessed with this world's goods, but more valuable from a military point of view. Subscriptions used to flow in freely. Now they are very difficult to obtain. Will the House permit me to give a single instance of this? I wrote to the late Duke of Wel-
    1512
    lington to help me to raise a small sum to acquire head-quarters for the corps I have the honour to command here in Westminster. The expenditure was and is absolutely necessary. His Grace, well known for his liberality and admiration of the Volunteers, said he disapproved of private individuals being called upon to put their hands into their pockets to discharge the duty of the State. The same answer is now nearly always returned. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, then, as now, Prime Minister, animated doubtless by similar reasons, refused the use of his great name on the Committee formed for the purpose. The War Office refused to advance the money even on the undoubted security of a lease of 99 years. The then Home Secretary, now the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), found it necessary to eject us from Westminster Hall, where, with the London Scottish and London Irish, we had drilled for a quarter of a century. I only mention this as a single instance of the great difficulties under which the Volunteer Force labours. The experience of all is the same. In large towns rents are enormous; ranges are difficult to obtain within accessible distance, and the drill has often to take the form of a peaceable demonstration amid an admiring mob. The Volunteers make no unreasonable demands. We seek no impossibilities from the Government. We seek nothing for ourselves—no civic advantages—not even the relief from jury duty, which the patriotic democracy of America gladly affords the members of its National Guard. But what we do humbly ask of the Representatives of the people of this great nation are the means to provide ourselves with what is absolutely necessary to discharge our duty to our Queen and to our country. If a deaf ear is turned to our entreaty, which is practically that of every Volunteer in Great Britain—of 225,000 men now serving, of 500,000 more who have served—then the Volunteer Force cannot fail to decline. It is a question of the utmost urgency. The force is here to day at the service of the country, full of vitality, but not ready for the field, badly equipped, without great-coats, without knapsacks, without transport, with bad

    1513
    accommodation, cramped and held back in every way by a false and petty economy. What would not Germany, France, Italy, or Russia do for such a force? I hope the hon. Member for Leith opposite (Mr. Jacks), who knows the feeling abroad on the subject, will tell the House what is thought in Germany of the treatment of the British Volunteers by the British Government. We do not seek the charity of our countrymen. We appeal to the gratitude, the patriotism, the foresight of the people of Great Britain and Ireland. These Returns I hold in my hand prove beyond all question that the absolutely necessary expenses of the Volunteer Force are upwards of £100,000 a-year in excess of the Government grant. We may be content to spend £100,000 more, with the help of our friends, towards special matters connected with the efficiency of our regiments and the popularity of the Service. But we do ask the State, in the name of justice—the State for whom we devote ourselves—to give us the means of obtaining the absolute necessities for military duty. This can only be done effectually by an increase of 10 s. per head per efficient in the present Capitation Grant. That is a sum of £110,000. The need is urgent, clear, and positive. No inquiry can throw further light on the matter. I can well understand the anxiety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to incur no unavoidable expense. The anxiety to relieve the taxpayer is shared up to the hilt by hon. Members on these Benches. But let me very respectfully assure the right hon. Gentleman that when he is no longer Chancellor of the Exchequer, but again a Parliamentary candidate, liberality in this respect will repay him a hundred-fold; and future generations, too, will arise in gratitude. We seek but the 1,000th part of the cost of a single day of war, of a single battle, of the mere rumour of invasion. I invoke the generosity of the House. I invoke the patriotism of Her Majesty's Government. I appeal to the liberality of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I appeal to the national feeling of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House; and, lastly, I trust to the undivided support of hon. Gentlemen around me, of the Party in the State whose very name
    1514
    truly symbolizes its one guiding principle, the conservation of the unity of the Empire. The Volunteer Force plays an important part in this sacred duty, and, as such, it appeals with confidence to the generosity of Parliament. It remains now for me, Sir, to thank the House for the attention with which it has been pleased to listen to me, and to beg the indulgence of hon. Members for the very imperfect way in which I have attempted to lay before them the salient requirements of the free and National Army. I beg, then, to submit, for the unanimous and generous consideration of this House, that for the thorough efficiency, maintenance, and development of the Volunteer Force, an immediate increase in the Capitation Grant is absolutely and urgently necessary.
    MR. GURDONsaid, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), and in doing so he (Mr. Gurdon) might observe he fully agreed with all that the hon. Member had advanced in his eloquent and convincing speech. The hon. Member had told the House from his own experience what were the wants and requirements of Volunteer corps in London; and he (Mr. Gurdon), speaking on behalf of country corps—to whom every argument that had been adduced applied with threefold force — could from a long experience say that they in the country required drill sheds, armouries, magazines, training grounds, shooting grounds, &c., equally as much as they were required in London; and, though they were not congregated together in such large bodies, yet, owing to the scattered character of the corps, these requirements were, if anything, more necessary and little less costly. When a battalion consisted of six, eight, or 10 companies, distributed in small and scattered towns, there must be drill shed, rifle ground, armoury, and magazine for each company, and this involved a greater expense in the aggregate than would be necessary if the arrangements could be more concentrated. In fact, the demands upon Volunteers, officers and men, were so heavy that an increase of the Capitation Grant was absolutely necessary if the force was to be maintained in a state of efficiency. At present considerable expenditure over and

    1515
    above the amount allowed by Government as Capitation Grant — however economically the Capitation Grant was spent—was incurred; and the deficiency had to come out of the pockets of officers and men, and those pockets were not just now particularly full. He (Mr. Gurdon) had been so long connected with his regiment that he had begun to think it time to retire to make way for a younger and more active man; but he could not find anyone ready to take his place; and he was convinced that the explanation was that young men feared to undertake the heavy expenditure which the position rendered necessary. This increased the difficulty of finding gentlemen to take the places of officers who wished to retire after years of service. There were still plenty of recruits to be got as privates, as good men as ever entered the force, well-behaved and of good position and standing; but there was the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining officers to fill up vacancies, in the country especially. It was of the greatest importance—and in the country it was even more necessary than in the towns—that a thoroughly efficient body of officers should be maintained. The expense was, of course, not the only reason why officers could not be obtained. He admitted that young men of the upper and middle classes were often strangely idle and lazy, and did not realize, as they ought to do, their duties to the State; but, nevertheless, he believed the question of expense was the main difficulty, and he thought the Government ought to do something towards meeting it. The friends of the Volunteer movement did not ask for a large sum of money—for their great boast was that the Volunteer Force should be a cheap as well as an efficient Volunteer Army—but they asked for a very moderate increase in the Capitation Grant, an increase which would not altogether relieve officers and men from individual effort and sacrifice, but which would do something to help them in making such efforts successful. They regarded the present Chief Secretary as their friend; and as the existence of Governments was sometimes rather precarious, and the right hon. Gentleman might not be in Office another year, they desired to make the most of the present opportunity, and hoped the House would pass the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "for the thorough efficiency, maintenance, and development of the Volunteer Force, an immediate increase in the present capitation grant is absolutely and urgently necessary," — (Mr. Howard Vincent,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. ISAACSsaid, he desired to support the Motion as an old Volunteer officer who for 10 years had been treasurer to a Metropolitan regiment—an office he could not recommend anyone else to undertake. It was a continuous struggle to make the income cover the expenditure, and expedients that were not satisfactory had to be resorted to in order to raise the necessary funds. The regiment of which he was treasurer was 800 strong. The Capitation Grant of 30 s. per head, with extras to officers and others who passed certain examinations, amounted to £1,369. The heads of expenditure were as follows:—Rent of head-quarters, interest on money borrowed for erection of drill hall, &c., £250; rent of rifle range, £126; uniform and equipment of members, £750; travelling expenses to and from ranges, &c., £150; salaries and allowances of staff, £107; band and cost of issuing orders, £250—making a total of £1,633; so that the deficiency was £264. This fell upon the officers, and they had to appeal to their personal friends to assist them in keeping the regiment out of debt. Resort was had to bazaars, theatricals, and concerts to raise the money. In reply to an invitation to take part in the forthcoming Easter review, Colonel W. J. Alt, the commanding officer, had been obliged to write to the Colonel of the Coldstream Guards to the effect, that, in consequence of the heavy expense the corps was put to in the matter of rifle ranges, &c., it could not afford to take part with an Easter marching column, or to attend any review that would necessitate a railway journey. The result of this would be most discouraging, and its effect upon recruiting most disastrous. He thought it should not be necessary for an officer to have to return such an answer as that.
    COLONEL SALIS-SCHWABEsaid, he was

    1517
    sorry to have to support any Motion which would swell the already enormous sum of their Army Estimates; but he was of opinion that the money which should be spent for the Volunteers might be obtained from economies elsewhere. The moment to point that out would arise on the Estimates. The Volunteer Forces were already kept up to a great extent by the officers, and the officers were getting rather tired of having always to pay, and it was only for a limited period that they would continue to pay. A great many Volunteers, especially those in Lancashire, put forward the statement that if they got extra money they would give extra efficiency, more especially with reference to better shooting. Some Volunteers thought that the recent Orders granting extra rank and the right of wearing uniform on retirement were offered as a sop in lieu of uniform. He did not think so, but would be glad if the Secretary of State for War would confirm his view. He hoped whatever was decided upon would be retrospective with regard to this year. Even then the officers would not benefit until April next year.
    SIR EDWARD HAMLEYsaid, he was strongly in favour of the Motion. He hoped the House would not object to hear some remarks from one who, though not connected with the Volunteers, had made a careful examination into the position of the force, and who had acquired thereby a great interest in it, and a profound conviction of its inestimable value to the country. It would suffice if he stated why he attached high value to the force, and why he thought this increase was urgently necessary. Our Volunteers were nothing short of a great defensive Army, which, with a little more generous aid, and with the public interest in its affairs which was so essential to the prosperity of any institution in this country, would, he believed, become capable of meeting an equal force of Continental troops, if such should be landed on our coasts. He did not assert that the force was now efficient to that degree, but that it was capable of easily becoming so. In an investigation he had occasion to make last year he was led to conclude that of all the forces—Regulars, Militia, and Volunteers—which might be assembled for the defence of the Kingdom, the Volunteers
    1518
    would constitute two-thirds, and on the basis of the present Estimates it appeared that each efficient Volunteer last year cost the country 63 s. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend who moved the Resolution (Mr. Howard Vincent) that if any of the great Military Powers on the Continent had happened to possess such a force, so cheap, so capable of becoming formidable, and so dependent for its existence on the will of its individual members, that Power would have sedulously fostered and cherished it, and studied how to render it thoroughly efficient and content. Of course, it was impossible that a Volunteer Army should exist in any country where conscription prevailed. Volunteers and conscription were incompatible. In one respect, at least, the advantage was enormously in favour of the Volunteer system, of which our Volunteers were the fullest development. It had often been assumed by those who instituted comparisons between our Army and those of Foreign States to our disadvantage that a conscript Army, whatever else it might be, was a cheap one. That was a delusion. A conscript Army was terribly costly. The expense of its pay and maintenance afforded no test of the burden which conscription inflicted upon a nation. It took the best of the youth of the country from the labours of the field, the workshop, and the desk, and forbade them in the most active part of life from contributing anything whatsoever to the wealth or productiveness of the nation; and it was in that way that huge conscript Armies pressed the life almost out of foreign States, and rendered existence a burden to the population. But our Volunteers did not cost the country one penny beyond the sum he had stated. They first performed their duties as citizens, and then gave the hours which they might well devote to recreation or repose to learning their duties as soldiers; and this they did so effectively and so thoroughly, and in such excellent temper, that only a very small percentage of them ever failed to attain the requisite degree of efficiency. It was in this way that the Volunteers contrasted so favourably with the Armies of the great Military Powers; and he believed, wherever the discipline was most strict, there it was most cheerfully submitted to. The officers endeavoured to make themselves proficient in the science of their profession; and from all

    1519
    he and the country knew of the character and quality of the force, it might be relied on to be found always on the side of law, order, and good government. This body of citizen soldiers, of which the country had uncommon reason to be proud, and which he, for his part, could never think about without wonder and admiration, was a National Force such as no other nation in Europe did or could possess, and yet it was one that had always led a struggling existence. On the theory of the survival of the fittest it must have been very fit to have survived so long. He did not know whether any Minister had ever bestowed any gracious words upon it; if so they had given it very little else. The men had subscribed out of their own pockets for travelling expenses, and had contributed to a fund for maintaining the efficiency of the corps; while their officers had contributed to the fund in a far more considerable degree. He had a letter from a commanding officer, in which that gentleman said that during the period of his command he had spent thousands of pounds on the efficiency of his corps; that he could no longer continue to do so; that the prospects of the force were never so gloomy as at present; and that officers, otherwise willing to join, were deterred from doing so by the prospect of the expense in these depressed times. Thus it would be seen that it was at a serious crisis in the history and affairs of the force that they now asked the House and the nation to bestow on the Volunteers the great advantage of preserving that force to the State; and he hoped the country would not allow it to suffer, to fade, and die out from mere inanition. They should consider what our condition would be without this force, and the strength which the Government would derive in dealing with foreign countries from the sense of security at home. He knew that there were hon. Gentlemen opposite who professed to regard invasion as a bugbear, and were ready to vote away Army, fortifications, and defences of all kinds in their ardent desire to conciliate the taxpayer, who was also an elector. But there were other hon. Gentlemen who might be supposed to know something of military questions, who believed that invasion was a very possible calamity, disregarded only because it had not happened in our own time. Napoleon contemplated it, and had made mature pre-
    1520
    parations for landing, which had only been prevented from being carried out by the vigilance of Nelson. The facilities for invasion were far greater now than in the time of Napoleon; and as for the precautions which the country took to protect its wealth and itself, the army which King Harold marched to Hastings was better qualified to keep the field than any proportionate force which could now be brought to defend the country against invasion. And what a rude awakening would successful invasion, however temporary, bring! Empire and liberty and self-respect—our lofty aspirations and our great pretensions—England as the home of freedom, and Britannia as ruler of the waves—would all vanish in the smoke of an enemy's camp. Even the Treasury Bench—"yea, all which it inherit would dissolve, and leave not a wreck behind." If they were now to meet these moderate demands, and by this slight assistance check the ebbing tide in the Volunteer movement, which had set in owing to the long neglect and small encouragement given to it, they might be sure that they could not lay out money in a better form than in increasing that Army which must always form the main element of our national defences.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Sir, I make no scruple in interposing myself between hon. Members of the House, because I think it is necessary that the House should know the position in which the Government stand in relation to this question. I hear this Motion recommended as usual upon grounds of economy—upon the ground that this is an extremely cheap force. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Edward Hamley) who has just sat down I do not think conceals that an increase to all kinds of the forces is what he desires, because, according to him, nothing has been done. The fact that we have more than doubled the defence Estimates of this country within a moderate number of years does nothing at all, in the minds of a certain class, except darken the colours in which the state of the country are painted, sharpen the appetite for further augmentation, and increase the pressure brought to bear upon the Government for enlarged expenditure by a House of Commons which, according to the Constitution, is

    1521
    sent here not to enlarge, but to diminish the expenses of the country. That is the function of the House of Commons in our Constitution, and it is a function to which I, for one, mean to adhere, and I mean not to be a party to a transgression on the part of any House of Commons beyond the lines that the Constitution prescribes to it. It is the duty of the Executive Government to consider and to determine what proposals shall be made to Parliament in regard to the military as well as to the other expenditure of the country. It is the duty of Parliament to accept, or reject, or alter those proposals; but the Constitution does not permit the Parliament to increase the sums that are asked by the Executive Government for the defence of the country. The House of Commons, Sir, has no title to increase the charge upon the people beyond what the Executive Government demands. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes. I hear those murmurs coming from what is called by itself the Constitutional Party; but I am speaking the language of history, the language of law, the language which the Tory Party of 50 years ago would have been the very first to support and to re-echo. The Tory Party of to-day is a very different Party. Of its opinions I am not the judge; but I am the judge of my own opinions and of my own actions. Now, here is a proposal in which, although the House of Commons is not allowed to increase, and has no power to increase by a single farthing, the expenditure of the country, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vincent Howard) has contrived to sail pretty near the wind by his Resolution, for this House of Commons, which cannot increase the expenditure, is invited by him to vote that for the thorough efficiency, maintenance, and development of the Volunteer Force an immediate increase in the present Capitation Grant is absolutely and urgently necessary. Now, if we were persons regardful only to meet, as is sometimes charged upon us, the wants of the hour and the convenience of the hour, nothing could better suit our purposes than to accept the present Motion, because it will not bear to the extent of a single shilling upon the expenditure of the present year—I beg pardon, I mean by the present year the year of the present Session in which we are legislating—but on the expenditure of the coming financial year. The present
    1522
    arrangements—the arrangements that it will be the duty of my right hon. Friend near me (Sir William Harcourt) to propose, in the course of two or three weeks from the present time, would not be in the slightest degree affected, consequently we have no interest connected with any immediate financial or other difficulty of our own in opposing this Motion. It is quite evident, from the way in which this Motion has been received, that our immediate interest lies all the other way. I wish to state our position in reference to the Motion as it is, and as it will be, if, unfortunately, the Motion should be passed. It will be exactly the same as it is now. It will not be altered, so far as I am concerned, in the slightest degree. If this or any other House of Commons wants a Minister who is ready to accept, independently of his own judgment, the orders of the House of Commons for an increase of the taxes of the country, all I can say is, I have no doubt it will find such a Minister; but that Minister will not be the one who now addresses you. My right hon. Friend near me the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman) has given his best attention to this Motion. He has had to apply himself rapidly, but carefully, in the first instance, to preparing the Estimates of the year; and, in the second instance, to the varied business of the Department to which he has so recently succeeded. He has, I believe, had the advantage of receiving a highly informed deputation on this subject. He has met that deputation in no hostile spirit; he has promised an examination of the question; and he has promised that examination in terms which, in the first place, do not bind him to refuse the proposal now made; and, in the second place, if they are to be interpreted at all, would be interpreted in the sense of its being very far from unlikely that he might see cause to make some proposal of the kind. But the right hon. Gentleman has asked of those with whom he has communicated that he may be left free to examine this question; and that is what we ask, and that is what we claim. It is our duty to claim it as the Executive Government of the country—it is our duty to claim it, and it is our duty to exercise that freedom; and that freedom will remain, and will be exercised in precisely the same manner, whatever course may be taken by the House of

