Commons Sitting of 14 March 1887

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Derby (Ilkeston Division), v. Thomas Watson, esquire, deceased.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Commons, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES, 1887–3, Votes A and I.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—first Reading—Copyright (Musical Compositions)* [195]; Criminal Law (Scotland) Procedure (No. 2)* [196.].
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment* [168].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Merchandise Marks Act (1862) Amendment* [142]: Merchandise (Fraudulent Marks)* [179] referred to Select Committee on: Merchandise Marks Act (1862) Amendment Bill.
Select Committee—Rating of Machinery* [148], nominated.
Committee—Metropolitan Open Spaces Act (1881) Extension* [171]—R.P.
Committee—Report—County Courts (Expenses)* [177].
Withdrawn—Foynes Harbour (Transfer) * [159].

QUESTIONS.

  THE COPPER CURRENCY—FRENCH BRONZE COINS.
  MR. ATKINSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can arrange in any way to obviate the inconvenience resulting to some tradesmen in the Provinces, who are obliged in the way of business to receive French bronze coins as equivalents for English pennies, and find themselves unable to pay them away at the Public Offices such as the Post Office?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Government is doing all that can be done to prevent the circulation of foreign bronze coins in this country by issuing a Proclamation under the Act of last year forbidding their importation. The hon. Member will, I am sure, recognize that it would be impossible for Government Departments to receive payment except in coins of the realm.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—OMAGH POST OFFICE.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Postmaster General, Whether two of the female clerks attached to the Omagh Post Office have hours of duty assigned to them which do not necessitate their attendance at either an early or late hour; whether the duty of the third clerk is so arranged as to compel her to attend both at early and late duty; whether the Inspecting Telegraphist of the Northern Postal Division is aware of the existing arrangements in the Omagh Post Office; and, whether independent inquiries will be instituted as to the mode in which business generally has been conducted in the post office referred to?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): From inquiry which I have made, it appears that the duties at the Omagh Post Office are, on the whole, fairly distributed between the hours of 7 in the morning and 8 at night amongst the three female clerks there with duo intervals of rest for each. If any one of the female clerks wishes to make a representation with a view to the alteration of her present hours of duty, her proper course is

  171
  to submit it in the usual manner, when I should look into the case. The Inspecting Telegraphist exercises no control over the office hours. The duties at the Omagh Office are performed satisfactorily, and there are very few complaints against that office.

  NAVY—THE CHANNEL SQUADRON AT LISBON AND GIBRALTAR.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in face of recent accidents to some of the ships comprising the Channel Squadron at Lisbon Harbour and Gibraltar, he considers the ground-tackle of the Navy sufficiently satisfactory for the safety of the ships; and, whether he has received a Report, and, if so, what, from Admiral Hewett regarding the accidents to some of the vessels under his command?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Although there have been some accidents recently in connection with ships of the Channel Squadron, it is considered that the ground-tackle of the Navy is sufficient for the safety of the ships. The Reports received from Sir William Hewett do not suggest that the ground-tackle is too light for the ships, it being of the same size and weight as that which has been established for our largest iron-clad ships, and is in general use by them.

  SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT—REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What percentage of the money advanced for seed in Ireland has been repaid; if the balance is duo by unions situated in the poorer districts, and with a large population; if he would institute an inquiry to ascertain if such balances were chiefly uncollectable, from causes arising from hurry in issuing the seed; and, if an inquiry would also be made as to the possibility of remitting a portion of said balances?
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Government will consider, with respect to the trifling balance of the Seed Rate now unpaid, that it is due from the poorest and most distressed districts, upon which
  172
  enforcing the collection would entail distress entirely out of proportion to any good to be gained by the Treasury by the receipt of the sum in question; and, if, seeing how punctually the vast bulk of the Seed Rate has been repaid, he will recommend that Government shall forego its claim for the small balance still duo by the very poor districts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: In reply to these questions, I may state that something over 7 per cent of the Seed Loan, chiefly due from the poorer districts, is still outstanding. The question of the possibility of remitting a portion of the balance is one rather for the Treasury than for me. We are in communication on the subject; but, in saying this, I must not be understood to make any promise of remission.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—MR. STIPENDIARY GEMMEL.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the acceptance by Mr. Stipendiary Gemmel, Glasgow, of the appointment of Assessor to the Dean of Guild Court, Glasgow; and, whether this latter appointment interferes with the due fulfilment of his duties as stipendiary magistrate; and, if so, whether the Government intend taking any steps in the matter?
  TUB SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed that the appointment of Assessor does not interfere with the proper fulfilment of Mr. Gemmel's duties as stipendiary magistrate. Mr. Gemmel informed the Lord Provost and magistrates before taking the appointment; and intimated that if at any time they should be of opinion that it did interfere with his other duties he was prepared to resign it.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. MAC NEILL(for Mr. MAHONY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Report which was presented on 1st May, 1886, to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the subject of the Bankruptcy Court,

  173
  by a Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Judge Flanagan, and Mr. Richard Mills; also a Copy of the Letter which the Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland wrote with reference to this Report?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to postpone this Question for a few days, to enable me to make some inquiry I have not hitherto had opportunity for.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT—APPLICATIONS FOR ADVANCES.
  MR. MAC NEILL(for Mr. MAHONY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the number of applications for advances of purchase money under Lord Ashbourne's Act, which the Land Commissioners have refused to sanction, and the amount of money applied for under these applications; and, the number of applications subsequently sanctioned, in which the Land Commissioners have recommended a modification of the terms of purchase and the amount of the said modifications?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners report that up to the 10th of this month they had refused 434 applications for loans, amounting to about £317,000. Of these, 67 were subsequently sanctioned, the amounts of loans being reduced from about £61,000 to a little over £50,000.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the number of cases in which the Land Commissioners had recommended a modification of the terms of purchase?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: I must have Notice of that Question.
  MR. MAC NEILL: It is on the Paper.