    1523
    Commons with reference to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; and in making that announcement I am saying what belongs to the elementary truths of the British Constitution. I am a witness of the practice of a long period. I have strong convictions as to what is necessary for the welfare of the country. I believe that the welfare of its finance lies at the root of the well-being of the country. There is nothing so easy and nothing so vulgar as to tamper with sound finance. There is nothing so easy and nothing so vulgar, because that tampering is recommended by the almost certainty that there will be, for some length of time, no intolerable inconvenience as the result. It is the nature of financial difficulty to be first felt when it has become hopeless and incurable, and therefore it is that it is the business of the Executive Government to be specially the steward of sound finance; and of all the points belonging to that stewardship there is none so weighty and none so sacred as the reserving in their own hands, for their own free and deliberate judgment, the determination of the proposals which they make to the House of Commons. It may be said—and it would be said with perfect truth—that it is their duty to listen carefully, and to listen respectfully, to all that can be urged in the House of Commons on a subject of this nature. I am not deprecating the debating of such subjects; I am not deprecating the expression of opinion by highly-instructed persons like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Edward Hamley), or even by less-instructed persons, although I must say that those expressions of opinion have, within the course of the last 20 years, cost the country enormous sums of money. I hope that it may all have been well and judiciously laid out; but on that subject I am, perhaps, a little too old to learn, and a sceptical habit has, in some degree, got possession of my mind. I wish to say that it is not to limit the liberty of debate—it is not to deny the special duty of the Executive Government to attach importance to what they hear, and to the information they receive, and the authority brought to bear upon them everywhere, and most of all here; it is with regard to the attempts that have now become fashionable to leave upon the Executive Government the responsibilities of
    1524
    taxation, and to assume for popular speaking and popular Motions in this House the duty of determining expenditure. It was my duty only a few days ago to protest against a Motion made in this House which, as I said, tended to confuse the provinces of the Legislative and Executive power, and to make the Legislative into the Executive. But, Sir, the objection which was felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite upon that occasion applies with tenfold greater force to the Motion that is now before us. There is nothing in which it is so dangerous to make the House of Commons, being the Legislative, exercise the functions of the Executive, as in the power of raising the public charge—there is nothing so dangerous as that the responsibility of raising the public charge in this country should be separated from the responsibility of discovering and proposing the means of meeting that charge. It is that severance at which the hon. Gentleman opposite who has made this Motion aims at effecting. He wants to make us impose larger burdens on the people. He proposes to increase the Volunteer charge—is that not a larger burden on the people?
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: What I say is, that by increasing the grant you will prevent a greater burden falling on the people.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg your pardon. The hon. Member has made his speech, and I heard it. I am not going to enter into an argument with the hon. Gentleman upon the question whether an addition to the Volunteer charge is not an addition to the public expenditure. He says it is not an addition to the public expenditure; I say it is an addition to the public expenditure; and although I am extremely sorry to disagree with him, my experience compels me to reject the high authority of the hon. Gentleman. But I say there is no one point in which it would be so dangerous to assign to the House of Commons the functions of the Executive as in separating the power of increasing the public charge and the responsibility of finding the means of meeting it. I have frankly laid my protest on this subject before the House. I do not wish at all to misrepresent in any direction the attitude of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) or the attitude of the Government; but I sum up that which I have had to say—this not very

    1525
    agreeable announcement I have had to make—in declaring, for my part, that in the days or months which may remain to me I must adhere to the unquestionable principles of this House's constitution, and must decline to accept orders from the Representatives of the people sent here to diminish the public burdens. I must decline to accept orders from them to increase the public burdens. I reserve to my right hon. Friend and to the Government the duty of prosecuting the inquiry into this matter in the spirit in which he met the deputation the other day. We will not be biassed against the Motion—against the proposal involved in the Motion—by anything that may take place here. We will endeavour to give careful and respectful attention to all arguments that may be urged in its support. If the judgment of the Government be that this augmentation of a charge which has grown with great rapidity, happily owing to the enormous increase in the number of our Volunteers, whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Edward Hamley) who spoke last appears to speak of as a decaying, if not a dying force, is desirable, he will not be deterred by anything that may be done here, however we may object to it in principle, from giving that fair and candid examination to the subject which he has already promised; but his responsibility for proposing, upon his own judgment and the judgment of his Colleagues, the charge that he may think necessary for maintaining the Volunteer Forces, as well as the other forces of the country, must remain entire, and cannot be taken off the shoulders of the Government by any vote, however important in itself, that may be given in the House of Commons.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have been very much surprised at the extraordinary and, if I may venture to say—with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman—what appears to me the entirely uncalled-for nature of the Prime Minister's reply to the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Howard Vincent). The right hon. Gentleman has accused my hon. Friend of tampering with the principles of sound finance, of ordering Her Majesty's Government to impose increased burdens on the people, and of attempting to usurp the functions of the Executive power, and all because
    1526
    my hon. Friend, being most thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of the case, has ventured to call the attention of the House to the present position of the Volunteer Force, and to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of improving that position. Well, if it were a question of the principles of sound finance, I think my hon. Friend might, with some justice, reply that on the Motion which he has proposed he had made what, in the opinion of many hon. Members of this House, would be a measure of extremely sound finance by adding to the efficiency of the cheapest military force which this country possesses. I do not suppose any hon. Member in the House will question the Constitutional doctrines of the right hon. Gentleman that it rests with the Executive Government, and not with any other Member of the House, to impose an additional burden on the people; but it is the first time I have ever heard that well-known Constitutional doctrine brought forward as a reason why a Member of the House of Commons should not call attention to what he considered to be a grievance and a fault in the constitution of any of Her Majesty's Forces, and to call upon the Government of the day to remedy it. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said so.] We are all as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman can be not to interfere with the proper functions of the Executive power. We supported him loyally in that view the other night; but there was nothing that I can see in the Motion of my hon. Friend that for a moment renders him susceptible to the accusations of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister told us that the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had received a deputation on this subject, and had considered it in no hostile spirit. I do not know what reply the right hon. Gentleman made to that deputation; but if the tone of his reply was similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I am afraid I can hardly say that the deputation was received in no hostile spirit. What is the request made by my hon. Friend? It is that Her Majesty's Government shall consider at as early a date as possible the present position of the Volunteer Force in this matter, with a view of remedying the difficulty in which it at present stands. The Prime Minister has admitted that

    1527
    if the Resolution were carried no additional expenses would be imposed on the taxpayers during the ensuing year. But it would be, I must say, a very significant statement to Her Majesty's Government, and a statement which this House has a perfect right to make, if it thinks fit to make it, that this is a subject urgently and immediately demanding their attention, with a view to placing the Volunteer Force in a better position than that in which, it at present stands. No one can deny that it is not only competent for, but the bounden duty of, the House of Commons to consider a question of this sort, and if it believes a change to be necessary to recommend such change to Her Majesty's Government. Well, now, what are the circumstances? We have had some speeches in this debate, made, I am quite sure it will be admitted by hon. Members opposite, from no Party point of view whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did his best to impart a Party tone to this question; and if we chose to do so, I think we might fairly ask whether he who is responsible for the expenditure—the waste of millions of pounds—in the Soudan ought to be the man to object, on the score of sound finance, to this additional expenditure which is asked for? But, Sir, I do not want to dwell upon considerations of that kind; what I do want is the House and the Government to consider the Motion of my hon. Friend, made by him as it has been in a speech of extreme ability, displaying intimate knowledge of the subject, supported as it has been by two hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, also well acquainted with the circumstances, and backed up with the high authority of the gallant General behind me (Sir Edward Hamley)—I do want the House and the Government to consider whether this is not a Motion which fairly and properly calls for their attention. Is it true, in the first place, that there is a very large expenditure, and an increasing expenditure, imposed upon the officers of the Volunteer Force by the necessary requirements of that force? That has not been denied by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Can it be denied by the Secretary of State for War? Well, if it be true that the necessary expenditure imposes such a burden on the officers of the Volunteer
    1528
    Force—that year by year it becomes more and more difficult efficiently to officer the Volunteer Force—surely here is a matter urgently demanding the attention of the House. Will it be said that this expenditure is not necessary? Why, if it is not necessary? it is the duty of the War Department to put a stop to it; but I do not think that can be contended for a moment. You have the force depending upon the voluntary work of the people. That work is cheerfully and anxiously done; but it is not fair for this country to call upon those who are ready to give her their services in this way to incur great and swamping burdens in their attempt properly to fulfil their duty. I do hope that, after the remarkable effusion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, we may have some more soothing statement in reply from the Secretary of State for War; and I do hope that the Volunteer Force, who form so large a part of the law-abiding citizens of this country, are not to be told, in reply to the Motion of my hon. Friend, that this Motion is made merely with the view of increasing the expenditure on the Army, which hon. Members on that side of the House are always ready to put forward as one of the most earnest desires of anybody on the Opposition Benches who ventures, to touch upon these matters. The Motion has been made by my hon. Friend because he believes it to be absolutely necessary for the continued efficiency of the Volunteer Force that the Capitation Grant should be increased. I am anxious to hear the reply of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who is responsible to this House and to this country for the continued efficiency of the force, and I do hope that he will deal with this matter in the non-Party spirit, the fair spirit, in which it was introduced by my hon. Friend, and that he will not descend to the unfair and the clap-trap arguments of the Prime Minister.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLAM HARCOURT): I wish to say a word with regard to the form of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who has just sat down rather judiciously avoided referring to the terms of the actual Motion. He said that they were entitled—and no one would deny it—to call attention, to the condition of the

    1529
    Volunteers, and to show that certain changes are necessary and expedient for the improvement of the condition of the Force. But those are not the terms of the Motion. The Motion declares that an immediate increase in the Capitation Grant is absolutely and urgently necessary. I can read this Motion only as a distinct declaration for an increase of the charge upon the people. There will be no end to the increase of expenditure in this country if Motions of this character, popular in themselves, can be made and carried. This is a popular Motion for this reason—that the Volunteer Force is deservedly one of the most popular bodies in this country; and certainly I, for one, shall say no word against any amount of praise being bestowed upon that force. But I say that it is a most dangerous thing to pass general Resolutions of this kind, calling for increased charges, but not indicating whence the means are to come to meet those charges. Consider the position in which this Motion would place a future Chancellor of the Exchequer? That is a point which deserves the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). The present Chancellor of the Exchequer may escape the consequences of this Motion, which amounts to a proposal to increase the charge upon the people a year hence. This is rather like drawing a bill at a long date for somebody else to meet. If it is objectionable in Committee of Supply to give a Vote for the immediate increase of a charge, it is ten times more objectionable to give a Vote for a charge which is to take effect in a more or less distant future. I hope that the House will not pass the Motion in its present form. If the desire of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) is to do good to the Volunteer Force he ought to avoid a form of Motion which cannot but lead to controversy between the two sides of the House. If his intention is to call attention to the condition of the Volunteer Force, to point out the manner in which that force is defective in its organization, or in other respects to awaken public opinion on the subject, and to aid the judgment of this House, let his Motion take that direction, and then he will further what I am sure is the object of every hon. Gentleman in this House — namely, to act in a generous and grateful spirit towards
    1530
    the great Volunteer Force of this country.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that he could not understand what object the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in rising at the particular time he did, unless it was to cool down the debate from the extraordinary heat which had been raised by the Prime Minister. He had the honour to command the largest Volunteer corps in the Kingdom, and, if he were not mistaken, he had the higher honour of once having had the Secretary of State for War himself under his command. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) spoke of this Motion as being popular because the Volunteer Force was popular. On behalf of the Volunteers he wished to say that this was not a question at all of popularity or unpopularity. It was a question whether in the opinion of the House it was cheaper by at present doing nothing to run the risk of the Volunteer Force going to the bad, or whether it was right that the House should inform Her Majesty's Government by vote that it considered that state of things as dangerous. If the Government had been able to say that the state of the Volunteer Force was as satisfactory as regarded finance as it was as to efficiency, then they should have had the statement without the impassioned language of the Prime Minister. As they had heard the other day from the Secretary for War, no fewer than 1,090 commissions were vacant in the Volunteer Force, while at the same time the Volunteer movement itself was never more popular than at the present time. The cause of that was that officers, having spent large sums, left the Service when to the great benefit of the country they might have remained, and new officers could not be got owing to the terror of the charges to which they would be subjected. Nothing could be ultimately more demoralizing in a force of that kind than that it should be officered by men who had to make large payments out of their own pockets for their support. The Commanding Officer could not exercise the same discipline, nor could he so easily get rid of non-efficient officers, because he knew that officers had to make large sacrifices of money during the time they had held commissions. Not only so, but there

    1531
    could be no question about the fact that the best officers they could get were young men, and such young men were not generally in a position to make the necessary expenditure. Those on both sides of the House who desired that the Motion should be carried had no idea, even after what the Prime Minister had said, that the passing of the Motion would be tying up the Executive Government in any way. No doubt the money which ought to have been provided might be an addition to the Estimates; but he presumed the finances of the country were not managed on a mere hand-to-mouth footing. If it were the fact that the Volunteer Force would be seriously diminished, and perhaps practically destroyed, if the Motion was not given effect to, then he thought the Secretary for War would admit that it would cost a much larger sum to protect the country from invasion by troops who were not Volunteers. If every hon. Gentleman in the House who knew the real state of the facts voted in accordance with that knowledge it would be a great gain in the future. In his own corps, which numbered over 2,500 men, they had managed to scrape together a sum to meet the general expenses; but he did not believe they would be able, in the course of another year, to get along even in spite of the large sums of money which he himself and his brother officers had expended for a large number of years in carrying on the corps. If that were the case with a large corps, he could certify that small corps could not be maintained unless an addition was made to the Capitation Grant.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I regret extremely, in the interest of the Volunteers themselves, and in the interest of the solution of this important question, that the terms of the hon. Member's Motion are so unfortunate. Undoubtedly, that Motion is open to the construction put upon it by the Prime Minister, and it is objectionable on the high ground that the Executive should not be committed to expenditure in this way. But if the hon. Member's object was—as I fully believe it to be—only to call the attention of the House to the condition of the Volunteer Force, and to provoke discussion, and possibly an expression of opinion, from this Bench, then I think he
    1532
    has done very good service in bringing this matter forward. Now, I was somewhat astonished that the hon. Gentleman made no allusion to the fact that about a couple of weeks ago I had the honour to receive a large deputation, consisting not only of a number of Volunteers, but also many Members of Parliament interested in the movement; and I then stated what I will now repeat to the House—namely, that I am quite aware that there is this difficulty about officers; I am quite aware that many of the corps are not in a satisfactory financial position; but when I am asked suddenly to agree that 5s. or 10 s., or any sum of money, should be added to the Capitation Grant, I say it is my duty to be somewhat circumspect in the matter, and to ask for such Returns of the expenditure of the various Corps as will justify me in taking such a course. What happened in 1878 and 1879? There was a similar complaint made on the part of the Volunteer Force, and a Committee was appointed, which had Lord Bury as Chairman, and of which Sir R. Loyd-Lindsay—now Lord Wantage—was a Member, to inquire into the matter. No two men could be mentioned more capable to give an opinion; and I was rather astonished to see in The Times of to-day a letter from Lord Bury, in which he states—and I have been astonished to-night to hear the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Howard Vincent) repeat the statement—that that Committee was restricted from going into the question of finance. I cannot imagine how that idea could have entered Lord Bury's mind. The points of reference were these—first, to inquire what were the necessary requirements of the Volunteer Force; secondly, whether the present grant was sufficient for its purposes; thirdly, in what form increased assistance should be given; and in the Report signed by Lord Bury there is an elaborate analysis of the finances of the Volunteers, founded upon the Returns furnished to the Committee. Now, those Returns furnished for the five years previous to 1878 and 1879 are precisely the Returns I wish to get for the five years previous to 1886, showing the expenditure of the corps under different heads. Well, Sir, the conclusion Lord Bury's Committee came to was that the Capitation Grant was

    1533
    sufficient for its purposes, except as to three items. Supposing that purpose to be the provision of strictly necessary expenditure, the Committee reported they were of opinion that, with proper organization, the present Capitation Grant need not be increased. Now, what did they mean by "strictly necessary expenditure?" I wish to recall to the House the exact character of this Volunteer Force, because it appears to me, from some things that we have heard, that it is in danger of losing its character. We often hear it said that if the men give their time the Government ought to bear the charge of their expenses. But that has never been the principle recognized in the Volunteer Force itself. The principle has always been that the Government should assist Volunteers in maintaining their corps in efficiency—in expenditure, that is, necessary for the requisite efficiency of the corps—and that no other assistance ought to be given to them; but that anything else ought to be furnished from other sources. What does the Report of Lord Bury's Committee say? It says—
    "The Committee proceeded to determine what items of expenditure were in reality necessary to the efficient maintenance of the corps, and were, therefore, properly chargeable against the public."
    This is a full recognition of the principle I have stated—that that which is properly chargeable against the public is the expenditure in reality necessary for the efficient maintenance of a corps; but that is not what we are told now. We are told that we are to go much further. I have quoted the Report of this Committee, in the first place, to show how vague are the recollections of some of those who profess to be authorities on the subject, and also to show that on a previous occasion, when there was a strong feeling among the Volunteers that the grant was not sufficient, the Committee found that it was sufficient. Well, Sir, what I promised to the deputation to do, and what I have done, is this. I have called upon all the corps in the Kingdom to furnish a tabulated Return of all their expenditure under different heads. When these Returns are received, it will then have to be determined which of those items of expenditure are really necessary and which are not. That will be a difficult
    1534
    matter, to which I shall carefully address myself; and then we shall be able to see whether any or what addition to the Capitation Grant is necessary. I appeal to the House of Commons, not only on the high ground of sound Constitutional doctrine laid down by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), but on the ground of common sense, whether it is not most desirable that, having the responsibility I have, and having means at my command of getting at information which are not open to the hon. Member opposite, I should be allowed to ascertain for myself, on the authority of official documents, the real facts of the case? Then I hope I may be trusted to come to a proper conclusion. I am not going to pass any eulogy on the Volunteer Force, for that is altogether unnecessary, and no one could be more pleased than I shall be if it falls to me to add to their efficiency, or relieve them from the difficulty of which they now complain. I have every disposition in the world to do whatever is right in relieving the Volunteers and adding to the success which has hitherto attended the movement; but I confess it will be impossible for me, on humbler grounds than the high Constitutional ground put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to agree to the peremptory and abrupt expression of opinion contained in the Motion now before this House.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsuggested that the hon. Member should eliminate the word "immediate" from his Motion, which, he thought, had a somewhat peremptory and harsh tone about it, and substitute for it the word "early."
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 166: Majority 21.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Barclay, J. W.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Barry, J.