  PROCLAIMED MEETINGS (IRELAND)—NATIONAL LEAGUE MEETING AT ASHGROVE, CO. CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in consequence of the proclamation of a National League mooting which was to have been held at Ashgrove, Kilnamartyra, County Cork, on Sunday, the 6th March, Mr. Stokes, a Resident Magistrate, prevented the local baud in Macroom from playing
  174
  in the Square as usual;—whether the report in The Cork Daily Herald of Monday, 7th March, is correct, namely—
  "That on the band making its appearance in the square, Mr. Stokes issued out of the police barrack attended by about fifty constables, principally from Cork, some of whom had removed the numbers from the collars of their jackets to prevent discovery;"
  and, if this report is true, whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter? And I should further like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is a fact that he has applied to the police authorities and the people who are incriminated by this Question for information on the subject?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR): Yes; I have applied for information to the police. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have to state that in view of anticipated disturbances, Captain Stokes, the Resident Magistrate, had on the morning of the day referred to, warned the band that he could not permit them to proceed or play through the town, and on their subsequently attempting to do so, he very properly prevented them by means of the police. It is not the case that any of the police removed their numbers from their collars. Six of the party employed upon the duty are members of the County Force, and as such, do not wear numbers.
  MR. CHANCE: Arising out of that Question, I should like to know by what authority magistrates, resident or otherwise, are entitled to prevent bands playing in the streets?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On this occasion the Resident Magistrate had reason to believe the band was proceeding to a proclaimed meeting at Kilnamartyra, and he was stricthy within his duty in preventing them doing so.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that Macroom is three miles from the place of the prohibited meeting; and, whether he is also aware that the band plays every Sunday in the Square at Macroom; and whether Captain Stokes is not also aware of this fact?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the information I have I have reason to believe the band does not play in Macroom every Sunday; and there is reason to believe that on this day the band was going to

  175
  march three miles to the proclaimed meeting.
  DR. TANNERintimated that he would repeat the Question on a subsequent day.

  WAR OFFICE (SMALL ARMS)—MARTINIHENRY RIFLES.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Secretary of State for War, What was the cost incurred by the production of the Enfield-Martini rifles lately issued and condemned or abandoned; and, whether the Lee-Burton and Leo magazine rifles will be submitted to independent criticism before being manufactured?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Although the accounts have not yet been made up in detail, it is estimated that the Enfield-Martini rifles cost 45 s. each. They have neither been condemned nor abandoned. the Lee-Burton and Lee magazine rifles are about to be issued for thorough trial by the Army and Navy before either pattern is adopted.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND))—PROSECUTION OF DISTRICT INSPECTOR MILLING—ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. CHANCEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Upon what grounds he vetoed the prosecution of District Inspector Milling, Royal Irish Constabulary, for an assault for which he had been committed for trial; and, whether there is any statute entitling Mr. Attorney General thus to veto prosecutions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Before a bill of indictment is found, the Attorney General neither exercises nor claims the right to veto a prosecution. As Public Prosecutor he is entitled to direct that a prosecution be conducted by the Crown officials; and I have declined, in the exercise of the discretion which I thus possess, to give such a direction in the case of District Inspector Milling. After a bill of indictment is found, the Attorney General, as representing the Queen, has had, as the hon. Member must be aware, from the earliest times, the power to enter a nolle prosequi.
  MR. CHANCE: May I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman
  176
  he has not answered the last paragraph of the Question—whether there is any statute entitling the Attorney General to veto prosecutions?
  MR. HOLMES: The Attorney General never does veto a prosecution; the only thing he does is to enter a nolle prosequi—a power he has possessed from the earliest period of our law.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1S81, AND THE PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—SHORTHAND WRITERS' NOTES.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will take steps to enable Members of this House to inspect the original notes and transcript of the shorthand writers employed to record the proceedings of the Cowper Commission; and, whether contradictory reports of the evidence of one of the witnesses examined before that Commission have already appeared in the newspapers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Member suggests a most unusual course, and one which could not, in my opinion, be properly complied with. In any event, it does not lie within my power to comply with it, as the documents referred to are not in the possession of the Irish Government.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any reason to suppose that the evidence now published has been in any way condensed from the original notes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I have no reason whatever to make any such supposition.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that not one word of certain witnesses who were examined at Killarney appears at all?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of that, nor does it come within my province.

  POST OFFICE—SALE OF STAMPS TO RAILWAY TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  Mr. O. V. MORGANasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is prepared to re-introduce the system of commission on sale of stamps to rail-

  177
  way telegraph clerks as allowed until October, 1885; and, whether he is prepared to compensate those clerks who wore in 1885 deprived of this portion of their income?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I do not see my way to re-introduce the payment of commission on the sale of stamps; but I am glad to add that the Treasury have authorized certain terms of compensation, and I am in communication with the Railway Companies on the subject.

  LAND ACT (IRELAND)—WICKLOW TENANTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a great many tenants in the County Wicklow are anxious to get their rents fixed under the Land Act; and, whether anything can he done to expedite the matter by sending a Sub-Commission to the county speedily to hear their cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand from the Land Commissioners that about 56 cases from Wicklow are pending, and they expect that a Sub-Commission will sit in that county about July. I may add that the Government have at present before them the question of increasing the number of Sub-Commissions.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)—AN ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
  Mr. F. W. MACLEANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the unanimous recommendation contained in the Report, dated 7th August, 1885, of the Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor (the Earl of Selborne) relative to the subject of the business of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice—
  "That an additional Judge he appointed to the Chancery Division, and that the same staff of clerks be attributed to each of the Judges."
  And to the unanimous Resolution of the Committee—
  "That an additional Judge be appointed, to be a Judge of the Chancery Division."
  And, whether it is the intention of Her
  178
  Majesty's Government to take such steps as may be necessary to give effect to the above Recommendation and Resolution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The matter referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member is engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government; but, at present, no final decision has been come to.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT—LOANS OF WORKS OF ART, &c.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, considering that the works of the Schools of Art sent up for the National competition can only be exhibited at the South Kensington Museum in a gallery imperfectly lit, owing to the want of space at that Museum, he will provide space in one of the numerous galleries by circulating some of the duplicate and triplicate specimens of furniture, china, pottery, metal work, glass, embroidery, and other objects which now crowd up the Museum, to different parts of London, and other centres of dense population, and so assist to supply that local demand for the loan of circulating collections, which the Science and Art Department's last Report, at page xvii., states is now a severe tax on the resources of the South Kensington Museum?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): My hon. Friend has practically converted into a Question a Motion which has stood for some time upon the Notice Paper. I believe that the system of loans is now carried out to the full extent of the present resources of the Department. So long as the practice is adhered to of exchanging the objects lent every year, and in the case of loans to temporary Exhibitions at shorter periods—a course which is greatly preferred by the localities—it is obvious that the temporary removal of different objects from distant parts of the Museum would not supply the space in any given part of it, which is assumed in the Question. Twenty-six thousand one hundred and sixty-four objects were in circulation last year, through 32 Provincial Museums (not including Bethnal Green), 26 temporary Exhibitions, and

  179
  260 Science and Art Schools; but the number of duplicate and triplicate speciments is comparatively small.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. E. RYAN, COMMITTED FOR CONTEMPT.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edmond Ryan, P.L.G., Cahircanlish, County Limerick, was committed for contempt of Court eight months ago by Judge Boyd; whether Cahircanlish has been, and is now, one of the most peaceable districts in the County Limerick; and, whether, under those circumstances, the Government will request Judge Boyd to order the release of Mr. Ryan?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It would clearly be a most un-Constitutional proceeding for the Government to make such a request to the Judge as is here suggested. It is, of course, open to the prisoner himself, or to his friends, to petition the Judge for his release.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND;—NOTICE TO RELIEVING OFFICERS.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, "Whether, having regard to the fact that 18 hours' notice of an intended eviction, from a landlord or some one on his behalf, must be given to the relieving officer of the union in which the property is situated, and that at any time within a year the landlord may proceed with the eviction without further acquainting the relieving officer, he will consider the advisability of amending the law, so as to compel owners of property, or their agents, to inform the relieving officer of the exact dates of evictions, to ensure that provisional relief should be administered to the persons evicted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Although I have not hoard that any actual inconvenience has arisen from the state of the law mentioned in the Question, I should like to see it, in some respects, altered; but I fear that any change that could be suggested would cause considerable difficulty. I am, however, at present engaged in further inquiring into this subject.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE HERBUSTA CROFTERS—MRS. M'MILLAN.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the following medical certificate concerning Mrs. M'Millan, one of the Herbusta crofters, ordered for trial at Edinburgh on 4th January, but not proceeded against:—
  "I hereby certify that Mrs. Alexr. M'Millan, presently residing at 284, Crookston Street,. S.S. Glasgow, is under my professional care, and has been for the last three weeks. She is suffering from chronic metritis, following an acute attack of the same illness caused by an abortion, which, in my opinion, was brought on by exposure and mental excitement.
  "(Signed) R. Pollock.
  "M. B. and C. M., &c.
  "Febry. 24th, 1387."
  Whether it is a fact that on or about the 18th ultimo Mrs. M'Millan, while under medical care in her sister's house in Glasgow, was ordered to present herself at the office of the Procurator Fiscal, and, on her pleading inability to walk, was on the following day visited by that official, and subjected to a long and inquisitorial examination, the result of which was to aggravate her illness; and, on what grounds Mrs. M'Millan was subjected to this interview?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Mrs. M'Millan was ordered to be tried, along with eight other prisoners, for mobbing, rioting, and deforcement. Before the trial, but after she had arrived in Edinburgh, I was informed by her counsel of her condition, and I accordingly did not proceed with the case against her. As she had not been tried, it was considered an exceptional case, in which her expenses might be paid, and £5 was given to her for that purpose. She left Edinburgh without applying any part of the £5 to pay her lodging expenses there; and shortly after a request was made by a Mr. Cowan, who, I understand, is the Secretary of a Highland Land League, for payment of these. Directions were then given to the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow to see Mrs. M'Millan, to ascertain whether this application was made on her behalf, and what expenses she had already paid. It is not the fact that she was ordered to present herself at the

  181
  Procurator Fiscal's office. The chief officer who called on her had instructions from the Procurator Fiscal that if she expressed any doubt about being able to come, or if he himself thought she seemed to be in delicate health, he should so report, and the Procurator Fiscal would call. This was accordingly done. There was no long or inquisitorial examination. The interview lasted only 10 or 15 minutes, and no complaint was made. I am further informed that that interview did not aggravate her illness. As it was found that she had been detained in Glasgow some time by the after effects of her illness, it was thought proper to allow £3 additional, and the order to pay this sum was given before I received Notice of the hon. Member's Question. The ground on which the interview took place was, that until I had ascertained how the facts stood I could not, consistently with my duty, entertain the application for more money.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—NORTH ANTRIM ELECTION—MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Belfast Morning News of the 25th February last, from which it appears that malicious injuries were inflicted on the properties of several persons who had supported the Liberal candidate, Mr. M'Elroy, who stood in opposition to Mr. Lewis at the last North Antrim election; whether stacks of corn and hay belonging to a Protestant Liberal (Mr. Daniel M'Mullen, of Mullahduff), near Annoy, were maliciously burned; whether the windows of houses belonging to two Catholics (Mr. Thomas Burns and Mr. Patrick Quin, of Castlebawn) were broken, and other outrages committed in the district on the same night; and, whether any steps have been taken by the Constabulary to bring the offenders to justice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is no reason to believe that feelings caused by the recent election had anything to do with these occurrences, which, moreover, are exaggerated in the report ([noted from. The burning of Mr. M'Mullen's stacks is believed to have been acci-
  182
  dental. A shilling's worth of damage was done to the windows of a man named Burns, who did not mention the occurrence to the police. No other so-called "outrage" has been reported in the district.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, whether it was not the fact that these occurrences took place on the very night of the election?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not give the date.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—SACRILEGIOUS INJURY TO ATHEA CHURCH, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the statement in The Times of the 9th instant that—
  "The Protestant church which was built at Athea, in the west of the County Limerick.… was entered on Sunday night …. the memorial stained-glass window, erected by Archdeacon Goold in memory of some of his family, smashed with stones…. The Bible was also torn from the lectern, the seats knocked about, and the interior of the building disfigured and outraged; "
  whether, if this report is true, he can give any information as to the cause of these outrages; and, what steps have been taken to bring the perpetrators to justice?
  MR. ABRAHAM: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I wish to know whether he has received a copy of a telegram received from the parish priest, in which he states that the utmost indignation prevails among the Catholic inhabitants of the town; and, also, whether a public meeting was held yesterday, at which strong resolutions were passed condemning this outrage, and offering a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators; also, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the utmost cordiality has prevailed among the Catholic and Protestant inhabitants for the last 50 years?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have received the telegram referred to, and which I thank the hon. Member for having sent me. I also heard of the meeting which was held yesterday. The outrage is believed to have been the work of some drunken boys. I am happy to say that the police authorities

  183
  do not think it has any political or sectarian character. Four persons are in custody, and will be brought before the magistrates this week.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—BOATS AND LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS ON PASSENGER SHIPS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Committee which sat last year on the question of boats and life saving apparatus to be carried by passenger ships reported in October last; whether the Report was signed by all the Members of the Committee; what has become of the Report; and, whether, considering the interest taken by the public in the means taken to preserve life at sea, he will cause the recommendations of the Committee to be made known by publishing their Report?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Yes, Sir; the Departmental Committee referred to by my hon. Friend reported in October last. The Report was signed by all the Members. It has been sent to the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea, in accordance with a promise made to that effect; but as we think the question should be dealt with at once, without waiting for the Report of the Commission, it is proposed forthwith to move for a Select Committee of this House to inquire and report on the whole subject. The Report of the Departmental Committee will be presented as a Command Paper, and will be referred to the Select Committee if they so desire.

  POST OFFICE—NEWSPAPER WRAPPERS AND "VANITY FAIR."
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that, immediately upon the reduction in price of Vanity Fair newspaper from 1s. to 6d., the Post Office Authorities peremptorily required the publisher to discontinue the use of a printed wrapper which had been in use for the transmission of the newspaper through the post for over 18 years, without any complaint being made of it?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL(Mr. RAIKES): The Regulation to which the hon. Member
  184
  refers is in no way connected with an alteration in any newspaper. It was considered necessary "some time back," for the duo performance of the sorting duty, to restrict the printed matter on newspaper wrappers to the title and the address of the publisher, and the Warrant proscribing this has been in force since July last. From time to time a question has arisen as to what is really a part of the title of a newspaper. But I should state that an application from the publishers of Vanity Fair was made a fortnight ago; and that, under the representations made, a consent was at once given to the wrappers hitherto used passing unchallenged. I am anxious that the Regulation should not be enforced in a vexatious manner.