    Beith, G.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Bickersteth, R.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Biddulph, M.

    Allen, H. G.

    Blaine, A.

    Allison, R. A.

    Bolton, T. H.

    Arch, J.

    Boyd-Kinnear, J.

    Asher, A.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Baker, L. J.

    Brand, hon. H. R.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Bright, W. L.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Brown, A. H.

    1535

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Jacks, W.

    Brunner, J. T.

    James, C. H.

    Bryce, J.

    Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

    Burt, T.

    Buxton, E. N.

    Jones-Parry, L.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir U. J.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Campbell, H.

    Kenrick, W.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Kilcoursie, right hon. Viscount

    Carew, J. L.

    Labouchere, H.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Lalor, R.

    Chance, P. A.

    Lane, W. J.

    Channing, F. A.

    Leake, R.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Leicester, J.

    Lockwood, F.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Macfarlane, D. H.

    Cobb, H. P.

    MacInnes, M.

    Cobbold, F. T.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Collings, J.

    M'Culloch, J.

    Compton, Lord W. G.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Cook, E. R.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Coote, T.

    Mason, S.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Mellor, right hn. J. W.

    Cox, J. R.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Crawford, D.

    Montagu, S.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Crilly, D.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Crossley, E.

    Moulton, J. F.

    Deasy, J.

    Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

    Dillon, J.

    Newnes, G.

    Dixon, G.

    Noel, E.

    Duff, R. W.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Nolan, J.

    Ellis, J. E.

    O'Brien, W

    Esmonde, Sir T.

    O'Connor, A.

    Esslemont, P.

    O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

    Everett, R. L.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Fenwick, C.

    Paget, T. T.

    Finlayson, J.

    Parker, C. S.

    Fletcher, B.

    Pease, Sir J. W.

    Flower, C.

    Pease, A. E.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Pickard, B.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Fry, T.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

    Gibb, T. E.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Gilhooly, J.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Gill, T. P.

    Power, P. J.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Power, R.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Priestley, B.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Pugh, D.

    Gower, G. G. L.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Quilter, W. C.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Ramsay, J.

    Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Rathbone, W.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Harrington, E.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Harris, M.

    Rendel, S.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Richardson, T.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

    Rigby, J.

    Robortson, E.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Robson, W. S.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Russell, Sir C.

    Henry, M.

    Russell, E. R.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Shaw, T.

    Hooper, J.

    Sheil, E.

    Howell, G.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Hoyle, I.

    Stack, J.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    1536

    Stuart, J.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Sullivan, D.

    Wilson, J. (Durham)

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Thomas, A.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Tuite, J.

    Woodall, W.

    Vanderbyl, P.

    Woodhead, J.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    Wright, C.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Yeo, F. A.

    Westlake, J.

    Wiggin, H.

    TELLERS.

    Will, J. S.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hn. E.

    Williams, J. C.

    Morley, A.

    Wilson, C. H.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Dyke, rt. hon. Sir W. H.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Baden-Powell, G. S.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Baggallay, E.

    Feilden, Lt-Gen. R. J.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Balfour, G. W.

    Fergusson, rt. hn. Sir J.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Fitz-Wygram, Sir F.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Gardner, E. Richardson-

    Beadel, W. J.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

    Bethell, Commander

    Bigwood, J.

    Giles, A.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Blaine, R. S.

    Blake, T.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Boord, T. W.

    Green, E.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Bourke, right hon. R.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Brookfield, Col. A. M.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Charrington, S.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

    Hickman, A.

    Hill, Lord A. W.

    Clarke, E.

    Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

    Coddington, W.

    Cohen, L. L.

    Howard, H. C.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J.

    Howard, J.

    Compton, F.

    Howard, J. M.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Cross, H. S.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Jackson, W. L.

    Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Johns, J. W.

    Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W

    Johnston, W.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Kimber, H.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    King, H. S.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, hon. H. T.

    Duncombe, A.

    1537

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Saunders, W.

    Lewis, C. E.

    Saunderson, Maj. E. J.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

    Lloyd, W.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Shirley, W. S.

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Sidebottom, W.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Sitwell, Sir G. R.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Smith, A.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Smith, D.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Stafford, Marquess of

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

    Sturrock, P.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Milvain, T.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Mount, W. G.

    Tipping, W.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Muntz, P. A.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Norris, E. S.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Watkin, Sir E. W.

    Paget, Sir R. H.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Pearce, W.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Peel, right hn. Sir R.

    White, J. B.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Winn, hon. R.

    Percy, Lord A. M.

    Wortlcy, C. B. Stuart-

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Wroughton, P.

    Powell, F. S.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    TELLERS.

    Round, J.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  EGYPT—COST OF THE ARMY OF DEFENCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, who had on the Paper the following Notice of Motion:—
  "That the cost of the Troops employed for the defence of Egypt should not be borne by the British taxpayer, but should be a first charge on the Revenues of Egypt,"
  said, he regretted that the Forms of the House would prevent him from moving the Resolution. He gathered from a reply given that evening that some little progress had been made in reducing the numbers of the British Army in Egypt. But only a few weeks ago our military establishment in that country, including camp followers, numbered, he believed, something like 28,000 men. The cost of such a force must amount to at least from £4,500,000 to £5,000,000 per annum. He now found that it was proposed to maintain in Egypt 8,816 British troops, and the cost of these and for the Native assistance which was to be employed was estimated at £1,038,172.
  1538
  But that excluded the cost of arms, accoutrements, barracks, and other stores supplied from this country; also the cost of recruiting, of administration, and of the non-effective forces. He had no hesitation in expressing his belief that the cost of the reduced force, supposing it was really reduced so far as was proposed, would be at least £2,000,000, against the very small sum which we expected to receive from the Egyptian Government. All the statements he had heard inclined him to the belief that every effort was being made to establish an equilibrium in Egypt without regard to doing justice to the people of the country, and still less without regard to the taxpayers of this country. His proposition was that, whoever undertook the defence of Egypt, the cost of the defence ought to be made a first charge on the Revenues of the country, as it was an expense incurred to keep it solvent and as a going concern. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), he noticed, had put down an Amendment to his Motion. He had considerable sympathy with the Amendment, as he agreed with what he believed was the view of the hon. Member, that we had so little business in Egypt that the taxpayers of this country should be made to feel the burden of this occupation in order that we might sooner get out of it. There was only one reason that he could see why an Egyptian Army should not be raised to undertake the defence of the country, and that was that it would cost money, which would reduce the enormous revenue received by the bondholders. Before we departed from Egypt he presumed we must make arrangements for an Egyptian Army which would undertake the defence of the country, and uphold that self-government which Her Majesty's Government always professed themselves desirous to see. He had no hope, however, until we got out of Egypt, that we would get rid of this burden; but he wished to emphasize his proposition that, whoever defended Egypt, it was only right and fair that the ample Revenues of that country should be first called upon to bear the cost.
  MR. DILLON, who had given Notice of an Amendment, which, however, he could not move, declaring—
  "That the cost of the British troops employed in the occupation of Egypt should be defrayed

  1539
  out of the English Exchequer, as likewise the cost of all English officials engaged in the administration of that country,"
  said, he hoped that when the Government had been long enough in Office to make up their minds about their policy in Egypt they would afford the House of Commons an opportunity of coming to a final decision with all the facts before it. From this hour the Government ought to be shaping their policy with a view either to the indefinite prolongation of our occupation or to the withdrawal of our troops. The withdrawal itself could not be effected within a month or within a year, and if it were intended that we should withdraw the preparations ought not to be postponed for a single week. Four years ago it was declared by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) that the English occupation of Egypt would not be prolonged beyond six months, and that every effort was to be made to withdraw them; and still we were no nearer to withdrawal now than we were then. The principle which guided him in putting down the Amendment was that the one motive which would be a strong incitement to the Government to withdraw our troops, and to hon. Members to urge them to do so, was the fact that we were obliged to put our hands into our pockets and to pay heavily as long as our troops remained in Egypt. Unless it could be shown, either that the English occupation had been of immense benefit to the Egyptian people, or, on the other hand, that the war was a righteous war in which the Egyptian people were the aggressors, and that they were suffering the penalty of their aggression, he could not conceive what justification there was for continuing this occupation, still less for making the Egyptian people pay for it. The occupation of Egypt had been a curse to the English nation, and the sole motive for it was the interests of the English bondholders. Long before the bombardment of Alexandria the Prime Minister declared that no consideration would induce him to permit the British power to be used to support the bailiffs of the bondholders; and the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that it was not the duty of the Government to compel another nation to pay its debts, but that a man who advanced money to another nation did so at his own risk. He
  1540
  was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from that principle. The results had been the burning of Alexandria, the destruction of the Egyptian Army, which had no inglorious past, the utter demoralization of Egyptian finance, and the disgraceful transactions involved in the payment of £4,000,000 as Alexandrian indemnities. Before the bombardment of Alexandria in 1881, Egyptian finance showed a balance of £495,000, and afterwards it showed deficits of £185,000 in 1882, £222,000 in 1883, £843,000 in 1884, and £1,200,000 in 1885. It was alleged that Alexandria was burned by Arabi's troops; but the Egyptian people had no Representative on the Commission which made that declaration, and which was composed of men interested in making it. The result was that £4,125,000 had to be paid in indemnities by the Egyptian people, and it was declared by the correspondent of The Times that undoubtedly a considerable number of the claims had been sold to Egyptian capitalists, who had reaped a large profit out of the transaction. One result of our occupation had been the destruction of the Egyptian Army, and another the loss of the Soudan to Egypt, and the loss of hundreds of thou sands of lives in useless warfare. The hon. Member then read extracts from Lord Northbrook's Report to show the extent of Egyptian indebtedness, and said that this was the result of the invasion of Egypt since 1852 by the cormorants of Europe. He was proceeding to explain with some minuteness how loans were financed, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would point out to the hon. Member for East Mayo that the financing of Egyptian loans had no bearing on the Votes to be taken in Committee.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that since the English entered Egypt the burdens of the people had advanced by leaps and by bounds, and the deficit was greater than ever. It was a delusion to suppose that the Egyptian people could pay for the Army of Occupation. He did not say it would lead to Egyptian bankruptcy, for that was certain under any circumstances; but it would hasten it. The Revenues of Egypt depend upon three things—cotton, wheat, and beans. Egypt was naturally a rich country, and if not loaded by debt it could easily pay its way. But cotton had fallen.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member were not in accordance with the Rules of the House.
  MR. DILLONsaid, in conclusion, he would merely contend that England, and not Egypt, should pay for the Army of Occupation. If we did tax the Egyptian bondholders, he would be glad to see them made to pay; but, failing that, England should pay. The debts had been incurred for no benefits to be conferred on the Egyptians. He remembered being much struck with the remark made by an old fellah after Telel-Kebir—"It is pretty much as before; the English are in Cairo; the usurers are in the villages. God is great."
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he had some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that the cost of the British troops in Egypt should be defrayed out of the British Exchequer. If England was occupying Egypt for Imperial purposes, it might be contended the expense ought to be thrown upon the Imperial Exchequer, and not on the Egyptians, who were already a highly-taxed people. But his principal object in rising was to represent to the Government the consideration that if we withdrew our troops from Egypt, the friends of England in Egypt, and those who had placed confidence in us there, would be left in an awkward, difficult, and dangerous position. That had been strongly represented to him when he was in Cairo in January, 1885. He hoped the Government would not overlook their responsibility in this matter, and would not withdraw the forces.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRYCE)said, he had listened with attention to the speeches of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler); but he would be out of Order, he feared, if he were to follow them in the observations they had made. The only question before the House was as to who should pay for the British troops in Egypt. The two speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and for East Mayo proceeded from a common point of view; but they had stated opposite facts and
  1542
  arrived at contradictory conclusions. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy said that Egypt had been benefited. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL dissented.] Well, his hon. Friend said that Egypt could pay. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that Egypt had been injured by the occupation, and could not and ought not to pay. The Government, on their part, adopted a middle course. They believed Egypt ought to pay something; but that there were good reasons why she should not pay the whole cost of occupation. The facts, so far as they related to this point, were very simple. When our occupation began in 1882 the Egyptian Government were informed that a charge was to be made on Egypt of the extraordinary expenses entailed upon England by the occupation—not of the ordinary expenses, because our troops would have to be maintained somewhere, if not in Egypt. The sum of £4 8s. a-month was suggested as the extra expense for each soldier. Last year, when the Convention was being settled by which a deduction was to be made in the interest paid to bondholders, the serious condition of Egyptian finance made a great impression, and it was felt that England must deal leniently, and not ask Egypt to pay more than the disordered state of her finances would allow, and an arrangement was accordingly made that the maximum charge should not exceed £200,000 a-year. That was the existing arrangement. Those charges had, of course, been larger than were contemplated, owing to the invasions from the Southern Frontier of Egypt, which necessitated a larger force than they expected. The arrangements for frontier defence were of an indefinite character, and the Government were bound to have regard to the Southern Frontier, which, of course, involved extra expense. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that Egypt ought to pay nothing. But it could not be denied that if Egypt was exposed to dangers from which she was saved by the Army of Occupation she was to that extent benefited; and certainly that Army preserved her from the inroads of the wild warriors of the South. Then the people of Egypt had also been undoubtedly benefited in other ways during the last two or three years—e. g., by the presence of English Administrators. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.] He had ex-

  1543
  cellent authority for that statement, which the hon. Member would be quite willing to recognize. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy he would remind the House that we went to Egypt to protect British interests, as hon. Gentlemen opposite were accustomed to say. We say the Army of Occupation went to Egypt to maintain Treaty engagements; and it was only reasonable that, having undertaken those Treaty engagements, we should be prepared to bear some part of the cost of fulfilling them. There was also a graver reason for that course. Egypt was unable to pay the whole costs. She had been threatened with bankruptcy for years past, and if we contributed nothing her financial position would be hopeless. By giving her a temporary indulgence the finances of the country would be improved, and for that reason the bondholders were asked last year to accept a diminution of their interest. Then, again, unless we contributed something it would be difficult for English Commanders to act in a military crisis on their own responsibility for the defence of the conntry. He could, in conclusion, inform the House that the Government had every reason to believe that the finances of Egypt would continue to improve, and before long it was probable that she would be a solvent country. He entertained some hopes that the organization of the Egyptian Army would be improved; that the efforts made by British Administrators to promote irrigation works would be successful; that forced labour would be diminished; and the International Tribunals were already beginning to bring forth good fruit.

  DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—DEFENCE OF COALING STATIONS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. W. H. SMITH, in rising to call attention to the necessity, for the security of the Country and in the interests of economy, of providing for the continuous execution of the works and the manufacture of the material which are ascertained to be required for the protection of the coaling stations abroad; and of our mercantile harbours and military ports, and to urge that a Select Committee ought to be appointed to examine the Estimates for
    1544
    these services, and to report upon them to the House, said. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) has drawn a distinction between British interests and Treaty engagements which we on this side should not be inclined to accept. We believe that the observance of Treaty engagements is a British interest. If we have contended for British interests we have contended for the maintenance of the honour and obligations of this country. The hon. Gentleman has repeated what we have heard before, that this country has undertaken to defend the Frontier of Egypt. That engagement is a heavy one. Now, if there has been one misfortune more than another which has attended the operations of this country in Egypt during the last two or three years, it has been that we have given notice, from time to time, that we were about to reduce our Forces and to retire from the country. Nothing has more tended to disquiet the inhabitants of Egypt and to invite those disturbances from the frontier tribes to which the hon. Member has drawn attention. Then great harm has been done by the knowledge—the announcement beforehand—that we were going to do this or that, to take this or that particular step. I conceive that while it is our duty to lessen by all means in our power the very heavy drain which in imposed upon us and upon Egypt it is most unwise to announce beforehand that a reduction of any considerable amount in our Forces would be made before a certain period. I notice with some regret in the Estimates that the reduction is shown to be more than half the strength of Egypt at the present time. My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, tell the House that the Government have power to retain more than the 8,800 men which they now indicate as the force to be retained. They have that power, it is true; but what we regret is the announcement that we are going to retire from Wady Halfa, or from any other point which we now occupy. Now, Sir, I ask permission to turn for a moment to the consideration of the question to which I invite the attention of the House. I am aware it is not in my power to ask the House to affirm the Resolution of which I have given Notice; and I do not very greatly regret that that is so, because I raise the question in no hostile spirit to Her

    1545
    Majesty's Government, nor with any Party object of any kind whatever. I have always endeavoured, when I have had to deal with questions of the defensive Forces of the country, to keep clear of considerations of that kind; but there is one very important matter to which I desire to direct the attention of the House, and that is that while the House is asked to approve Estimates—I am afraid I am treading on delicate ground, and that if I refer to anything that has occurred I may be accused of endeavouring to discharge in this House the duties of the Executive; but no one, I am sure, feels more strongly than myself that the duties of the Executive ought to be maintained in the highest possible manner—the House is asked to approve Estimates when it really possesses absolutely no more information than that which is afforded by the statements of Ministers. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite most persistently insist on economy, and move the reduction of the Vote from time to time by so much or by so much; but they are not allowed to see within the veil that is dropped down over the actual condition of things in the higher interests of the country. What has happened with reference to these coaling stations? The present Prime Minister in 1882, 1883, and 1884 carried on inquiries, most careful inquiries, as to the necessities, in the judgment of those to whom those inquiries were intrusted, with regard to the defences of the country in the matter of military ports and of commercial harbours; and the result was that Ministers in this House and in the other House of Parliament announced in December, 1884, that proposals would be made to Parliament, and they gave the ground on which those proposals would be made—namely, that they considered that the condition of those defences of the country required the serious attention of Parliament. The language that was then used by Ministers was of a very strong character. I remember the noble Lord the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) said, on the 19th of March, 1885—
    "When the fortification of those stations was provided for by Lord Palmerston—by the raising of a long loan for between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000—it was intended that the cost of the necessary armaments should be defrayed out of the annual Estimates; and in 1860 it was
    1546
    estimated that £5,250,000 had been employed for this particular purpose. From 1860 to 1878 £3,250,000 was expended, leaving a balance, according to the original Estimate, of £1,750,000 still to be provided. About £750,000 has since been spent, so that about £1,000,000 is still due on the original Estimate; but increased cost of heavy ordnance, although, of course, the number of guns required at the works has considerably diminished, has considerably increased the total cost of the necessary arms, and it is now considered that about £1,250,000 are still due to complete the approved defences of the principal military stations at home and abroad. The alterations in the character of ordnance have also rendered necessary certain structural alterations in the works themselves, and also, in some cases, the construction of new works, and works in new and more advanced positions; and for these purposes, and for the completion of preparations for the new mode of defence, it is estimated that something like £1,000,000 will be required in addition to the works for submarine mining. There is, therefore, about £2,250,000 to be expended before the defences of the great military ports at home and abroad can be considered completely satisfactory. I am very far indeed from saying that this expenditure ought to be very long delayed; but the question of how and when, and in what mode it should be proceeded with, is one of very considerable difficulty and embarrassment."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1724.)
    I entirely agree that that question is a question of very considerable difficulty and embarrassment, and I could go on to quote similar statements by Lord Northbrook and by the present Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members of the then Government, by which the Government of the day came under an engagement to the House of Commons to make proposals to Parliament for the completion of these works of defence. These Estimates, with the plans, are not schemes of mine, but are the deliberate results of many years of anxious inquiry, and formed, in the judgment of the Government, an expenditure which was really necessary for the safety of the country. I gave a statement of these facts last July from my place on the other side of the House, and I was then reminded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) that the statement I made was the statement of his Chief, the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division, and was, in fact, the statement of the Department made after very careful inquiry. Now, Sir, these warnings have been given to Parliament, the statements have been made, and it becomes a question whether the Government should be aided by the House of

    1547
    Commons in the consideration of the steps which, if the allegations are true, it is necessary to take to secure the safety of the country, and to enable them to resist those claims which arise in times of panic, or whether the House of Commons should refuse to aid the Government, and leave upon them the responsibility of moving in the matter just when they can. I think that if Parliament remains indifferent to the circumstances which are made known by the speeches to which I have referred it is because Parliament does decline to move. I shall at least have cleared myself from any responsibility; but we shall still have the assertion of Ministers of high rank—of Ministers of great personal responsibility—that these works were required two years ago, and only postponed because of the heavy demands on the Exchequer a year ago, and now postponed again simply for that consideration. I shall not refer to any of the confidential information that came into my hands when I was in Office; but I may say simply that my authorities speak in the terms to which I have referred. The circumstances of the Military Forces are such that if we were exposed to the apprehension of war the most economical Minister would have to come down to the House and say—"Give me a Vote of Credit"—not, I hope, of £11,000,000, or even of £6,000,000—"to enable me to redeem the deficiencies that at present exist." Now, I have had some experience of Votes of Credit, and I believe that no more extravagant system prevails. If you can only look at facts as they are calmly and coolly—if you can only get some half-dozen economists, some half-dozen military gentlemen, and some half-dozen responsible officials to proceed to an inquiry into the facts—if necessary, by an examination of witnesses, even of the actual sites of these defences—then, I say, I shall be quite satisfied with the decision of the House based upon the Report of such a Committee. Nothing is to be done with our mercantile ports during the coming year. Less is to be done than I could have hoped for our coaling stations. If we have a quiet year we shall be told next year that the expenditure of the country has been very large indeed—rightly and justly told, no doubt—upon naval and military purposes, and that it is right and proper
    1548
    that there should be some lessening of taxation. But, on the other hand, if we have another scare, my right hon. Friend opposite will have some £5,000,000 put into his hands, and he will be called upon to work all the factories overtime, and the amount of work which would now cost £1 will not be done for 30 s. It is in the interests of economy as well as of security that I ask Parliament to undertake this inquiry, under the direction and with the full responsibility of the proper officers of the Secretary of State; and if the House of Commons and the country still affirm that it is no longer necessary to undertake defensive works, then, I say, I shall be satisfied with their decision. I do not know that I ought to weary the House very much more on this subject, but I will give just a little information as to the class of work which is being done at present, and that which was done in defence of the Empire 26 years ago. I will state, with the permission of the House, what was the cost of the armament of a first-class ship in 1854 and 1855. When I give these figures I think the House will understand why it is that the Army Estimates are larger than they used to be. The Duke of Wellington, the most powerful ship in the Navy in 1854–5, carried 131 guns. The total cost of her guns amounted to £7,000, the gun-carriages to £2,500, the projectiles and ammunition to £5,200, and the stores, side-arms, powder-cases, boats, equipments, &c, to £2,300. All this showed a total cost of £17,000. The Benbow is one of the latest additions to our Fleet. The total cost of her guns was £58,339. The mountings cost £82,858; the projectiles, powder, and cartridges, 100 rounds per 110-ton gun, and 85 rounds per 6-inch gun, £38,500; cartridge cases, £7,000; miscellaneous stores and equipments, £13,800; 18 Whitehead torpedoes and equipments, £7,200; the total amounting to £207,697. This is the cost of the armament and ammunition of one ship in the present day, as against £17,000 in 1854–5. Now I will give other figures showing a greater proportion. The cost of a single charge for a 68-pounder gun in 1856 was 15 s. The cost of a single charge for one of the 110-ton guns on the Benbow was £153. The 900 lbs. of powder of which it consisted cost £70, the steel common shell £80, and the cart-

    1549
    ridge silk cloth £3. The cartridge cover of the charge cost four times the amount of the entire charge of a 68-pounder gun 30 years ago. The cost of guns for batteries has increased not quite in the same proportion. The cost of Fort Cunningham, as armed in 1860, amounted to £5,600; but, as armed in 1886, with nine guns, it amounted to £32,600. I do not ask for increased expenditure inputting these facts before the House; I only ask for inquiry. I ask that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) shall sit on a Committee, with other of his Colleagues, and shall examine these facts, and arrive at some conclusion as to the necessity or otherwise for these works. If they find that such works are necessary, I ask that they shall put it in the power of the Government to carry them out; or if they find that the works are not necessary, I ask them to say that we should abandon this system of protection, which, individually, I believe to be necessary. I think very much is said in this House, in discussing these Estimates, that is fallacious and useless. Hon. Gentlemen do not know at what they are hitting when they move for reductions. The Estimates, prepared as they are, cannot disclose the work done for the money voted, nor the motives which influence a Government in asking for money; and it is far better, if hon. Gentlemen are called upon to exercise an intelligent judgment upon these matters, that they should do so with the proper information before them.
    MR. BADEN - POWELLsaid, he had visited a great many of these coaling stations, and had gleaned the opinions of the Colonists on the spot, both in times of panic and in times of peace. In the past 30 or 40 years English enterprize, energy, and capital had spread over the world a network of commercial interest. The strongest lines of that network were the lines of our communication; but the knots of the network were our coaling stations, and if these knots were insecure the whole of the network would fall to pieces. It was of the utmost importance to remember that if our communications were not kept intact our foreign trade would at once pass into the hands of other nations. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty stated the other night that the coaling stations were being looked to, and that considerable
    1550
    progress with the works had been made in several instances; but he wanted to point out to the Government that these were only a few of the coaling stations that were absolutely indispensable if we were to retain our commercial supremacy in the further parts of the world. They were told that £50,000 was to be spent on these defensive works. He wished the sum was larger; but he supposed they would have in these days to be thankful for small mercies. There was a larger sum of £138,000 to be spent in armaments, and he hoped the Government would be able to give some explanation of these armaments. The importance of at once putting our communications in a thorough state of defence was obvious, not only on the plea of security, but on the plea of economy. One of our chief British industries was the carrying trade. We were the carriers of the world, and if we did not maintain the security of our communications we were liable to lose that trade. There annually passed round the Cape of Good Hope a trade valued at between £180,000,000 and £200,000,000, and in time of war the trade could be taken out of English hands if we did not have coaling stations all along the routes. He considered that we could, at a very small cost, ward off all wars by making it perfectly hopeless for any enemy to attempt to attack us at sea; but we could not do this unless we organized in time. It was most important that we should not only have men to defend those stations, but that they should be well trained in the use of guns and torpedoes, and he would like to see some permanent Board to take charge of the communications of the Empire. He hope the Government would agree to the inquiry asked for, and would make a declaration which would show that they were determined to carry through a strong, continuous policy in defence of the communications of the Empire.
    SIR LEWIS PELLYsaid, that as one of those who had been in charge of the Mozambique Coast, he could testify that none of our coaling stations there were safe. In fact, the observation might be applied to the whole Coast line from the Mozambique Channel to Kurrachee. He urged the necessity of providing for the defence of various coaling stations in the East, which were at present entirely undefended. As the Coasts were reef-bound,

    1551
    they afforded means of security, for, once inside the reefs, there was anchorage for all the Fleets in the world.
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL)said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had suggested the importance of referring to a Select Committee the consideration of the important matter which he brought to the attention of the House. But he found in the views which the right hon. Gentleman expressed last year sufficient reasons against bringing matters of such extreme delicacy not only to the knowledge of the House and the country, but of all the nations of the world. He might say, however, that there had been no break in the continuity of what had been undertaken at any time. The works with regard to land fortifications in connection with our military ports and commercial harbours must involve large expenditure; they had been under the consideration of successive Governments; and although their importance had been recognized, no definite scheme had been determined on by any Government, or submitted to the approval of Parliament. It was some comfort to know, on the authority of those who enjoyed the confidence of different Governments, that those military ports were capable of being enabled to resist the attacks of the most important Naval Power, or of a combination of the two most important. Her Majesty's Government did not underrate the advantage of placing those important places beyond risk. Certain works were still without a portion of the armaments with which they ought to be supplied; but even that had its consolation, for since of late armaments had become obsolete on an average of 15 years, they had the satisfaction of knowing that they could avail themselves of the constantly-increasing knowledge which every period of transition had brought with it. As to the importance of providing submarine defences to prevent the approach of an invading force to any of the military harbours, he had the satisfaction of being able to state that with regard to the Thames and the Medway, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Milford Haven, Cork, and other ports, the submarine mines were in such a state of completeness that they could at the shortest possible notice be put into action. The right hon. Gentleman would be glad to know that they had disciplined corps of skilful
    1552
    men capable of working those scientific forms of defence, and that Portsmouth, Plymouth, and the Thames were protected by the Engineer Militia of those ports. He was happy to be able to give an assurance as to the satisfactory nature of the submarine defences of Malta, Halifax, and Bermuda, which made those stations absolutely secure from attack by sea. The Government certainly attached greater importance to the proper protection of our coaling stations in the Eastern than the Western Seas; and he was happy to say that with regard to those the progress made was quite satisfactory and that at the present moment their personnel and matériel were complete, and could at the shortest notice be called into activity. Last year the right hon. Gentleman expressed a confident hope that the fortification works then in progress might be completed in March, 1888. He was glad to say that the progress made justified that expectation, and it was satisfactory to know that there had been very cordial co-operation in the matter between the Colonial Authorities and the Home Government in the provision of those defences. The highly patriotic spirit which had been exhibited at Hong Kong and Singapore, where large sums had been devoted to the necessary works to receive the armaments which would be furnished by the Home Government, was particularly gratifying. Still, there remained the important duty of organizing a flotilla of torpedo boats, steam launches, quick-firing guns, and the necessary personnel for keeping constant guard and watch over those hidden submarine works. That subject was engaging the very serious attention of the Secretary of State; and they believed, if the occasion should arise, there would be readily improvised from the naval and military resources of the Empire a force ready to man and guard those defences. With respect to the protection of the mercantile ports, he was happy to be able to give an assurance which he trusted would be satisfactory to the House. He was authorized to say that during the last 15 months there had been a steady, energetic, and even remarkable progress made in the completion of the system of submarine mines for the defence of the most important ports and harbours of the country. By the end of the coming financial year he believed that

    1553
    every important commercial port would be placed in such a position as to be able to give a very good account of an invading squadron. There remained the necessity of providing buildings and stores of every kind, and these were now in hand and steadily progressing. There had been organized a special Coast Battalion of Royal Engineers, for the exclusive duty of working these defences. They consisted of officers promoted from the ranks, specially trained for the work, kept in constant practice, and aided by a staff specially selected and highly skilled in electric and mechanical science. They had also the good fortune of being able to co-operate with local organizations, which during the last year had been most satisfactorily at work on the defence of the Mersey, Clyde, Tyne, and Severn. In each of those harbours there had been placed one lieutenant and 16 non-commissioned officers and men, with whom were associated the local Volunteer Engineer Company, specially devoted to this class of submarine mining, who were aided, instructed, and trained by the professional men. The Government were giving all the encouragement they could in the form of grants, and were holding out every inducement they could to local Volunteers to devote a large portion of their time to this highly skilled and technical work. The result of the experience of the four great estuaries he had referred to had been so encouraging that in the Estimates for the current year it would be found that money was asked to place a similar force for the Forth, the Tay, the Humber, the Tees, and for Falmouth; and though there was not a large Volunteer Force to co-operate with them, sections of battalions would be placed on duty at Belfast and Dublin. He trusted that the figures he had mentioned would give confidence and relief from danger of panic to the very important communities whose commerce it was so important should be carried on under a sense of security. With regard to the fortification of these important forts, he was unable to say more than that the subject was under the consideration it deserved. But the Estimates included a Vote of £10,000 for the Tyne, preference having been given on account of the Tyne being not merely a commercial harbour, but also a great arsenal. The House would see that re-
    1554
    gard had been had to the importance of the subject; and the Government must not be suspected of indifference, or less entitled to confidence, because they were not light-hearted about the enormous expenditure the works would involve. There was constant danger that works undertaken to-day with the full approval of professional men would become obsolete almost before their execution could be completed. He trusted the House would feel there was the most anxious desire to provide as far as possible for the wants of the day under the guidance of the science of the times. The Government felt they were best guarding the interests of the country by avoiding delay and procrastination on the one hand, while, on the other, avoiding hasty expenditure under a feeling of panic.
    SIR FREDERICK STANLEYsaid, it was so far satisfactory to hear that there was no break in the continuity of what had been undertaken; but the case of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) was that there was work which was part of a definite and well-thought-out scheme for the defence of the country which had never been commenced at all. The Committee asked for would by no means take upon itself the functions which belonged to the Executive; but the expense being so great, and the work being necessary by the admission of the present Government and of the noble Marquess formerly Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington), it might be a strength to the Government and an assistance to the House if there were associated with the Executive a Committee including Members like the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), who was not popularly supposed to be predisposed towards military expenditure, who would satisfy themselves that it was necessary and advisable, in the interests of peace and of our commerce, that these defensive works should be carried out. In speaking of the local forces that were to be organized for the defence of the mercantile ports, the hon. Gentleman said nothing about the provision of materials.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, the provisions would certainly include ammunition and everything else, and he spoke about works that were now in progress, including the erection of storehouses.
    SIR FREDERICK STANLEYsaid, he was glad to have obtained that assurance, which did not seem to be conveyed by the hon. Gentleman's first statement. A torpedo system alone was not everything; indeed, torpedoes were of little value against the means of dealing with them unless they were accompanied by protective works. Perhaps they might hear later on that the necessary works were included. Any suspicion he might have gathered strength from the manner in which the hon. Gentleman spoke of the works being pushed forward in the Colonies. But they were almost led to bear the expenditure. It was an expenditure of which they in no way complained; they had come forward loyally, and had voted money in support of the system of Imperial defence. With Volunteers at home, as in the Colonies, there was an excellent spirit if we made use of it; but it was a spirit that could be easily chilled and discouraged. He hoped that, as works of defence were pushed forward in the Colonies forming part of an Imperial and commercial system, it might be understood that armaments would be proceeded with pari passu at home. If one thing was clearer than another it was that the conditions of trade in time of war would have entirely changed. We should not, as formerly, have ships convoyed by men-of-war. The best authorities thought it would be necessary that the sea should be patrolled by armoured cruisers; and coaling stations would be of the utmost importance both for cruisers and for merchant steamers which trusted to their speed in running the gauntlet of hostile cruisers. The maintenance of our lines of communication would be absolutely necessary to the carrying on of our Colonial trade. He hoped he should not sit down without making this matter clear—first of all, that this was not a question in any respect a Party one; and, secondly, that they were not asking more than the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) told the House, after mature consideration with the Naval and Military Authorities, was necessary for the defence of the country. What they asked was that there should be no break of continuity, not in the work begun, but that laid down as necessary. On this he believed rested the best guarantee for economy. He
    1556
    was sorry to say that, like his right hon. Friend, he had had some experience of what Votes of Credit were when they came to be spent; and he firmly believed that the way for the country to get full value for its money was to spend it in times of peace, when every item could be properly looked at, rather than in time of war, when emergencies and confusions were apt to arise, and when, therefore, the expenditure could not be so well controlled. If the Government did not feel themselves able, in the face of the undoubtedly large expenditure, to carry out what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) and Lord Northbrook originally proposed, then it was contended that it might be an advantageous thing, not for the Government or the House, but for the country, that there should be an independent body before whom the question could be clearly laid, and who could say that the Government in their opinion were justified in making a large and what, perhaps, might seem an excessive demand upon the finances of the country, and that a proper and early expenditure might result in that due economy which it was the special function of that House to insure.
    SIR EDWARD HAMLEYsaid, he wished he could confirm the accuracy of the glowing picture which the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Woodall) had presented; but, unfortunately, he was unable to do so. There were two points on the Southern Coast on which our Fleets were absolutely dependent, and the loss of which would imperil the existence of our Navy—he meant, of course, the great Naval Arsenals and Dockyards of Portsmouth and Plymouth. But their importance was not limited to their use to the Navy. They had also a high military significance. In case of invasion they would be powerful supports of our Army in the field; and if an enemy should capture them he would thereby enormously increase the chances of effecting the conquest of the Island. Therefore, Portsmouth and Plymouth were as the very apple of our eye. This fact had long been recognized, and with this result—that many years ago a very considerable sum of money was laid out on their defence. These works, when constructed, were sufficient for their purpose; but in the course of time the progress of artillery had been so great, leaving fortifications