  SHIPPING—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Shipping will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I understand that the Commissioners are now considering their Report, and that they hope it will be laid before the House in the course of the present Session?

  ARMY—SENTENCES BY COURTS MARTIAL—THE RECENT RULES AND REGULATIONS.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in order to carry out the object of His Royal Highness Commanding in Chief, manifested in the Regulations and Instructions recently issued, enjoining sentences by courts martial of much less severity than heretofore, the cases of those convicted and sentenced previously have been, or will be, considered, with the view of shortening their imprisonment; and, whether this has been, or can be, done in the cases of sentence to penal servitude without the stigma of a ticket-of-leave or licence or will require a Royal pardon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In order to carry out the object of His Royal Highness the Commander - in-Chief, manifested in the Regulations and Instructions recently issued, enjoin-

  185
  ing sentences by courts martial of much less severity than heretofore, every sentence passed within the last 12 months which has seemed severe has been inquired into, and remission made in cases which appeared worthy of it. Under an arrangement with the Home Office, all cases of soldiers sentenced to penal servitude are brought forward for consideration after certain periods of the sentences have been served; and when the interests of discipline will not suffer remissions are granted without licences or tickets-of-leave.

  PROCLAIMED MEETINGS (IRELAND)—RETURNS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the importance of accurate information on the subject, he will give a Return of the public meetings proclaimed, or attempted to be suppressed, in Ireland from 1st August, 1886, to 28th February, 1887, inclusive, with Copies of the placards calling the meetings, and of the Proclamations prohibiting the holding of the same?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The House has already been informed that eight meetings wore prohibited within the period from August 1 to February 28. It may be of interest to state in this connection that in the same period considerably over 100 meetings were hold without any interference on the part of the Authorities. I do not think it necessary, or would be expedient, to put in the form of a Parliamentary Return the placards with regard to the proclaimed meetings; partly because, having been posted over the districts concerned, they are already matters of notoriety; and partly because they might be taken to represent the whole case on which the Government acted, and might, therefore, be misleading.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to give the specific dates of the eight meetings suppressed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I cannot give them at this moment.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—FATHER KELLER, YOUGHAL.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the
  186
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Executive will, without further delay, make the fullest use of such powers as they are already possessed of to enforce the warrant of Judge Boyd upon Father Keller, of Youghal, who is defying the orders of Her Majesty's Courts?
  MR. LANE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question I wish to supplement it by asking whether the only act of defiance of the orders of Her Majesty's Court which the rev. gentleman has been guilty of is refusing to proceed to Dublin to disclose in Court the secrets the parishioners confided to him in his capacity of parish priest?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I believe the summons was issued for contempt. In answer to the noble Viscount, I may say the Executive will give every assistance to the Court in carrying out the order.
  MR. LANE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not aware that it is announced in the papers this morning that the summons and proceedings to induce this clergyman to go to Dublin have been withdrawn altogether?
  [No reply.]

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—COMBINED DEPARTMENTS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the Report of the Inspector of Reformatories and Industrial Schools as to the objections he entertains to combining departments for boys and for girls in the same industrial school, he intends to take any action in the direction of closing one of such departments in such industrial schools?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I share the opinion of the Inspector, that it is desirable, if possible, to place boys and girls in separate industrial schools; and I am now considering whether it will be possible to effect this separation, having regard to the number and situation of industrial schools in different parts of the country.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—CONTRACTS—CAUTIUDGKS—MESSRS. KYNOCH AND CO.
  SIR FREDERICK MAPPINasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. Whether the present contract for cartridges is the first Messrs. Kynoch and Company, of Birmingham, have entered into with the British Government; if not, whether the rejections have exceeded 20 per cent, or what has been the percentage; whether Messrs. Kynoch and Company have previously supplied the British Government with any other articles or materials other than cartridges; and, whether the rejections in any case have exceeded 20 per cent of the contract?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): There have been three previous contracts with the firm, all for solid-drawn cartridge cases, to a total of 1,700,000. Of the first of these contracts for 500,000 cartridges, 40 per cent were rejected as not according to pattern, and of the two others 8 l·3 per cent were rejected for failure at proof; and a largo number were withdrawn by the contractors after being sent in as of the same sort as those which had failed at proof. No articles other than cartridges have been contracted for with the firm.

  WAR OFFICE—WARRANT OFFICERS—REGIMENTAL, SERGEANT MAJORS.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the case of Regimental Sergeant Majors, who have been deprived of the relative rank and privileges granted to them as Warrant Officers in 1881, and enjoyed by them up to the date of the Queen's Regulations issued in November, 1885, and also of Army Warrant Officers of the second and third class (including Regimental Sergeant Majors), who, not being mentioned in the General Order, No. 28, of the 1st March, 1886, only rank when on board Her Majesty's Ships with Chief Petty Officers, and have thus been deprived of the advantages and position duo to their Warrant rank; and, whether he will take steps to restore Army Warrant Officers to the position in which they were placed in 1881?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The question of the relative rank with the Navy to be allowed to Warrant Officers of the Army is extremely complicated, and I can scarcely deal with it within the limits of an answer. If, however, the hon. Member can make it convenient to call upon me at the War Office, I will explain to him the position of the question, and will consider any specific grievance he can adduce.
  COLONEL HUGHESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will renew to all Warrant Officers in the Army the privileges enjoyed by them in 1881, and which in 1885 were limited to two classes—namely, conductors and first and second class master-gunners?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not quite sure which are the privileges to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. If, however, he alludes to that of being permitted to appear out of uniform—which, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, does not extend to non-commissioned officers or private soldiers—I would observe that, before 1881, the Warrant Officers were very few in number, and almost necessarily serving away from other Warrant Officers. In those circumstances, no inconvenience was felt in allowing them the same undress privileges as are accorded to officers. When, however, by the Royal Warrant of 1881, the rank of Warrant Officer was very largely extended, and was subdivided into many classes, it was anticipated that there would be military disadvantage in allowing them such great liberty in the matter of dress; and the now classes of Warrant Officers were limited for plain clothes to times when on pass, or furlough, and leaving the place where they are stationed. So far as I can learn, no ground exists for any relaxation of this rule.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT ENNISCORTHY—EMPLOYMENT OF THE CONSTABULARY.