    1557
    far behind, that these works were no longer reliable for their defence. Things had come to a pass that would formerly have seemed miraculous. Modern guns hurled what were not so much shells as loaded mines, dropping them with wonderful precision within a limited area, and insuring their explosion there. By these missiles magazines and forts formerly bomb-proof were now penetrable, and he need not describe the effect of one of these vast projectiles exploding in a magazine. Plymouth was formerly protected by the existing batteries; but it was now open to bombardment by ships of war which could lie beyond the range of those batteries, and, indeed, concealed by obstacles from their view. Several foreign men-of-war now in commission were capable of destroying the masonry and magazines of our sea forts. It was evident, therefore, that these works demanded renovation. But that was not all that had to be said. Nearly all the land defences of Portsmouth, and also those of Plymouth, were without artillery. Their deficiencies in guns were to be counted not by scores, but by the hundred. Now, he had been unable to discover in the Estimates that any provision had been made for remedying these deficiencies. Many hon. Members would agree with him that this was a perilous absurdity; that it was a blot on our common sense and prudence, and could not too soon be remedied. He appealed to hon. Members, when the occasion occurred, to give practical effect to their opinions on this subject. He knew that many of them had to encounter the prejudices of their constituents. He himself had been held up to reprobation by the Radical newspapers of the neighbourhood as one who was desirous of spending money on what it pleased them to call useless defences. Ashe was not a Radical, that did not greatly concern him; but he could feel for hon. Members who were Radicals, and if they were put to pressure of this kind he would appeal to their patriotism to resist it. Our military ports formed an important part, but not the only part, of this question. We had great and famous commercial ports which were absolutely defenceless, and might easily be attacked by means at the command of a sea Power. He would only instance the Tyne, the Clyde, and the Mersey. These
    1558
    were all ports of enormous commercial importance. They were ports where our vessels would refit, and two of them were channels upon which this country, so inadequate for the production of its own sustenance, would rely for its food. He conceded willingly that considerable good had been done during the past year in providing for the defence of these rivers by submarine mines under the lately developed system of warfare. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Frederick Stanley) who had just sat down had hit a blot. These submarine mines were of little value unless they were protected by guns laid in defensive works. Now, the only one of the rivers he had named which was in the least degree defended by guns was the Mersey, on which there was a battery, but so inadequate for its purpose that an enemy's ship lying beyond the range of the battery might shell the docks, which extend outside Liverpool far down towards the sea. He had no intention of wearying the House with examples; and he would only mention that there were numerous other ports which, for various reasons, called urgently for defence, and among them the capitals of Scotland and of Ireland were easily approached and offered tempting prizes to an enemy. The responsible authorities year after year had pressed this matter on the attention of the Government, and appeals had been made to the Treasury; but the Treasury, strange to say, was not a Department from which to expect money. It was a Department from which to expect the refusal of money. If other Departments chose to amuse themselves by framing elaborate Estimates, and supporting them by strong arguments, the Treasury did not object to that, as it would furnish it with the opportunity of exercising its especial function of cutting those Estimates down. These amputations seemed to admit of no kind of discrimination. The word was passed to shear off any number of millions to suit the exigencies of the Budget, and the thing was done. The earliest type of a Treasury official was Procrustes. The way in which the War Office put forward its plans was to calculate the total for any works and armaments required, and then to divide it so as to extend over a number of years. According to that plan, if these necessary defences were to be completed within the next five

    1559
    years, the House ought this year to see a very considerable sum allotted in the Estimates. But what did the House find? It would find that £10,000, allotted for the whole of these works, was given only to the Tyne, and therefore the defence of all our other ports was indefinitely postponed. It was in vain that works and armaments were estimated for and approved when they could be annihilated by a stroke of the pen. It is in vain that the Defence Committee plants and a Secretary of State waters, when in a moment the Secretary to the Treasury could interfere and stop fruition. It was in vain then that the national defences were to be trusted to the annual Estimates. Sound policy dictated the placing of the financial basis of any scheme of Imperial military defence on such a footing as would put it out of the power of any Government to tamper with the security of the Empire in order to provide for its passing needs.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, if he were to consult his own feelings, and to forget the interests of his constituents, he should absent himself from the House during these discussions. There was no novelty in the situation. Year by year the House was treated to a repetition of the views that had been expressed that evening. Once more hon. and gallant Gentlemen tried to make the House believe that if the lavish Estimates prepared by the Government were only exceeded—that if they would only do certain things this year—then they should arrive at the full efficiency when both old men and old women might sleep securely in their beds. He wished to impress upon the House the strong fact that there was no finality in this martial expenditure. Every new scheme of offence or defence appeared to become obsolete in about 15 years. He knew, from his own experience of engines and machinery, that a continual competition of inventions went on; but while inventions in peaceful industry were for the welfare of mankind, the rivalry that went on in this and other countries in those offensive and defensive undertakings would only end in confusion worse confounded. Each Opposition encouraged each Government in a profligate expenditure—[Cries of "Oh!"]—well, in an interminable expenditure. Whatever strength was given to defensive armaments, there
    1560
    was ingenuity yet in the world which would make offensive operations stronger. The expenditure on their armaments had increased within a comparatively short period from £ 18,000,000 to £30,000,000, and yet hon. and gallant Gentlemen told them that this country was now in a more defenceless position than it had ever been before. It seemed impossible to impress upon the mind of the House the hopelessness of the enterprize on which they were engaged. If the right hon. Gentlemen occupying the two Front Benches could for one single Session forget their own proclivities, and declare that the enterprize on which this and other countries were engaged was a mad and ruinous undertaking, and if they could appeal to other nations with all the authority which their position bestowed upon them, he believed they would do infinitely more good for the whole world than by all the talk they had indulged in during the last 20 or 25 years. There was a strong warlike element in that House, which seemed for a night or two to be omnipotent; but he believed the common sense of the country would, in the end, put a curb upon their demands, and he seriously assured those gallant Members that it was his solemn conviction that they were not really serving the interests of the country, although they were so loud-mouthed in their professions of patriotism.
    SIR JOHN COMMERELL: I rise, Sir, to give my most emphatic denial to the opinion which has been expressed by the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Woodall) in reference to the defences of Bermuda. The hon. Gentleman said that Bermuda is perfectly protected by torpedoes, which are ready to be laid down at a moment's notice. Now, six months have not elapsed since I was at Bermuda; and I have no hesitation in saying that not one-tenth of the number of torpedoes required for the defence of the Island are on the spot. Within the last 18 months the number of men and officers who form the torpedo corps has been reduced; and at the present moment the Island of Bermuda, which is our most important Naval Station in North America and the West Indies, is protected by one weak regiment distributed over a district 27 miles in extent, two companies of Artillery, and two com-

    1561
    panies of Engineers, one of which forms the torpedo corps. The torpedoes which it is proposed to lay down will, for the most part, be under the protection of no guns whatever, and might, therefore, be easily taken up by an enemy after they were laid down. As far as Halifax is concerned, it is in a little better position; but the armament of the forts there is very indifferent, and it will be absolutely necessary to improve it. When I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), who has just sat down, I could not help feeling that he spoke not as if he represented Bradford, but rather the Hartz Mountains, because a more Rip Van Winklish speech I never heard. Can it be supposed that we are to stand still in respect of military and naval armaments, and that we are to remain satisfied with guns and charges which may have been found sufficient 30 years ago, but which would not be of the slightest avail in the present day? What chance would the guns and fortifications of 1854 have against the 150-lb. charge of modern times? The question we have to deal with is not the question of money, but the absolute necessity of keeping pace with the times. We knew that by going to the Treasury for money we will get very little. We may get morals, but we will not get money. I am happy to say that the two Services are well represented in the present House of Commons, and that the demands which are made upon the Government in respect of our defences receive the approval not only of this House, but of the country. Hon. Members may depend upon it that those who represent the two Services will do their duty to the best of their ability. We will endeavour to speak up like men, and to express our opinions in the interests not only of the Services we represent, but of the country at large. We Believe that it is for the interests of economy, as well as for the best interests of the Empire, that we should maintain our Services in the condition they have been handed down to us by our forefathers. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) does not like our speaking out; but we shall do so, nevertheless, when we think it necessary.
    COLONEL WARING: I rise, under circumstances of some little difficulty, to perform a task of no small
    1562
    importance—namely, to endeavour to induce the House to give me its attention while I bring before it a matter which, though small in itself, is of considerable interest to those concerned. I had intended to move, if I could have obtained an opportunity—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the great discrepancy between the pay and allowances of Staff Sergeants of Militia serving on Army engagements, and those serving on Militia engagements, while performing the same duties, is unfair to the latter class, and should be reduced by an addition to their remuneration whore they can show long and meritorious service."
    The House has listened patiently to the story of the Prodigal Son of the British Empire, and I hope it will listen as patiently to that of an elder brother who has never yet made an appeal to the House for assistance. The question to which I ask the attention of the House is the difference between the pay and allowances of Staff Sergeants of Militia serving on Army engagements and those serving on Militia engagements. I will not, at this late hour, detain the House by going into all the details of the question. I will simply say that the facts are on record, and that they are these—that while the Sergeants serving on Army engagements receive a certain sum per diem, those serving on Militia engagements receive precisely one-half the amount. I shall be told, no doubt, that they are an expiring class, and that they now only number 700, whereas there were as many as 4,567 a few years ago. So far from that being an argument against their case being considered, it is a good reason why so small a matter should not be allowed to stand between the country and fair play. There is another objection which may be urged, and that is that these men have not been liable to Army service abroad, and that they have not had experience of service in a foreign country. That it is quite true; and I would allow that argument to have its due weight. Therefore, I do not ask—and that Resolution is carefully worded in that respect—that they should be placed on a footing of equality with the Sergeants on Army engagements, but only that some small addition should be made to their present inadequate remuneration. Another reason which may be urged against the proposition to improve their position is that they are not now liable to serve with the Army in case of

    1563
    emergency. I hold that plea to be altogether a chimerical one. They are the instructors of the force which forms our second line of defence; and in a time of emergency it would be necessary to augment their number largely by efficient men from the Regular Army, who would assist them in performing their duties. It may be said, possibly, that these men are not as efficient, and have never been as efficient, as men of a similar description drawn from the Line. I think I have a right to say a few words on that subject. I am now in the 32nd year of my service in the Militia, in the same regiment—a regiment I have now the honour to command. The regiment was originally worked by non-commissioned officers almost exclusively drawn from its own ranks, and an adequate supply was kept up from that source; and it was not until it was made illegal to promote non-commissioned officers from the regiment that we were obliged to resort to Sergeants from the Line. I believe that any official in the House connected with the Horse Guards is able to express an opinion upon this subject; and I see an hon. Member opposite who has had the opportunity of seeing this regiment under arms. I believe that he will testify that it is not inferior to any regiment which belongs to the same branch of the Service; and I hold that men who are called upon to perform certain duties, and who perform them to the satisfaction of the authorities, should not be placed in the invidious and unfair position they now occupy in regard to pension, pay, and allowances. I will pass, however, from a comparative state to a positive one. The men are now receiving pay for which you could not get an ordinary labourer in most of the counties to do agricultural work. The pay of a Sergeant of Militia amounts to 1s. 9d. per day, and he is liable to servo for more than 30 years before he becomes entitled to a pension on retirement. Surely that is not acting either fairly or justly towards those who may be looked upon as the nurses of the Army. The consequence of this state of affairs is that day by day our best noncommissioned officers are seeking civil employment, and leaving the Militia. From whence are we to look for a supply to replace them? It is well known that there is by no means a large supply of
    1564
    non-commissioned officers in the Line, and the number of non-commissioned officers is getting day by day more scarce. We have, further, to compete with a large number—some 150 or 200 battalions—of Volunteers, every one of which offers more inducements than we can offer to get the best men from the Line. The consequence is that we are able to obtain very few men for the Militia. So much is that the case that we have been obliged to promote men from the position of bugler to that of Sergeant on the Staff, because the men we get from our Line battalions are utterly inefficient to perform the duties required of them. I think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in a private conversation I had with him, had but a very vague idea of the expense which the country would have to incur if my proposal were adopted. In my opinion, a sum of £15,000 would cover all the demands we make; and surely this is not a very large amount to concede for the purpose of rendering a very admirable and old Constitutional Force of the country more popular with some of its best and most deserving members.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the question of the better arming of the Volunteer Artillery. I feel that it is most important, in order that the Artillery Volunteers should obtain the greatest efficiency, that better guns, of precision and otherwise, gun-carriages, and Martini - Henry rifles should be placed at their disposal. We have heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) about the vast expenditure upon the two great Services of the country, and the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the two Front Benches have given concurrent testimony to the fact. Now, the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper is one which, if it could be adopted, would tend rather to produce economy than expenditure; and, therefore, I think it is one which will commend itself to the House, and especially to that school of opinion of which the hon. Member for Bradford is so conspicuous an advocate. We were told at the beginning of this evening's proceedings, by no less an

  1565
  authority than the Prime Minister, that any increase of the Volunteer Estimate must be considered as an addition to the Public Expenditure. I strongly protest against that view of the case. At present we have a force of some 250,000 men, who give their time and services for the country's good in exchange for no pay whatever; and, therefore, any step that can be taken to improve their position cannot be held to be an addition to the expenditure of the country. We were further told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Vote would be of no avail this year; but those who have the honour to command Volunteer regiments know very well what the Capitation Grant is which is paid by the Treasury; and if the same course is to be pursued with regard to it this year I am afraid that we shall find matters gradually growing worse. It is on this ground that I regretted to find the Government, in the early part of the evening, disinclined to concede the moderate request made on this side of the House for an addition of 10 s. to the Capitation Grant for the Volunteers. In speaking on this subject—namely, the Artillery Volunteers—I believe that I am standing alone, because I believe that I am the only Commandant of Artillery Volunteers who has a seat in this House; and considering the importance of the question I am anxious to raise—and it has an important bearing upon the defences of the country, especially on our commercial ports—I think it is second to no subject which has been before the House this evening. We are all most desirous that not only should the Volunteers be put upon a better footing, but that the equipment of the force should be in such a satisfactory condition as would enable the Volunteers to afford real aid to the Army in a time of war. We have some 45,000 Artillery Volunteers in this country, and they are zealous and earnest in their work. Representing a force which extends over three counties, I can bear my testimony to the great advantage this Artillery Force would receive, if it could not only have the extra Capitation Grant which we endeavoured to obtain at an earlier part of the evening, but also if it could be furnished with 40-pounder guns wherewith to exercise the men. There can be no doubt that during the past few years the Artillery Volun-
  1566
  teers have suffered through not being supplied with proper guns and arms of precision. The old 32-pounders with which we have been supplied have been rendered unfit for work long ago, and it is very difficult now to bring up our men for that gun practice which it is desirable they should have. When a few nights ago I addressed a Question to a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, whom I do not see in his place now, I was told that a good many 32-pounders had already been served out, and that there were no more in store of that calibre. Now, it is of the utmost importance that we should get guns of some kind in our batteries, so that we may thoroughly exercise our men in the use of arms of precision; or otherwise they may become indifferent and careless. It is of no use employing the old 32-pounders with any idea that we may thereby perfect the drill of the men; and yet that is an object the importance of which I am most desirous of impressing on the House with all the force I can. I think it is of extreme importance that for the purpose of exercise Artillery Volunteers should be furnished with 40 - pounder guns. If it is the case that a 40-pounder gun costs a large sum of money, and that there are very few in store at present, or that there have not been so many made as ought to be made, could not the Government see their way to provide 9, 10, or 12-pounders for practice in field evolutions, so that the Artillery Volunteers maybe enabled to take their proper position in the field if necessity should arise? I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that we might be supplied with 20-pounder guns; but the answer was that guns of that description were never served out to the Artillery Volunteers. Very likely not, but we merely ask to be supplied with them for practice. There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is this—even those corps and batteries which have been so highly favoured as to have 40-pounders or 60-pounders served out to them are un-provided with proper gun-carriages, and have no means of transporting the guns from their winter quarters, and from the drill-sheds which have been put up by the Artillery officers at considerable expense, in order to use them at their summer quarters and at their ranges

  1567
  and places of practice. What happens? It is not unusual to see a large force of Artillery Volunteers marching behind carts carrying 4-pounders down to the ranges at which they are to practise. I think it is of the utmost importance that the Volunteers should be better equipped and furnished with arms. Now that the Rifle Corps have the Martini - Henry rifle it is hard that the Artillery Volunteers should not have the Martini-Henry carbine. Why should not the Government give us equal advantages with the Rifle Volunteers, by enabling us to furnish our regiments with adequate guns out of the Government stores? I throw out that suggestion, and I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that, considering the Rifle Volunteers have the benefit of the Martini - Henry rifle without charge, the Artillery Volunteers should receive the same benefit; and surely 45,000 stand of arms could be turned out in a very short time in the Government factories. Therefore, I think that the country should be called upon to make this provision without further delay. It is not very much to ask, and I believe that in the end it would, if granted, promote economy in the Estimates. I would also ask the Government to afford the Volunteers an opportunity of obtaining their uniforms from the Government stores at a cheap rate, and I would suggest that a waist-belt and pouch should be granted. They cost the Volunteer about 12 s. or 14 s.; and considering the officers have to make good any deficiencies, and that they already are required to advance considerable sums of money, it is rather hard, now that the real value of the Volunteer Force is becoming more fully recognized, that the Volunteers themselves should be required to purchase all the things which are necessary in order to maintain them in a proper condition. I have already said that my command extended over a wide area of country. That is a circumstance which renders it a matter of great moment to assemble the different batteries together at least once a-year. All connected with the Volunteer Force will agree with me in saying that it is of importance that men who may be called upon to act together should have an opportunity of knowing each other. At present they are unable to do so on account of the
  1568
  expenditure involved, and if they go into camp they receive nothing beyond a bare 2s. a-day from the day they go into it until the day they leave it. I think it is absurd and monstrous to expect that men will give up all their time to the service of their country unless they are more liberally treated. The men themselves are called upon to make great sacrifices; and if their travelling expenses are not paid, it is hardly reasonable to expect that the officers will bring pressure to bear upon the men to induce them to leave their families and their industrial occupations in order to go for three or four days into camp, notwithstanding the importance of bringing the men together and showing them the details of their duty. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to do something in this direction, he will confer an immense boon upon this branch of the Service, and his name will be held in very high estimation indeed by the Volunteer Force. There is another point upon which I desire to say a word, and that is to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman not only the importance of giving us better guns, but of giving us better carriages for the guns; of giving us travelling carriages and limbers, Martini-Henry carbines, and better arms of precision generally. Any advances which may have been made during the past year I hope will be continued during the present. I believe that the present is the time to give all legitimate assistance and encouragement to the Volunteers, and not when under the influence of panic or invasion. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of the Artillery Volunteers from an economical point of view. I ask him to enable us to bring these large bodies of men together without throwing all the expenses upon the men themselves. It is absolutely necessary that the detached and isolated batteries which exist in the East and West of Scotland should be allowed to come together once a-year for practice; that they should be furnished with the best weapons that can be procured; and if the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot supply us with 40-pounders, will allow us to have some of the 9 or 12 - pounders now in store, we shall then be able to enter into real practice, and, I have no doubt, with the most successful result.