  A POINT OF ORDER—ALTERING QUESTIONS.
  The following Notice of a Question stood on the Paper:—
  MR. J. E. REDMOND—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has

  189
  been called to the proceedings which took place at certain evictions in the town of Enniscorthy on 15th February; whether the following account of some of the proceedings, taken from a local paper, is correct:—
  ''The police, of which there were about 40, with some horsemen, and who were under the command of District Inspector Mulock, were told off in twos to enter the houses and demand possession. They were told to take possession. It may here be mentioned that with such aversion are those evictions regarded that no bailiff could be got to undertake the work, and therefore the police were ordered in the name of the law to act as bailiffs. The tenants and the members of their families having almost without exception refused to stir from the houses until every article of furniture was removed, the police set about their work. Four or five police together entered each house, and proceeded to carry out the effects which the tenants had left in the houses. A scene of indescribable commotion was caused when a policeman was observed carrying out the cradle from which the infant child of three weeks old had just immediately before been taken out; "
  and, whether it is legal for the police to act as bailiffs at evictions?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Before asking this Question, I will ask permission to submit a Question to you, Sir, on a point of Order. It is with reference to the practice, which is becoming common, of altering the terms and substance of Questions handed in by Members at the Table. The Question I have to put is this—If the Question handed in is irregular, should not the Member be communicated with? That used to be the course adopted, but that is not the course now; and, with reference to this particular Question on the Paper, the last inquiry I put was whether the practice of the police acting as bailiffs at evictions was approved of by the Government? That was entirely struck out, and an entirely different Question, which I have no desire to ask, substituted. The Question I have to ask is, whether it is by your authority that my Question was struck off the Paper, and an entirely different Question substituted?
  MR. SPEAKER: The reason why the Question was partly struck out was that the hon. Member asked the Government a Question on a matter of opinion, which was entirely without the scope of a Question. The hon. Member is not entitled to ask a Question as to a matter of opinion. With regard to the other point the hon. Member has raised, I may say that, as a general rule, hon. Members consult with
  190
  the Clerk at the Table as to whether their Questions are in Order or not; and, as a rule, everything is done in an amicable manner. The Questions, however, are now so numerous that it is almost impossible for the Clerk at the Table to communicate with hon. Members by letter. I assure the House that no Question is struck off which is not palpably against the Rules of the House.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I would ask permission to ask you whether in your recollection almost the identical Question was asked of the late Chief Secretary and answered by him—whether he approved of police acting as bailiffs at evictions? He said he did not approve of it. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary if he holds the opinion his Predecessor held; and unless you rule me out of Order in putting that Question I will put it to him.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the only Questions which hon. Members were entitled to ask wore Questions of fact, not of opinion. the Question to which the hon. Member said the late Chief Secretary had replied ought not to have been asked, and he regretted that it had escaped the usual ordeal.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Then I will add to the Question as it stands on the Paper—whether it is a fact that the present Chief Secretary approved or sanctioned the action of the police acting as bailiffs at evictions?—if that will make it more in Order.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): With regard to the rider to the Question which the hon. Gentleman has just asked me, I may point out that as the incident occurred on the 15th of February, and as I became Chief Secretary rather less than a week ago, it has never come under my personal cognizance; but I entirely endorse every word that fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who spoke in the name of the Government and in the name of his Colleagues. As to the details stated in the Question, I understand that the goods had to be removed from the house, and in one instance a cradle was included; but I may point out that this case was not an agrarian case. The eviction was from a town house.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend in future to sanction the employment of constables as bailiffs at evictions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the case to which the hon. Member refers the magistrates were acting under statutory powers; and, in such circumstances, it would be impossible for me to interfere legally.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISTRICT INSPECTOR SMITH, OF MACROOM—THE PROCLAIMED MEETING AT ASHGROVE, CO. CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the action of District Inspector Smith, of Macroom, as reported in The Cork Daily Herald of Monday's, 7th ultimo, issue, that Smith stated to the Representative of that journal, on his inquiring on Saturday evening as to whether the proposed meeting at Ashgrove would be proclaimed—" Why should it, there is no necessity for such a step; "whether Smith was aware on the said Saturday evening that the meeting was proclaimed; whether he had been engaged that day in perfecting details in connection with the matter; at what time was the notice that the meeting was proclaimed forwarded to Smith from Cork; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: District Inspector Smith denies that he made the statement attributed to him. He was, of course, aware that the meeting had been proclaimed, and he was properly discharging his duty by making arrangements accordingly. I see no ground for further inquiry into the circumstances.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT—LABOURERS' DWELLINGS—NOTICES ON THE CORK UNION.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in October, 1885, all the necessary notices were served in the Blarney District of the Cork Union upon the ratepayers and all whom it concerned; whether all the forms of application were correctly filled and sent to the clerk of the Cork Union, who placed them before the Board of
  192
  Guardians; whether all the other necessary preliminaries were duly executed for the erection of 13 labourers' dwellings in the said district, and if, notwithstanding the lapse of a year and a half, nothing has been done towards the erection of these houses; whether the cabins in which the 13 applicants lived were condemned by the sanitary officer as unfit for habitation in October, 1885, and if it is true that since then no attempt has been made to improve those condemned dwellings; whether some of the labourers have on several occasions gone before the Board of Guardians, and were told the Local Government Board blocked the way; and, whether he will call the attention of the Local Government Board to the alleged grievances?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Any delay which may have occurred in the preliminary proceedings was on the part of the Local Authority. The Local Government Board were not furnished with the necessary documents until August last. They proceeded as quickly as possible; but the scheme for the Union was exceptionally heavy—embracing 349 proposed houses. The Board issued their order two months ago.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—HOURS OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether clerks to prisons in Ireland perform on week days from 12 to 16 hours' duty, and on Sundays eight hours; whether these periods are in excess of the time during which similar officers in England are engaged; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to the reduction of the present hours?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sunday duty is, of course, unavoidable in the Prison Service. From the Report submitted by the General Prisons Board, I find that the average length of attendance is not so great as from, 12 to 16 hours' duty on week days, and on Sundays eight hours, as stated in this Question. I am not aware of any ground for general inquiry into the subject; but if the hon. Member has before him any particular case which he thinks is one of hardship, and will mention it to me, I will undertake to look into it.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—AFFRAY AT DRUMSNA, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-tenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 2nd March, a bailiff named Frank Cooke passed through Drumsna, County Leitrim, in a drunken state, and, without provocation, drew his revolver on a resident of the town named Simpson; whether, on the attention of the police being drawn to the matter, Sergeant Henry merely shook hands with Cooke, and told him to put his revolver in his pocket; whether, in consequence of this, Simpson was obliged to swear information against. Cooke, and a car had to be got, at the public expense, to follow the latter to Mohill; whether, on the next day, instead of adopting the usual course of lodging Cooke in gaol, in default of finding bail, Sergeant Henry accompanied him back to Mohill; whether, on the following morning, Cooke threatened and brandished his revolver at some small boys; and, whether the Government will consider the propriety of inquiring into the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The official Reports submitted to me by no moans bear out the view of the case hero suggested; but as informations have been sworn against Cooke, and the case is pending for hearing at the next Petty Sessions, I cannot make any detailed statement on the subject.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AT MACROOM.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in The Cork Examiner of Tuesday the 8th ultimo, as to the conduct of the constabulary in the streets of Macroom on last Sunday evening the 6th March, which stated that on Sunday evening, when the Cork Forces were on their way to the station, they were preceded by a dozen policemen with drawn batons, who first jostled and then indiscriminately batoned the people; that Mr. Smith, District Inspector, on returning from the station, as if in reply to one of his men, was heard to say, "Sweep the devils down," when another policeman then said," Wait till they come from prayers:" that a man, named John Murphy, of Massytown,
  194
  was felled to the ground by the blow of a baton, and had his head cut open; that the city police, who wear numbers on their collars, turned up the collars of their overcoats to avoid detection in their assaults on the people; that a young man, named Cotter, when knocked down, was brutally kicked while on the ground by the policemen, because he did not immediately get up when ordered, he being insensible; that Constable John Neill, of Macroom, followed a young girl off the street into a house, beating her on the staircase, and would have dragged her into the street to more justifiably beat her, but was prevented by the owner of the house; whether this report is true; and, whether the Government will order an investigation into the conduct of District Inspector Smith, and the police under his command, on the occasion in question?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It appears that the police, while on the way to the station, were stoned by the mob and had then to use their batons, and that John Murphy, who was a member of the crowd, received a blow on the head. All the other allegations in the Question appear to be untrue, and the Government see no reason to order an investigation.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain about Constable John Neill not beating this girl?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed, Sir, that the statement is untrue.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE RIOTS AT LURGAN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether, during the recent riots in Lurgan, District Inspector Bigley assaulted and knocked down a Catholic drummer at M'Geown's Corner, Lurgan, and struck the drum with a blackthorn stick after the drummer had fallen; whether the assault was committed before Mr. Bigley had given orders to the police to fire, and whether the drummer was doing anything illegal at the time; whether Mr. Bigley swore at the magisterial investigation that Shankhill Street, into which the police fired by his order, was an exclusively Catholic street; whether there was any opposing crowd in the street at the time of firing; and, whe-

  195
  ther Mr. Bigley took the advice of, or had any communication with, the Resident Magistrate in charge of the district before he gave the orders to fire on the people?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): During the riots referred to, a drumming party was endeavouring to force its way into a hostile district. The police, in endeavouring to prevent them, were severely stoned. The District Inspector may, in self-defence, have struck one of the rioters, or knocked another down; but it is right to say that at the Assizes now proceeding 16 of the rioters were fried and 14 of them convicted, and that at no time during the trial was any act of imprudence or illegality imputed to the police. The answer to the third portion of the Question is yes, and to the fourth portion, no. The Resident Magistrate was five miles away on the occasion of the riot, and, therefore, could not be consulted.
  MR. M'GARTAN: Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or no the drummer assaulted by the Inspector was charged with any illegal act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume he was part of the crowd who were acting illegally.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I shall put a further Question on this subject.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—EVIDENCE AS TO EVICTIONS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Royal Commission on the Land Acts (Ireland), on the subject of evictions; whether he has noticed the following Question (16,480), put by Sir James Caird to Sir Redvers Buller:—
  "Do you desire some Court that should have power of staying evictions, or that discretion should be given to an existing Court, which, upon satisfactory proof to it, that Court should be enabled to stay evictions,"
  to which Sir Redvers Buller replied in the affirmative; and, whether, in view of the sufferings entailed on helpless women and children by being evicted from their homes in winter time, some means can be devised to put a stop to evictions temporarily, or at least till fine weather approaches?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government have under their consideration the provisions of a Bill dealing with certain aspects of the Irish Land Question; but they are not at present prepared to enter into any details, or make any statement on the subject.

  RUSSIA—HUMOURED ATTEMPT ON THE LIVE OF THE CZAR.
  MR. PULESTON: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can give any information as to the reported attempt to assassinate the Czar of Russia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Sir, Her Majesty's Government have, with deep regret, received information that some persons were arrested with explosives upon them on the read by which the Emperor of Russia was expected to go to the anniversary service for the late Emperor; but I am glad to say that it does not appear that any attack was made upon His Majesty.

  HORSES—SUPPLY FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.
  SIR WILLIAM GROSSMANinquired, Whether the Government were prepared to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to examine into the question of the supply of horses for Army purposes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, the Department was at present considering various schemes put forward for improving the horse supply of the Army. They had before them a great number of suggestions, including one or two for which they were indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir William Cross-man). He understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, by his Question, rather contemplated a more general inquiry. Before giving an answer on that subject he must consult his Colleagues; and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to postpone his Question.
  SIR WILLIAM GROSSMAN: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone the Notice of Motion which stands on the Paper in my name for to night.

MEMORANDUM OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RELATING TO THE ARMY ESTIMATES, 1887–8.
Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.)
The Estimates of 1886–7 showed an anticipated expenditure of £15,150,900 for effective, and £3,076,300 for non-effective services, making a total of £18,233,200. But, in introducing them to the House, the Secretary of State (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) explained that, unless the Army in Egypt could be reduced during 1886–7 to 8,000 men, it would be necessary to ask for a Supplementary Vote. This Army was in fact maintained for some months at a force considerably above this strength, and accordingly Supplementary Estimates have become necessary. The total amount is £459,000, of which nearly £200,000 is due to the increased demands of the Navy, and the greater part of the remainder to Egypt. The Estimates, which are now submitted to Parliament, show an expenditure of £18,393,900, of which £15,305,700 is for effective, and £3,088,200 for non-effective services. It will thus be seen that, as compared with last year's original Estimates, the amount now required for the service of the Army shows an increase of £160,700. But this does not represent the true state of the case. As the House is aware, the War Office supplies the armaments and warlike stores of the Navy, and the cost is borne by the Army Estimates. For 1887–8 the Army Estimates have to provide for an increase, on account of the armaments of the Navy, of £292,000 on the previous year.
Nor is that all. Certain other increases in charge are altogether beyond the control of the Secretary of State, and may be summarized as follows:—

(1.)

Indian Contribution to Vote 1 (the additional strength of the Indian Army having been nearly provided in the current year) is reduced by

£100,000

(2.)

Leap year causes an additional expense over all the Votes of

30,000

(3.)

Deferred Pay has increased by

20,000

(4.)

Retired Pay by

45,000

(5.)