  ARMY—THE SOLDIER'S RATION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    DR. R. FARQUHARSON: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the deficiency in quantity and defectiveness in arrangement of the soldier's ration, and of the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to consider the best manner of improving the soldier's ration. I think this question is one of very great importance. We all admit that the soldier is an expensive machine, and if he is to be kept in a state, of efficiency he must be liberally and substantially fed. The Medical Department of the Army have frequently recommended additions to the soldiers' diet, and have declared that it is necessary the soldiers should be provided with a larger allowance of meat than the three-quarters of a pound which they now receive. The recommendation of the Committee presided over by General Peel was that an extra quarter-pound of meat should be given; but General Peel himself did not concur with that recommendation, and preferred a small augmentation of the pay, in the belief that if the soldier had more pay he would supplement his ration out of his own pocket. Now, the soldier is told before he is induced to join the Regular Army that he will be fed and supplied with what are commonly called free rations; but such free rations are well known to be an entire fiction. Instead of getting free rations he only gets three-quarters of a pound of meat and one pound of dry bread; so that if he were left to live on what a grateful country supplies him with he would have very short commons indeed. He is allowed to supply himself at breakfast, out of his own pocket, with a little coffee and some milk and sugar; and if he likes to go a little further and spend his money on his stomach, he may go to the canteen and spend any amount he likes on an extra breakfast. After that he gets his dinner in the middle of the day, and he finds that the three-quarters of a pound which he is supplied with without bone, in the process of cooking, is dwindled down to four or five ounces. Then he may have coffee to his tea, and more bread, and he gets nothing more until the following morning. Hon. Members will understand what an injurious effect it must have upon a man to
    1570
    be kept fasting so long if he has laborious work to do. When a great and growing lad is suddenly called on to do a new kind of work the expenditure of a good deal of nervous energy is involved, and there is a good deal of strain upon the system. The recruit is usually a growing lad in good health; he is required to do a couple of hours' work before breakfast, and perhaps four-and-a-half hours' drill during the day. He has also to perform fatigue duties and to take part in gymnastic exercises, and all this strain upon the nervous resources ought to be met by a liberal diet. That the recruit does not get enough in the shape of rations is proved by the Reports of the medical officers, and it will be found that these men are spending their own money every day, perhaps 4d. or 5d. a-day, out of their so-called pay, in order literally to keep body and soul together. It is all very well to say that they have money which they may spend on food. There can be no doubt that young men in this position very much prefer to study their pleasure instead of their health and physique; and although it may be said that the ordinary agricultural labourer is not as well fed as the soldier, it is nevertheless the fact that he gets a kind of diet that is better calculated for enabling him to perform his work. Although he may not have quite as much meat, he has more fatty matter, and farinaceous food which more than makes up the deficiency. At present the soldier is in the habit of supplementing his diet by procuring, when at work outside his quarters, such things as butter and cheese. The remedy for this grievance is, I think, pretty obvious. I think that the soldier and the recruit ought to be provided with a better breakfast. They ought to have something more than dry bread to the cup of tea and coffee they have at 8 o'clock in the morning. Then, again, I think they ought to have something between their meals before they go to bed at night, and I think that bread and cheese would be a very good sort of food to give them. Of course it may be said that all this will cost money. I am afraid that it would cost a considerable sum; but it is a question whether it would not be preferable to cut off 2d. or 3d. a-day of this delusive pay—to give him less money, and a more reasonable amount of cooked food free of cost to himself.

    1571
    [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No;" but I maintain that if the country cannot afford to give to the recruit and the soldier the extra food their constitution requires it would be far better to give him less pay, and make up for it by an increased amount of food. Then, again, we ought to do away with the fiction of free rations, the result of which at present is that the recruit, when he joins the Colours, finds that he has been practically deceived by the Recruiting Sergeant, and immediately becomes dissatisfied. I think it would be much better to state what the exact facts are. The most important matter, however, is the supply of an adequate quantity of good and substantial food. A recruit when he joins the Army, is generally not fully developed; and unless the unnecessary waste of tissue is prevented, and his bodily strength and constitution preserved, he will inevitably break down under the pressure and strain of the new work to which he is subjected. I therefore think that the expenditure of more money in food would, in the end, be economical. Two years ago, when this subject was brought before the House by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), whom I regret not to see in his place, and still more on account of the cause of his absence, the noble Marquees the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who was then at the head of the War Office, promised that the subject should have full consideration. The noble Marquess soon afterwards left the War Office, and I should like to know whether he transmitted the result of his deliberations to any of his numerous Successors? At all events, I would press these points upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who now so ably fills the post of Secretary of State for War (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman). I know that many Army authorities themselves consider that this question is one of much greater importance than has hitherto been attached to it. The subject of dieting a soldier is the subject of a prize essay next year, and I think that fact alone is a proof of the importance which is attached to it. I must, apologize for intervening between the right hon. Gentleman and the House; but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the subject carefully, and decide upon securing for the soldier
    1572
    the advantages which I claim on his behalf.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House that the rations now supplied to the soldier are quite insufficient, and there is no good reason why they should not be increased. Both bread and meat are now much cheaper than they were, and at the present moment the War Office must be realizing a large saving out of the bread and meat contracts. Therefore, this would be an excellent opportunity for giving the soldier a really free ration. He ought to get his bread and tea and something for supper. It would not cost a very large sum of money, and the question is one which certainly deserves the serious consideration of the War Office. There was, however, one recommendation made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) with which I cannot agree—namely, that a deduction should be made to cover the expense of this addition to the soldier's rations out of the small pay which he at present receives. The soldier is badly paid at the present moment, and it will be most unwise to deduct anything from the small amount of pay he now receives. If you are really going to confer any advantage upon him in the shape of an increase of ration, you must make it a free ration. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has called attention to the grievances of the Militia Sergeants. Now, the case of all Sergeants is this—they are practically at the head of their Profession. As an ordinary rule a soldier rarely rises beyond the position of Sergeant, although a few may be picked out and made Sergeant Majors. I believe that only 20 commissions are given to non-commissioned officers in the course of the year, and I must say that I look upon it as a great shame and scandal. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway who agree with my first remarks will not feel inclined to concur with me in that. No doubt those hon. Members are fond of the Army; but they regard it from an aristocratic point of view. I also am fond of the Army, but I look at it from a democratic point of view, and from that point of view I say that you do not give deserving soldiers a sufficient number of commissions. The grievance of the Militia

    1573
    Sergeants, especially in the remote pats of Ireland, is a very serious one, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will look into the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has shown how wretchedly paid about 700 of these Sergeants are, and it would only cost the country something like £17,000 to meet their claims. That is exactly the cost of the ammunition of one largo gun in the Navy. You provide all these expensive things for the Navy, and yet you grudge this small additional charge for the Militia Sergeants. I do not know what the case may be in England, but in Ireland there can be no doubt that the Militia Sergeants are very badly paid indeed, and I hope something will be done to remedy the grievances of which they complain.
    COLONEL DUNCAN: Sir, I am very sorry, at this late hour, to intervene between the House and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; but I understand that any grievances which hon. Members are to bring for ward should be ventilated before Supply is taken, and the subject to which I desire to call attention is an undoubted grievance both to the taxpayers of the country and the British Army. It will not amaze me to find myself supported by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), because one of my chief aims is to secure a reduction of charge to the taxpayers. I also imagine that I shall find myself supported by the Front Bench opposite, because I do not propose to add to the public charge, but to reduceit. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) ought especially to support me, because he spoke with marked emotion to-night of the inconvenience which might be entailed by the success of such Resolutions as that which was brought forward early in the evening, involving, as it would have done, a greatly increased charge upon the public. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded, in language which was both philosophical and the true language of political economy, to the injustice of saddling posterity with any heavy charge which it might find it difficult to meet or remove. During the time when the system of purchase in the Army was abolished, England was crossed by one of those emotional waves which do so much
    1574
    credit to the heart of the people, but which are often followed by a period of re-action and of bewilderment as to finding a substitute for that which has been rightly swept away. At such a time the Government of the day seem to place themselves heart and soul in the hands of actuaries. Now, actuaries are a class of men whom, from long experience, I regard with a sort of wholesome scepticism, for I have hardly found a single instance in which Ministers—either optimists or pessimists—have not been misled by them. I have here a book which gives an example of retired pay for 20 years prepared four years ago, and I find that their calculations for the retired pay of officers of the Army has already exceeded the Estimate by 50 per cent. When steps had to be taken to replace the purchase which was rightly abolished, the method suggested was compulsory retirement after certain ages or after certain periods of service in the several ranks. It began with the faulty and imperfect test of age. Some men are young and others old at the same age, and the result has been what was never contemplated or desired—namely, that the higher ranks of the Army are, owing to this test, practically closed to officers from the ranks. Again, in times of emergency when the military schools were unable to furnish a sufficient supply of officers, they had to go to the Universities and to take other steps to obtain a supply of efficient officers, and it was found necessary to raise the age, loading to results which have been prejudicial to the Service. At the moment nothing was thought of that; but a Nemesis was in front of the unfortunate officers. They were brought into the Army and hurled into the pit of professional extinction before younger men who joined at the same time. The principle of making a man leave after serving for a certain number of years has been found not only unsound, but bad for the Service. I might illustrate this by instances from my own branch of the Service, where a certain knowledge of science is absolutely necessary. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Secretary of State for War of the great cost of our armaments and ammunition, and it is essential that the officers in charge of them should have a strictly scientific knowledge of what costs the country so much. But at the end of, say, seven years, ser-

    1575
    vice in the ranks of Major a man is put on half-pay with the prospect, if he lives long enough and vacancies occur, of being brought to a higher rank. If he is a rich man, he remains idle until a vacancy occurs; if he is a poor man, he is obliged to take a pension that is higher than half-pay, and thus to commit professional suicide. It is, indeed, a terrible system of the survival, not of the fittest, but of the richest; and it makes those who do receive promotion more or less stale and inefficient by being unemployed, and it entails a loss to the country much greater than hon. Members may imagine. It was the late Emperor Napoleon who said, in a true Napoleonic way, that the history of artillery is the history of civilization, because it is the history of the progress of science. But, at the very time that you are spending so much money on the material for your Artillery, you are forcing into private life men whose brains become fallow from want of experience, who, when they are brought back to a higher rank, have to go again, as it were, to a professional school and learn. It is for this reason that I implore the House, irrespective of Party—for Army and Navy questions are not Party questions—to reconsider the Rules which at present exist with regard to this matter. Over and over again it is found that good men are being forced out of the higher ranks into the ranks of those on retired pay, while, at the same time, it is found that you cannot feed the lower ranks sufficiently fast. That shows the necessity for some rearrangement. At present a man when he enters the ranks knows that he is going professionally to die, and whether he is an efficient and active officer or not he dies just the same, on the same day. At present an officer is, say for five years, in command of a battalion, and he knows that at the end of the five years he must leave. The last year of his service is, consequently, a most disturbed year to him, and a year of hope to the man who may succeed him. His time is occupied in making up his mind as to what further employment he can get or what he can do. What I say is—let that man work on to the last day of his five years with the belief that if his work is satisfactory he will have an extension of two years. By so doing, you would not only save the money of the country, but would give to the officers
    1576
    an inducement to work well and efficiently during the whole of his service, which would produce an effect that can hardly be exaggerated. Why should you send a Major into professional extinction or into half-pay after seven vears when be is in the prime of life? Why not award to him the punishment of dismissal if he fails to make himself efficient, or give him a certain reward if he is efficient, in retaining his rank for a longer period, and thereby saving a heavy expenditure to the country? I have stated the case with perfect simplicity. I wish the House to realize the facts, and to think over them. It is a very important question for the officers. At the present time a feeling of despair has practically settled down upon them. I think it was quaint old Curtius who said in his history of Alexander the Great—"Saepe desperatio spei causa est." Sir, in those days that grim parent may have been a fruitful mother, but to-day she is as barren as Sarai. This House will have to work a miracle ere officers see the Isaac of their hopes. It is as if in the midst of professional life they are always in professional death. That is the Nemesis they have to struggle against. What they dread is that practically during the whole of their professional career they are threatened with a death they can only avoid by a period of inaction distasteful to themselves and very costly to the country. They go about like gladiators during their professional career—"Morituri te salutant." In the interests of the taxpayer of the future I now desire to say a word. Strange as it may appear to the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), most of the Members representing the two great Services of the country have been sent here by very large and populous constituencise; and, therefore, they have no more desire to impose undue taxation upon the people than hon. Gentlemen opposite. If this system is not changed the amount of retired pay, which is already £1,000,000 a-year more than it was when purchase was abolished, will roll up to such dimensions that it will become absolutely unbearable to the taxpayers. Then will happen one of two things—either the people will be driven altogether to repudiate these pensions, or they more probably will say to the Minister of the day—"We give you so many millions for the Army; we leave you to decide how that is to be distri-

    1577
    buted; and if you cannot do something to get rid of the ineffective Army burden you must cut down the effective force." I therefore ask the House to face this subject in the interests of the taxpayers of the future, which ought to be just as dear to us as the interests of the taxpayers of the present. Why, in these days of depressed trade, should we add to the claims of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon us by turning adrift into the world men who are willing to work and swelling the crowds in the Service Clubs, who at present make night and day hideous with their moans? When a civil office becomes vacant, whether it be that of City Marshal or that of Governor of a gaol, you have candidates from every rank, from that of General down to the lowest subaltern. By adopting the suggestion I have offered you would get rid of this. You would encourage the employment of officers as officers; you would reward a Profession which deserves to be rewarded; you would increase the efficiency of these men as officers; and, at the same time, you would immensely relieve the taxpayers of the country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN): Sir, I think it may, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House—and that is my only object in the matter—if I now reply, as well as I can, to the different observations that have been made, hoping that hon. and gallant Members, and other hon. Members who do not enjoy that distinction, will defer their observations on other points until Thursday. I believe that the old practice was, when the discussion on Vote 1 was not considered adequate, and when it was necessary to take the Vote, that on the next occasion when the Army Estimates were moved the Clothing Vote No. 11 should be taken out of its order; and on this Clothing Vote, in the circumstances, the Committee allowed unusual latitude to hon. Members for the purpose of discussion. I hope the House will agree to that arrangement, in the belief that it I will be for the convenience of all of us; and, at the same time, I think it will be a satisfactory fulfilment of the engagement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at an earlier stage of the Sitting.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: Is it to be understood that on Thursday
    1578
    we may take a miscellaneous discussion on any question that is not germane to the Vote?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I Yes. I think I may go back for a good many years, and find that this has been the usual custom. It has always been agreed that, as the soldier has to be clothed as well as paid, the most convenient Vote to take for the purposes of a general discussion, when the Pay Vote has been agreed to by the Committee, is the Clothing Vote. On that Vote there will be allowed, by the courtesy of the House, full opportunity for discussing any matter that may be raised on either side of the House. I am afraid that in replying to the speeches which have been made this evening it will be necessary, in the first place, to go back several hours to the observations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the I Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). The light hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by alluding to a question which had previously occupied the attention of the House—namely, the question of Egypt; and the right hon. Gentleman made a remark which so obviously provokes a retort from me that, perhaps, the House will allow me the satisfaction of making one. He complained that much evil had been caused in the past by premature announcements of the withdrawal of troops either from Egypt or in Egypt itself. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that observation. But the Government were not guilty of any premature announcement in this case. The Estimates must necessarily be framed for the coming year, and it is impossible to conceal in them what we conceive to be the policy of the year. But if the right hon. Gentleman considered it a wrong thing for the Government to announce that they intend to retire to Assouan or Wady Halfa, why was he, of all persons in the world, the one to ask a question on the subject which gave me the opportunity of making the very announcement which he tells us himself has been so unfortunate? The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the fortifications on which we are engaged all over the world at the present time. The position of the Government with regard to that matter is extremely simple. In the first place we have to deal with the coaling stations, and the defence of these