The Army Reserve—by the increase of numbers—requires in addition

25,000

£220,000

These two sums, amounting altogether to no less than £512,000, show that, instead of an increase, the present Estimates show a reduction of expenditure, even without taking into account the Supplementary Votes for 1886–7.
Increases have also been caused by the rise in the establishments, by the new grants to the Volunteer Service, and especially by the demands for armaments and military stores, which will presently be referred to.
On the other hand, large savings have been accomplished by the withdrawal of half the British force from Egypt, the effect of which is mainly to be traced in the Vote for Supplies and Transport. The Vote for the Non-Effective Services, with the exception of the large automatic increase in the item of Retired Pay (which will be to some extent checked by the new Royal Warrant), shows on all points a diminution of charge.
A small reduction has also been effected in the Vote for Military Education. The general improvement in the education of the country will soon tell upon the special charges necessary for this purpose in the Army, and by greater recourss to civil schools, and the reduction in the establishment of Army schoolmasters. I hope that in future years greater economies can be effected on this head.
Some steps have also been taken by my predecessor, after very careful examination, for the reduction of the General Staff, and of certain permanent appointments.
Leaving these- details, I may say generally that, without pretending to have been able, within the limited time at my disposal, to scrutinize personally all parts of these Estimates, the Vote for Armaments has undergone a renewed examination; and I have satisfied myself that, looking to all the circumstances of the present time, the Estimate prepared by my predecessor represented only that necessary demand for this service which any Secretary of State would be bound to make.
But, as attention has been specially attracted to Military Expenditure, it may be well to pass in review some of the great heads of expenditure, though as time has not enabled the Financial Secretary and his Department, who have given much trouble to the matter, to work out the figures in all cases from the present Estimates, the results will be found to be in some cases founded on the figures of 1886–7.

Heads of Army Expenditure (figures of 1886–7).
The whole expenditure of the Army may be divided into three heads, the cost of the "personnel," of general administration, and of supply. The subjoined table attempts to show the total amount under each head.
ARMY ESTIMATES, 1886–87, recalculated, showing approximately the Cost of the Personnel of the Regular and Auxiliary forces as distinguished from the remaining Expenditure.

1. Charges for Personnel.

REGULAR FORCES.

£

Estimated annual cost of Regimental Warrant Officers, non-commissioned officers) and men, including Pay, Good Conduct Pay, Deferred Pay, Engineer and Departmental Pay, Clothing, Rations, Fuel and Light, Transport, Equipment, Ammunition, Barracks, Barrack Stores, with cost of Medical Attendance and Medicines, Chaplains, Prison Staff, Schools and Libraries, and Regimental Paymasters

7,201,000

136,350 men. Average cost, £52 4/5 per head.

136,350 Officers. Average cost, £52 4/5 per head.

1,374,000

4,934Officers. Average, £278½ per head

Total effective cost of "personnel" of the Army

8,575,000

Total non-effective cost of "personnel" of the Army

2,770,300

(Average rate per head, effective and non-effective, £80 3/10 all ranks).

11,345,300

3. Supply Charges.

Purchase of Horses (14,151) and Forage at £25 a-year

464,210

Veterinary Department

Wages, &c. (Vote 9)

345,510.

Rents and Water (except £34,00) (Vote: 10)

88,000

Transport of Stores £68,000

(Vote 10)

198,000

Transport &c, Egypt (excess) £130,000

Warlike Stores, Vote 12.—

£2,569,000

2,076,650

Less amount estimated for Barrack Stores

£140,000

Less amount estimated for Equipment

150,000

Less amount estimated for Auxiliary Forces

202,350

492,350

Works and Buildings, Vote 13.—

925,800

488,800

Less amount estimated for Barracks

437,000

Maintenance of Local Force at Suakin (Vote 1)

58,000

Total Supply Charges

3,719,170

ESTIMATES, 1886–7.

Numbers.

All ranks.

Regular Army, enrolled

141,284

Reserve

56,900

Militia

119,356

Yeomanry

11,540

Volunteers, efficient

218,207

Total of all forces

547,337

Cost.

Personnel of above forces

£14,065,450

Administrative Departments

1,341,680

Supply services

£3,719,170

Less Navy

1,000,000

2,719,170

£18,126,300

Less Indian, Colonial, and Egyptian contributions included in appropriations in aid of Vote 1

908,000

£17,218,300

Add small sums not included in foregoing figures

14,900

Total agreeing with Net Estimates for 1886–7, viz., £18,233,200 less £1,000,000 for Navy

£17,233,200

These tables show pretty clearly that, assuming the maintenance of the existing establishment of the Army on the present scale, any substantial reduction of expenditure must be effected either in the cost of administration or in the charge for works, armaments, and stores.
Vote 12 (Stores).
And indeed it is sufficiently notorious that reductions of Army expenditure, while maintaining our existing establishment, have largely been effected in past years by drawing upon our reserve of stores. There have been occasions when considerations of economy have reduced this to a dangerously small amount. But indiscriminate reductions, effected for such an object, are neither safe nor altogether honest, and I hope that the time may soon come when the necessary reserve of stores will be authoritatively fixed in all branches, and rigidly maintained in all circumstances. It is, however, to be observed that the expenditure in Vote 12 comprises not only the sums necessary for the maintenance of our armaments and our reserve of stores, but also large sums which are now being annually voted to strengthen the defences of the country all round. The estimate for the supply, manufacture, and repair of warlike stores (Vote 12)—that is, for the manufacturing departments of the Army—amounts next year to £2,943,500. Of this £1,707,000 is required for Navy armaments. The system under which the Army Votes at present bear the charge for naval armaments has the effect of preventing the true charge for the respective services from being understood by the public, but it is intended next year to make arrangements for separating this expenditure.
The following table illustrates the normal and special expenditure under this Vote.—

VOTE 12.—GENERAL OUTLINE OF ESTIMATE.

(A.)

(B.)

(C.)

Head of Service.

Ordinary normal expenditure.

Sepcial Services in addition to A.

Total amount required to complete Special Services mentioned in B.

No. of years of complete C.

£

£

£

Maintenance of armaments and practice, including equipments, transport, ambulances, &c.

200,000

Gunpowder

50,000

Field Artillery

20,000

80,000

248, 000 (4)

3

Rifles

100,000

125,000(2)

1,190,000(5)

3

Ammunition

120,000

80, 000

240,000 (6)

2

Carbines, pistols, and swords

20,000

40,000

50,000

1

Barrack stores

80,000

Accoutrements

40,000

20,000

50,000

2

Harness

21,000

10,000

Machinery

30,000

31,500

Minor items

242,500 (1)

35,888 (3)

Coaling stations, armament of

126,680

358,310

2

Total

923,500

549,068

2,136,310

Total, normal (A)

923,500

Total, special (B)

549,068

Naval requirements to be transferred next year to Navy Estimates

1,707,561

Total

3,180,129(7)

Appropriation in aid

236,629

Total

2,943,500(7)

Remarks.

(1.) Includes establishments, experimental services, camp equipments, War Department vessels, &c.

(2.) Less than previously proposed owing to delays of patterns hindering manufacture. 25,000 magazine rifles only.