    1579
    stations is the only branch of the question with reference to which definite promises and undertakings have been made. The work was to be spread over a particular period, and our position in that matter at this moment is this—the Earl of Northbrook in the other House, and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey) in this House, in the last Parliament made a statement of what the total cost of the defence of the coaling stations would be and what would be spent this year. The total sum was £825,000, and this was to be spent in three years; but I am sorry to say that sometimes, in the large amounts involved in expenditure on objects of this kind, there is an ugly faculty of growing as the expenditure goes on—sometimes it even grows—or at least a portion of it — before the scheme is born. In this case it was added to considerably after it was born, and now the total sum which will have to be spent on these stations, including submarine mining, is £1,137,758. Towards that we have already spent £448,000, and we expect there will be spent this year £308,200, while there will remain to complete the work about £381,000. I think under the circumstances of the year, to which I intend afterwards to refer, we have done a very fair part of what was undertaken, and practically fulfilled the engagement of the late Government. With regard to that I have very little to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Woodall); but I do wish to take this opportunity of emphasizing what was said of the spirited and patriotic conduct of the small Colonies of Singapore and Hong Kong. We have all been gratified in the last year or two by the spirit shown in this direction by some of the Australian and other Colonies; and it is satisfactory to find that in the small Colonies like those I have just named there is the same spirit and desire to co-operate with the Mother Country in this matter. As to the submarine mining operations, exclusive of the coaling stations, the cost upon that service, including buildings and stores, will be £287,000, and after the expendi-diture of this year there will remain £100,000 to complete. Then we come to the great question of the defence of the military ports and commercial harbours. I may at once say that this
    1580
    matter has been the subject of inquiry by Committee after Committee. Plans have been prepared, then added to, and then cut down; but at last something like a comprehensive and final plan was fixed upon, and the general grounds of the plan were stated to the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), and, I think, by my noble Friend the Earl of Northbrook; but as the work had not been begun it was obviously a matter which could stand over. It was not in the same position as the defence of the coaling stations, where the works were in progress. It was a matter which could stand over, and stand over bodily; and under the circumstances of the year and the great expenditure we have to meet, of the character of which the House is well aware, we thought that the present was not a time to undertake so great and costly a work. I agree that once we commence these fortifications the more rapidly we press them on the better. Finding nothing had been done, and that the matter stood entirely by itself, we have been content to leave it over for this year, and I do not think that many hon. Members will consider that we have acted unwisely in doing so. The one thing we have gone on with, and, as my hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Woodall) said, successfully, is the submarine mining defences of the harbours and military ports. I attach importance to this from a moral as well as from a military point of view. The fact that these mysterious mines are capable of being laid down will give a sense of security to those interested in the locality, and, conversely, will inspire some degree of dread in the minds of those who might otherwise be disposed to approach them. My right hon. Friend opposite has suggested that this matter should be referred to a Committee; and if I understand him rightly the principal object of his Committee is to capture my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Now, my hon. Friend, with most of whose opinions I am glad to say I agree—except those which he propounds upon military questions—my hon. Friend is to be singled cut because of his particular hobby of the reckless expenditure of the country, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite is to treat him as in some countries they treat an elephant. They se-

    1581
    duce a wild elephant into a reserve, and when he is tamed they use him as a decoy for others. In the first instance it is proposed to induce my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford to serve on the Committee, then to bamboozle him with technical evidence, and when he is thoroughly trained and converted into a right frame of mind he is to be set loose in order that he may exercise a wholesome effect upon all other hon. Members who think with him. That may be a very good idea; but I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend is the man to be caught by it. This is not a matter which can be properly referred to a Committee—I mean this question of details in reference to the defence and fortification of military ports, commercial harbours, coaling stations, and so forth. A Parliamentary Committee must be a public Committee, and some of these matters, as the right hon. Gentleman has himself sometimes stated to the House, are not exactly subjects which can be dealt with in a public and open way. If, on the other hand, the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to refer all the military expenditure of the country to a Committee, then I do not say that there may not be a great deal to be urged in favour of that course; but there is this great objection to it—that it would seriously impair the responsibility of the Executive Government; and, to repeat what we have heard from more than one hon. Member, that would constitute an assumption of authority on the part of the House of Commons which it ought not to undertake. That is the great objection to it. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly some advantages in the proposal, and it is, at all events, well worthy of being discussed, though I doubt whether the particular question of fortifications and harbours is one which could well be treated in this manner. We have been taunted with apathy in the matter; and an hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir Edward Hamley), who has spoken with great experience, accused us of tampering with the security of the Empire in order to meet the pressing needs of the Government. But I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is no pressing need of the Government we desire to meet, but the pressing need of the nation; and I am afraid that some hon. Members opposite
    1582
    have not got rid of the old fallacy that the Government have an unfailing and inexhaustible source of money at its back to enable it to do everything that is desirable. Now, the Government has to go for money to the taxpayer, and, in our opinion, it is impossible to put any such great burden upon the taxpayer. I will now turn to one or two of the other questions which have been brought forward in the course of the evening. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) called attention to the case of the Staff Sergeants of Militia. I admit that the Staff Sergeants of Militia are in a somewhat anomalous position, serving, as they do, alongside of men on Line engagement who are receiving a much higher rate of pay. But the position of the two classes is not similar with regard to their duties. I question whether there is much chance of anything being done to improve the condition of these Staff Sergeants. The matter has passed through the process of having been considered by successive Secretaries of State, one after another, and all have agreed that nothing can be done. After that conclusion has been come to, it would be, in my opinion, a very serious matter to re-open the case. I will, however, promise that I will look into the matter. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) has asked for certain additional advantages for the Artillery Volunteers. I can only say that, as soon as it is possible to do so, improved gun-carriages and Martini-Henry carbines will be given to them; but, although the hon. Member makes light of the expense, and seems to think that it would make very little difference, I can assure him that it is impossible to meet all the demands of this sort which are made upon us. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) wishes us to increase the ration of the soldier. My hon. Friend spoke from good experience as a surgeon in the Guards; but I find that the authorities who have at different times inquired into this question have not recommended any increase of the ration. In 1858 a Sanitary Commission discussed the question, and refused to increase the ration; in 1860 Lord Herbert refused to give an increase; and in 1866, after the Report of the Recruiting Commission, which proposed to raise the meat ration of

    1583
    three-quarters of a pound to 1 lb. General Peel preferred to give the soldier an increase of 2d. a-day in his pay. That the soldier's ration is not insufficient is proved by the notorious fact that recruits greatly improve in physique. It is also higher than in foreign Armies; but that, I admit, is a point upon which no strong argument can be founded. But it must be borne in mind that there has been a great and substantial increase in the pay of the soldier, so that he is very well able to supplement his ration for himself. To increase the meat ration from three-quarters of a pound to 1 lb. would cost £300,000 a-year; and if the stores now bought at the canteen are to be supplied gratis it would cost another £450,000 a-year, making altogether an additional cost of £750,000. Two or three years ago there was an inquiry at the War Office, carefully conducted, into the question whether an additional meal might be given to the soldier, and the question of the soldier's ration was fully considered. I am not prepared now to give a positive opinion either one way or the other; but what I have just stated shows that it is necessary to act with great caution in the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway—the hon. Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan)—has alluded to a subject to which I am not surprised that the attention of the House has been directed—namely, the enormous cost of compulsory retirement, the bitter cry of the outcast officer, and the dispiriting effect it has upon the officers of the Army. I quite admit all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. It is not a system of which I am myself enamoured, or that anyone can defend as perfect. It was adopted, however, in order to secure a flow of promotion; and no one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member that every little change which is made in the arrangements for compulsory retirement must affect the flow of promotion in that branch of the Service to which the officer who is retired belongs. It is a very delicate and difficult matter, and I admit the great force of much that has been said in regard to it. I can only add that if, after a time, it becomes possible to make a change such as the hon. and gallant Member advocates, I shall not regard the abolition or modification of the system of compulsory retirement with
    1584
    any regret. I think I have now, as far as I recollect, answered all of the points which have been raised. If I have omitted anything I shall be glad to be reminded of it.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will stand but for a very short time between the House and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); but I am anxious to say a few words on a subject to which I have devoted a good deal of attention, and which has been brought before the House this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has made an announcement to the House of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the defence of the coaling stations and also of the military ports and commercial harbours. I am bound to say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the defences of our coaling stations is inure satisfactory than I had anticipated. But when the right hon. Gentleman said that the expenditure estimated for that purpose has increased from £825,000 to more than £1,000,000, I would venture to suggest that that ought to be a warning to him that economy would be best secured by proceeding, with the least possible delay, with this work; and that, in fact, the increase of expense is very often caused by the delay in completing works of this kind, by altering them from time to time until the completed works in no way or shape resemble those laid down in the original plan. With regard to the question of military ports and commercial harbours, I must refer for a moment to what was stated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith) in July last. The House will remember that this question is no new question. As long ago as 1884 it occupied the serious consideration of the Earl of Northbrook and of the noble Marquess who was then Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), and both of them informed Parliament that they hoped before long to make some important proposals on the subject. The Session of 1885 began, and, in reply to Questions in this House, the noble Marquess (the Marquees of

    1585
    Hartington) stated that he would give the House full information with regard to it on the Army Estimates. Well, the time came for moving the Army Estimates; but the noble Marquess was not, in a position to give full information, and he postponed his statement till a later Vote, and before that Vote was reached he was, owing to the change of Government, no longer in Office. My right hon. Friend Mr. W. H. Smith) succeeded the noble Marquess as Secretary of State for War, and what did my right hon. Friend say in July last? On the 27th of July he said—
    "I think it would be right the Committee should know what has already been provided out of the Votes of Parliament, including the Vote of Credit, and the amount which will have to be included in the Estimates of the next four years, if the proposals which have been accepted and approved by the late Government are carried out."
    Therefore, what I am about to state to the House was the Estimate approved of by the preceding Government of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The details, in the words of my right hon. Friend, are these—
    "I have already said that the Navy and coaling stations required a sum of £2,425,000 in three years. The Estimate for armament and works for the military ports is £2,230,000, and for the mercantile ports £1,770,000; making a total of £6,425,000. Of this £6,425,000, £900,000 has been met out of the Estimates of this year and the Vote of Credit, leaving an abnormal expenditure of £5,525,000 to be provided on Army Estimates within the next four or five years, and in addition a sum of something more than £250,000 would be required to complete the reserve of stores commenced in the Estimates for the present year."—(3 Hansard, [300] 123.)
    Therefore, my right hon. Friend contemplated this large expenditure as being necessary in his own opinion, and as an expenditure which had been approved of by his Predecessor for this important matter of the defence of military ports and commercial harbours. And what was the speech of the hon. Gentleman who was the Surveyer General of the Ordnance in the preceding Government—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand)? That hon. Gentleman, in reply to my right hon. Friend, said—
    "Of course, the statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) was extremely satisfactory to him, because it was really the programme of the late Government,
    1586
    both as regarded armaments, submarine stores, and fortifications."—[Ibid. 135.]
    Therefore, Sir, we have had this question under the consideration of two Governments for something like a year and a-half, both of which were of opinion that it was a subject of immense importance upon which a large expenditure was absolutely necessary; and the Secretary of State for War now comes down to the House and tells us that the Government do not see their way to making any expenditure at all upon it. I am quite sure that the financial difficulties of the year are great. No doubt, it may be difficult to find all the money required for these and all other purposes. But here we have a matter of very urgent and primary importance, and the result is that nothing is to be done. Does the right hon. Gentleman want funds? If so, I refer him to the admirable speech which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan). If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the words of the hon. and gallant Member, and would consider the question of compulsory retirement, with a real endeavour to lessen the enormous and annually increasing Vote for the Non-Effective Services of the Army, due to the system so eloquently and powerfully described by my hon. and gallant Friend of retiring men who do not want to be retired at a time when they are perfectly efficient—as efficient as ever they were in their lives—for the service of their country, and retiring them with pensions which add enormously to the burdens of the taxpayer—if he would but consider this matter, and try to retrench with one hand and expend where expenditure is necessary on the other, I think he would do something to make his tenure at the War Office a valuable one to the country.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his references to what was said by myself and my hon. Friend behind me the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) last year. There is no doubt that a large expenditure was required to put our military ports and commercial harbours in a perfectly satisfactory state of defence; and this is undoubtedly the view which has been held for some time past at the War Office. But I do not

    1587
    think I ever said, or that anything has been said in the House, which distinctly committed the late Government to the initiation of an expenditure of this kind. I have not the smallest doubt that a large expenditure is required. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this question has been under the consideration of two Governments for a year and a-half. He very much understates the fact, for it has been under the consideration of successive Governments for 15 years at least. When Viscount Palmerston made provision for the erection of fortifications on the Coast by means of a loan, he did not provide, and no Government has since provided, for their armament. There is some consolation to be found in the fact that if the armaments had been provided, as ought to have been done, when they were first adjudged to be necessary, the greater number of them would be obsolete by this time, and would have to be replaced by new armaments altogether. I went somewhat into this subject in moving the Army Estimates last year, but I never professed that we had reached a state of finality; and I think that a very considerable risk is incurred by an indefinite postponement in the hope of reaching an ideal perfection of the measures recommended by the professional advisers of the Government. I think that any Government which undertakes the completion of these defences will undoubtedly incur a considerable amount of responsibility. At the same time it is perfectly true that if a work of this kind is to be undertaken at all, it ought to be undertaken with the view of bringing it to a speedy completion. I cannot, therefore, find fault with the conclusion arrived at by Her Majesty's present Government. They are, as has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), dealing directly with what is the most pressing of all these works—namely, the defence of our coaling stations. I do not know whether we shall be enabled to do that work effectually and well at the present time; but the matter ought to be kept before the country, and as soon as the fortifications of our coaling stations abroad shall have been completed—and I admit that that is a pressing necessity—the subject of the condition of the defences of our military ports and commercial harbours, ought to be taken up. But
    1588
    there is no use in beginning the work in a half-hearted spirit. There is no use in voting £300,000 for a work which will cost, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) admits, from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000. In my opinion it is improbable that the work will ever be satisfactorily finished until some Government thinks it right to borrow the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 necessary for the conclusion of the undertaking in one or two years. On the whole, looking at the uncertainty which exists as to the state of our scientific knowledge, I think the Government are well advised in deciding to complete that part of the work which they have in hand, and to postpone until a more convenient opportunity, and until our knowledge upon the subject is more complete than it is at present the great undertaking of fortifying our military and commercial harbours at home.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, andagreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

    DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) 151,867 Men, Land Forces at Home and Abroad.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): In moving the first Vote it becomes my duty to make the usual Statement in explanation of the Army Estimates as a whole. The net amount of these Estimates is £18,233,200, of which £15,156,900 is for Effective and £3,076,300 for Non-Effective Services. This shows an increase over the Estimates of last year of £444,000 for Effective and £38,500 for Non-Effective Services, or £482,500 in all. But I must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Estimates of last year were framed and submitted subject to exceptional conditions. At this time last year we were engaged in military operations on a great scale on the Nile, the extent and cost of which it was impossible to foresee; and therefore the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) plainly informed the Committee that the Estimates which he moved on a corresponding occasion to this last year were not final, but only provisional, and that the

    1589
    full demands to be made in the House for the Military Services of the year could not be made known until a Vote of Credit was asked for after Easter. A test of their provisional character may be found in the fact that whereas there was at that time in Egypt and the Soudan a force of 18,000 men, the Estimates, as the noble Marquess informed the Committee, provided only for keeping 6,000 men in Lower Egypt. Now, I would say frankly to the Committee that when a few weeks ago we were called upon to frame these Estimates, with scanty time for their full consideration, we were confronted by a difficulty of the same nature, though not quite of the same extent, as that of last year. It is the very natural desire of the Military Authorities to reduce as soon, and as much, as possible the occupying force in Egypt. This is equally the desire of the Government, and also, I feel assured, of the country. But it is impossible to say when and to what extent this can be effected. Up to quite recently we have had 17,350 men in Egypt, including 15½ battalions of Infantry, and parts of the force are stationed high up in the Nile Valley, where their maintenance is difficult and costly. We have been obliged to found our Estimate upon conjecture, and we have thought it more regular, and more convenient to the Committee, that we should fix our basis upon a moderate force, rather than that we should anticipate a greater expenditure which might not eventually be incurred. We therefore, in these Estimates, reckon upon the Army in Egypt being reduced to 8,000 men; but the Committee will of course understand that, should it be impossible to realize this result, it will be necessary to supplement the Estimates on this account. Now, Sir, before I proceed to state to the Committee the main causes of the increase of the Money Vote, it will be more convenient if I explain the reasons for the additional number of men provided for. Speaking broadly, it is due to the requirements of India and of Egypt. The Committee is aware that the Government of India have recently determined that it was necessary, in connection with the scheme for strengthening the North-West Frontier, to add to the Army in India; and in the course of the autumn the late Government decided to take immediate steps for the augmentation of the British
    1590
    Force in India by 10,000 men. The augmentation decided upon consists partly of an increase to the Establishment of regiments serving in India, and partly of a transfer of additional cadres to the Indian Establishment. Each battalion of Infantry is to be increased by 100 men, making the Establishment 920. This for 50 battalions makes 5,000 men. Three additional battalions sent out, 920 strong, account for 2,760 men rank and file. Two troops are to be added to each Cavalry regiment, nine in number. Eleven batteries of Artillery are to be added, five of which have already gone—six remaining still to be sent. In this way the round figure I have named is made up. The Committee will observe that not only have we to replace these men on the British Establishment, but, in order to furnish drafts for this increased force, we must provide a proportionately greater number; because you cannot produce sufficient drafts without adequate means of training and creating them. So much for the requirements of India, which are now being met according to the plan decided by the late Government. But I have said that our proposals are also affected by Egypt. Now, Sir, I do not hesitate to say that the prolonged occupation of Egypt has caused a most unusual and—if I may use the word—unfair strain upon the organization of our Army. Our Infantry is organized in units of two battalions, and the system is that every battalion on foreign service should thus have a sister battalion at home, from which the drafts to fill up its casualties should be furnished. And, as is known to those who are interested in these questions, it was laid down in the original plan that whenever, owing to some exigency of the Service, both battalions came to be abroad, the small depôt of the regiment should be immediately increased in size, so as to form, practically, a third battalion on which both the foreign battalions might rest. But during the last three or four years we have had many cases of both battalions of a regiment being abroad, and yet this step was not taken. The truth is that the nature of our military position in Egypt is peculiar. Our organization is calculated to enable us satisfactorily to meet the demands of a small Colonial war, and also, by the help of our Reserves, to take part in great mili-

    1591
    tary operations for the defence of our shores or our national interests. But in Egypt we have not been engaged in either a small war or a great war, but in a prolonged military occupation of a foreign country. It is this, which was never contemplated in the organization of the Army, that has strained our resources. And if the step which I have described of raising at home a special depôt for every pair of battalions on foreign service has not been taken earlier, it is because during all this time the hypothesis has been that our occupation of Egypt was temporary. Sir, it has been temporary in feeling and intention, but it has been continuous in fact; and, although this hypothesis may be most salutary and consolatory, there is one thing which no hypothesis can do, and that is to furnish drafts for an army in the field. It was therefore resolved last summer, under the power given by the Vote of Credit to raise 35,000 men, that in each case in which both battalions of a regiment are abroad the depôt should be raised to 600 men; and this plan, so necessary, as all will admit, will be continued, and is provided for in the numbers now proposed to be voted. The number—9,673—which is proposed to be added to the Army is thus mainly accounted for, partly by these increased depôts, and partly by a larger Establishment being given to the Infantry battalions at home, in order to meet the strain of the larger drafts. No battalion will be under 750 rank and file, which number does not seem excessive considering the diverse, and in some sense incongruous, duties which a large part of our Home Army has to discharge. Coming back now to the money to be voted, if hon. Members will turn to page 2 of the Paper giving an explanation of differences, and circulated with the Estimates, they will see that the increased charge due to these additional numbers, as I have described them, is £246,000. But against this is to be set a sum of £200,000, which the Indian Government will contribute during this year as an advance to meet the charge for supplying India with the increased force I have described. The steady development of deferred pay accounts for £30,000. An increased sum of £10,000 is taken for additional horses. The Auxiliary Forces require an additional sum of £50,100, and the Army
    1592
    Reserve of £38,500. The Store Vote is increased by £361,200 for Land and Sea Armaments, and the Works Vote by £72,000; of these I shall say something more in detail. The direct expenditure in Egypt causes an increase of £474,000; but against this, in the comparison with last year, may be set the amount of £500,000 taken for Bechuanaland which drops out this year. Lastly, we have a falling-off of £38,600 in the contribution from India towards the share of non-effective charges, which, according to the arrangement now in force, happens to tell to our disadvantage on this occasion. On the other side of the account we calculate upon a saving of £120,000, owing to a reduction in prices of supplies. These are the chief items which go to make up the excess over last year, resulting, as I have said, in the net increase of £482,500. Now, Sir, I have a few words to say on the subject of the recruiting for the Army during the past year; but I cannot refer to this subject without expressing my regret, which I am sure will be shared by many who hear me, that this is the last time we shall have a Report on the subject from the pen of General Bulwer. The extraordinary success of recruiting during the last few years has been largely due to the energy, tact, and intelligence with which that gallant officer discharged his duties; and I venture to say that he has left a permanent mark on this part of the administration of the Army. I daresay there are in this Committee hon. Members who are warm advocates either of long or short service. I am not about to say anything which will tend infandum renovare dolorem—to provoke a fresh outburst of an interminable controversy. Personally, I am not a fanatical supporter of either extreme. I am a follower in the school of which General Bulwer has been, if not the most eminent, certainly the most practical and effective exponent. We trust to voluntary enlistment in this country. In my opinion the terms of service ought to be as varied, as free, and as elastic as is consistent with discipline and with the strict requirements of the public interest. The old conception of the relation between the Crown and its soldiers was widely different. I hardly overstate it when I say that there were two principles of action—in the first place, you

    1593
    were to contrive, by any manœuvre, to entrap an unwary recruit; and, in the second place, when once he had placed himself in your power, it was your business, whatever the disposition of his mind might be, to stick to him at all hazards to the end. I believe this to be entirely wrong. It deters good recruits; it makes the Service unpopular; and I cannot believe that an unwilling and discontented soldier can be a good soldier. On the other hand, when a good man is interested in, and satisfied with, his career, it is most unfortunate that any regulation should debar him from continuing it. Our present system seems to me to avoid these evils. From the first moment when a village youth reads a notice setting forth the conditions of service in the Army, down to the day of his discharge, he has from stage to stage in his career a free opportunity, if he is a well-conducted man, of determining his career for himself, of electing whether he shall go on in the profession of arms, or whether he shall return to civil life. I believe that the more this is known and experienced the more popular will the Service become, and the greater will be the influx of young men anxious to have a trial, at least, of a soldier's life. The number of recruits during last year was 39,971, thus far exceeding the number in any recent year. These are the men passed into the Service; but even more surprising is the number of men who offered themselves, amounting to 69,401, or more than 23,000 in excess of those who offered themselves only five years ago. No doubt depression in trade goes far to account for these large figures; but I would invite the attention of the Committee to the remarks on this subject of the Inspector General—
    "Recruiting has been always more or less affected by the state of the labour market; but never to the extent shown by the Returns of the last three years. It must be admitted that the existence of bad trade is a great element of consideration when seeking for recruits; but I do not think that the great jumps made during the last three years are to be attributed solely to this cause; on the contrary, I am of opinion that the changes which have been made in the localization and organization of the Army, in the administration and development of the recruiting districts, in the freer and fuller advertisement of the Service, have all contributed very largely to the popularity and knowledge of the Army among the people at large."
    He also attributes part of this result to
    1594
    the fact that the standard has not been altered, and that it is such as to admit of our taking all men who offer themselves, and who are likely to make efficient soldiers. The results of localization are most satisfactory, inasmuch as the Army is yearly brought into closer connection with the Auxiliary Forces, and the number of men serving in regiments belonging to the locality in which they were born is constantly increasing. In 1883 there were 24,247; in 1884, 32,376; in 1885, 34,654; in 1886, 40,265. The recruits obtained from the Militia were 14,821; and even the Volunteers furnished 1,964, instead of the very small number who formerly entered from this source. So much as to the quantity of recruits; the Reports show that their quality also is, on the whole, satisfactory. I believe that it is sometimes asserted that our physical standard is low, especially as regards the height of recruits; and this is a subject upon which, perhaps, the Committee will allow me to make a few observations, especially in view of a comparison with other Armies. With voluntary service we are obliged to take our recruits at an early age; and our experience is that if they are healthy and sufficiently well grown for their years, a few months of steady life and regular food develop and fill them out greatly. What we require in those young men, whose precise age may be in some doubt, is that they should have the physical equivalents of 18—that is, the degree of development which an ordinary healthy young man of 18 should have reached. In height the standard is 5 feet 4 inches; but men under 20 may be specially enlisted for the Infantry who are over 5 feet 3 inches. Can anyone say, or has it ever been asserted, that a short man, if otherwise properly developed, cannot do the work of a soldier? What are the heights in Foreign Armies? Be it remembered that in those countries the age of enlistment is 20, with the exception of Russia, where it is 21. In France the minimum height is 5 feet ½ inch; Austria, 5 feet 1⅕ inches; Germany, 5 feet 1 8/10 inches; Russia, 5 feet ¼ inch; Italy, 5 feet 1·45 inches. Again, we require a minimum chest measurement of 33 inches. In France it is 30·867; Austria, 30·06; Germany, there is no limit; Russia, no rules; Italy (for active service) 31·5. Further, we prescribe a minimum

    1595
    weight of 115 lbs., regarding which the other countries issue no instructions at all. I think that these facts show that our Military Authorities are not neglectful in laying down such rules as may insure a fair physical development in the soldiers. The rule to be followed appears to be this—that as under a conscription the standard is regulated so as to insure that no man escapes his liability, so in a voluntary service the standard should be fixed to secure, as far as the requirements go, the enlistment of all willing men who are likely to make efficient soldiers. The waste from the Army continues high; but there is nothing abnormal to notice in it. The net loss by desertions in the year was 2,975. Recruiting for the Militia has also been most successful, and the Reports on the Militia regiments are highly favourable. I am glad to say that, although there are great difficulties, owing to the shortness of the training, and, in some cases, want of range accommodation, there is shown to be a decided improvement in shooting under the new Musketry Regulations Two regiments of Artillery Militia and six of Infantry Militia were embodied last year for six months, and the General Officers commanding speak highly of their discipline, zeal, and efficiency. Hon. Members are aware that for some time there has been a considerable lack of officers for the Militia Force, a Return last year showing no fewer than 773 vacancies. It is so far satisfactory to know that this deficiency has been reduced to 603 at the present moment; notwithstanding the fact that during the year the Militia gave 223 subaltern officers to the Line. The Committee will observe that there is a small increase in the Yeomanry Vote, which is due to greater efficiency. I may mention that we expect that during this spring the Martini-Henry carbine will be issued to the whole of the Yeomanry. With regard to the Volunteers, the facts laid before me appear to show a steady and decided improvement in almost every respect. This Vote is increased by £18,500, which is nearly all due to Capitation Grant. Not only have we close upon 10,000 more efficients in 1885 than in 1884, but nearly the same additional number were actually present at inspection. This shows that the patriotic spirit is not dwindling, but was rather
    1596
    stimulated in such a year as last, when active military operations were in progress; and it is also the effect of the extraordinary interest which officers take in the efficiency of their corps. The increased attention given to shooting since the issue of the Martini-Henry rifle, the great interest taken in Camps of Instruction, which so powerfully contribute to the improved discipline of the Force, and the desire on the part of officers to perfect themselves in their knowledge of military duties, are all most creditable and satisfactory as proofs of the essential vitality and spirit of the Volunteers. The Army Reserve is estimated to number 51,000 men; showing a steady though not a very rapid growth. The Votes upon which I have hitherto dwelt have this characteristic in common—that there is but little elasticity in them; and, from an administrative point of view, little room for discretion. The larger sums required for the different branches of the Auxiliary Forces represent no new development of their establishment, but simply and solely greater efficiency and better work done; and we can only grudge or refuse such increases on grounds which would involve the rejection of the entire Votes. Again, the great Pay Vote, and Votes 9, 10, and 11, for Transport, Clothing, and Food, which follow in its train, depend immediately upon the number of men you maintain; and the number of men you maintain depends on the military policy and requirements of the country. If you find it necessary to reinforce your Army in India, or if you resolve to continue the military occupation of Egypt, you must provide the means of doing it; and it is my belief that this necessity is adequately met in these Estimates, but met on a scale which is reasonable and modest. But now we approach a Vote of a different order, the great Vote for Warlike Stores; a Vote which is much more directly under our control, and which, in fact, supplies in itself the subject of a great branch of military policy. The amount which it is right to ask Parliament to devote to the supply of arms and munitions of war does not depend solely or mainly on the immediate requirements of the Army; it must be settled upon a careful review, in the first place, of the present condition of our armaments; in the second

    1597
    place, of the changes which the rapid and increasing developments of modern science may be creating in the art of war; and, lastly, of the financial position of the country. No one of these questions can be left out of sight if the Minister is properly to discharge his duty. I believe another conception of his duty is sometimes formed; and pictures are sometimes drawn and held up to our admiration, on the one hand of a stubborn War Minister, grasping at every shilling he can compel the reluctant Treasury to grant, and on the other hand of an imperious Chancellor of the Exchequer, ready to sacrifice the safety of his country to the necessities of the Budget. Why, Sir, if either of these pictures were true, whatever the result of the struggle, there would be an end of true economy and of true efficiency. I can assure the Committee, at any rate, that such pictures do not represent the relations between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. I believe quite as strongly as he does that it would not be reasonable, or even possible, in the circumstances of the year, to propose a larger Vote than this. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the recent history of this Vote. The net total now to be voted is £2,569,000, which is a net increase of £341,200 over the amount taken in the Estimates of last year. But the amount of last year's Vote exceeded, that of 1884–5 by no less a sum than £965,300, so that this great Vote has been raised in two years by more than 100 per cent over what is still considered its normal amount—namely, £1,250,000, which was voted in 1884–5. But this is not all, because £2,500,000 were allotted to this Vote out of the Vote of Credit, of which upwards of £1,500,000 was devoted to the very purposes to which the abnormal increase over the ordinary and average Vote is being annually dedicated — namely, naval and land armaments, submarine mining defences, gunpowder, small arms, field guns, and reserve stores. How, I would ask, in the face of these facts, could the Government have consented to, or could I have urged, a greater increase to the Vote than I now propose? Nay, I will at once change my front, and ask how, in the face of these facts, can I justify our present proposal? I will endeavour to show to
    1598
    the Committee how it is that I do so. Hon. Gentlemen who were not Members of the last Parliament may not be aware of the tremendous revolution that has taken place within the last few years in the designs of guns, both great and small. The change from muzzle-loading to breech-loading has been due not so much to any caprice or ingenuity of gun inventors, as to the discovery of the great results attained by slow-burning powder, which require for their development a long gun, and thus necessitate breech-loading. Again, the gun is now made of a new material, steel, which has been perfected for the purpose. The new gunpowder also, of which I have spoken, is greatly more costly, and requires special appliances for its manufacture. Then there are machine guns and torpedoes, and all the paraphernalia connected with them. Now, in all these matters we in this country have been slower than our neighbours to adopt the new systems, and we may at least hope that we thus gain the advantage of benefiting by the latest improvements; but the result is that, the whole of this costly expenditure falls upon us now. This is the cause of the startling increase to the Vote of recent years. Let me take for example the amount of the Naval Gun Estimate, which is borne on Army Estimates, and included in this Vote. In 1880 1 it was £303,000. In the following years it was £369,000, £616,000, £500,000, and £500,000. This brings us to last year, when it rose to £850,000, while this year it will be £1,000,000. The fact is that the types are now settled, the designs are completed, the ships are being pushed on, and the guns must be ready; and so with all the other kinds of warlike machinery. I assure hon. Members that it has been no easy task, though it was a necessary one, to restrict the Vote within its present limits. Many excellent, ambitious, and praiseworthy efforts have had to be checked and delayed, or sacrificed; and I must bear testimony to the reasonable spirit in which the officers of the Department accepted the restrictions, which I frankly admit that I have felt it my duty to impose upon their most creditable desire to extend and accelerate its work. Now, as to particulars, as I have referred to naval guns I may state the condition of things in this respect. Of the 110-ton

    1599
    gun there will be three completed by March 31, and there remain four under orders. Of the 68-ton there are one completed and 28 under orders; of the 45-ton there are 14 completed and eight under orders; of the 10-inch there is one under orders; of the 9·2-inch there are 22 completed and 19 under orders; of the 8-inch there are 35 completed and two under orders; of the 5-inch there are 334 completed and 136 under orders; and of the 4-inch there are 113 completed and 37 under orders. There have also been made or provided for 315 6-pounder and 298 3-pounder quick-firing guns; 1,366 Nordenfelt and 491 Gardner machine guns, and 1,262 Whitehead torpedoes. I may add that experiments of the most interesting kind are being made at Aldershot with different sorts of machine guns, for use with Cavalry and Infantry. Of the new 12-pounder breech-loading field gun we expect that 19 service batteries, in all, will be provided by the end of the year. With regard to small arms, the Committee is aware that during last summer the pattern of the new ·4 bore rifle—also, I believe, called the Enfield-Martini—was settled; and, owing to great exertions in the Department, 1,000 will have been turned out by the end of this financial year. Preparations had been made for great activity in production during next year. This is, however, one of the services in which it has appeared to us that, with the smallest detriment to the public interest, the rate of manufacture may be slackened, and we provide for turning out only 55,000 of the new rifle for Imperial service in the coming year. We, however, proceed with the increase to the plant at the factories, which will add to the power of the Department to manufacture a large quantity of those weapons at a rapid rate in case of urgency. I need not say that the lowering of the rate of production, both at Enfield and at Woolwich, from that which was maintained under the Vote of Credit, will involve some reduction in the numbers employed, although, as I have already stated in the House, we trust that the reduction will be so arranged as to cause the smallest degree of hardship. But the Committee will not think some reduction unreasonable in the light of the figures which I have quoted, and of the fact that out of a total number of workpeople of 13,213 no fewer than 4,569
    1600
    were entered since April last. Now, Sir, the progress that we intend to make with the fortification of coaling stations has been already stated this evening, and also some information has been given as to submarine work. I am not aware that I need detain the Committee at greater length, or that there is any other question of magnitude which requires explanation. I admit that these Estimates involve a heavy charge on the taxation of the country; but I believe that the expenditure proposed in them is wise and reasonable, and I submit them with confidence to the Committee.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I think we should not do justice to the very able Statement which has been made by the right hon. Grentleman if we attempted to discuss it in any way at this hour of the night (1.0). I rely entirely upon the assurance which he has given to the Committee that there will be ample opportunity afforded on Thursday next for the discussion of any of the questions which might arise upon this Vote or the Votes which have to follow. Upon this understanding, I trust the Committee will give the right hon. Gentleman the two Votes which I believe are necessary for the Public Service.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £4,457,300, Pay and Allowances.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, the sum of £4,457,300 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

MOTION.

  HIGHWAYS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Duckham, Bill to amend the Law relating to Highways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Duckham, Mr. More, and Mr. Thomas Blake.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 149.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.