(3.) Includes vessels, and miscellaneous.

(4.) For 31 batteries to complete 60, to be armed with B.L. armament.

(5.) Includes 375,000 magazine rifles.

(6.) To get up to 60,000,000 reserve of ·4 cartridges.

(7.) Repayments not included, as they are added to items of Vote and deducted en bloc.

N.B.—The purpose of this statement is to show broadly the appropriations of money to certain general heads of Service. These appropriations will not be traced in the Estimates which are necessarily prepared under the head of Wages, Materials, Contract Supplies, &c.
Vote 13, which deals with works, buildings, and repairs, may be analyzed in a somewhat similar form.

VOTE 13.

GENERAL ABSTRACT OF ESTIMATE.

Total of Vote £862,300.

Vote for 1887–8

Required to complete

Remarks.

For Maintenance—

£

£

Ordinary and current repairs

353,190

For new works (under £1,000, to be completed in this year)

117,589

For works in progress (begun before 1887–8)-

Barracks

111,249

315,065

Fortifications and Ordnance Store buildings

61,227

200,407

Of this, £133,000 is for submarine mining works at military and mercantile ports.

Manufacturing establishments

40,500

4,110

New works (over £1,000 to be begun this year)-

Barracks

29,700

46,120

Fortifications and Ordnance Store buildings

38,957

60,705*

Manufacturing establishments

12,750

27,850

For coaling stations

77,200

201,210

Total

842,302

855,467

Salaries and miscellaneous Engineer services

125,802

Annual charges, subheads A to K, of Vote 13.

Total

968,104

Less appropriations in aid

105,864

Total

862,300

855,467

*Of the £60,705, the following items are each of £5,000 and upwards, viz.:—

York-New Ordnance Store Establishment

£15,500

Portsdown Hill-maintenance of revetments

11,000

Woolwich Arsenal-means for lifting and landing guns up to 240 tons

10,200

Fort Augusta-new powder magazine

5,000

The object of this analysis of these Votes will now be clear. I am anxious to bring prominently forward the fact that the manufacturing and engineering departments necessarily enter into contract engagements extending over several years, and that a sudden curtailment of Estimates may often mean not only the stoppage of a particular work, but the loss of a large part of the money already expended, or it may involve a breach of faith. Take, for instance, the expendi-
208

209
ture upon our coaling stations, which is, and ought to be, regulated by the General Scheme laid down in 1884, accepted by the Treasury, and at that time submitted to Parliament. Upon the faith of that scheme we have induced some of our Colonies to vote, and to expend large sums of money, on the understanding that, if they would undertake the cost of the works, the Imperial Parliament would find the armaments. In more than one case the Colony has kept its part of the bargain, while the Imperial Government has not obtained the necessary funds to do so. In all these cases the faith of Parliament is deeply pledged, and, quite independently of the great interests involved, we are bound in honour to provide the necessary funds at least upon the scale laid down in 1884.
Or take the large expenditure occasioned by the introduction of the new rifle and of the now field gun. It has long been admitted that the rearmament of our forces in these respects is a matter of urgent necessity. The above table shows the large sums required to accomplish this result. As soon as a step of this sort has been decided upon by the military authorities, a comparatively small Vote is proposed to Parliament for the expenditure during that financial year; but the House becomes practically pledged to continue similar votes from year to year until the whole sum has been provided. To suspend it for a single year is to cause great waste of public money, or to inflict losses upon the trade only to be satisfied by pecuniary compensation. The system, indeed, has great disadvantages; and it is well worthy of consideration whether some scheme could not be devised which would on the one hand guarantee proper Parliamentary control at the initiation of such expenditure, and at the same time secure the completion of the works or of the armament without being exposed to the fluctations of Parliamentary opinion. In the time of Lord Cardwell, whose Army Estimates have often been taken as a standard by economists, some part of this expenditure was outside the control of Parliament and not shown in the Army Estimates, and was from time to time borrowed under the head of "Defence and Localization Works." Works of precisely the same character, but in these modern days of far greater cost, cause the large increase in Votes 12 and 13. Perhaps I may be allowed to give an illustration of this increase of cost. The Commission on the Defences of the United Kingdom in their Report of 1860, which proposed works at the cost of 11 millions sterling, thus dealt with the armaments:—
"Upon a general estimate we are led to believe that the works herein proposed will require for armament not less than 2,500 pieces of artillery, in addition to any that are now mounted, or already demanded for works which have been sanctioned previous to this report. Taking them at an average of £200 each, on the supposition that a portion of them will be rifled ordnance, the estimated expense under this head will be £500,000."
It is scarcely necessary to observe that the sum then named as the average price of the guns required, is now about the cost of a single shot from one of our big guns.

(War Office Administration.)
So much for the question of armaments and stores. Coming now to administration, I may observe that the cost of administering the War Office shows an increase of £2,600 due to the increments of salaries, most of the clerks appointed at the reorganization of 1857 having now reached their maximum. It may be not uninteresting to trace the history of this Vote. It shows, as estimated for 1886–7. an increase of £6,700 since 1864–5, and of £33,800 since 1857–8. But in 1857–8, the Army Reserve, and the Volunteers did not exist, and the Regular Army was smaller by £25,000 men. Since 1857–8 the Intelligence Department, which cost £12,300 in the current year, has replaced the small military Topographical Department, supervised by the Director of the Ordnance Survey. Yet the cost of administration, which in 1857–8 was about £1 18 s. 4d. to every £100 administered, had fallen in 1886–7 to £1 1s. 2d., a decrease of 17 s. 2d. per £100 expended. In 1864–5, the charge fur clerks was higher by £10,000 than in 1886–7, though the work has largely increased in the interval. The reduction
210

211
has been mainly caused by the employment of cheaper labour. The civil clerks have been reduced by 13, while the military clerks have been increased by 65. By these savings the expenditure on the Intelligence Branch, the increase of technical staff from 21 to 43, and of the "Works Branch from 13 to 20, has produced a net increase of £6,800 only in 22 years.

(Establishment.)
Having thus examined the Estimates upon the assumption that our present establishment is maintained, it becomes necessary to consider, shortly, the reasons for the retention of that establishment.
The following table shows the force which we are now maintaining abroad and in the Colonies (excluding the Royal Engineers, who are separately treated):—

Cavalry regiments

Artillery batteries.

Infantry battalions of the line.

Horse.

Field.

Garrsion.

Egypt

1

2

4

Colonies

1

1

32

19

India

9

11

42

29

53

The force in India is incapable of reduction, and it is hardly possible that any substantial diminution could take place in the force maintained in our Colonies. This leaves us with the following disposable force at home, according to the latest arrangements:—

Cavalry regiments

Household

3

Line

17

Yeomanry

39

Vol. Light Horse, &c

4

Artillery

Horse (Batteries)

8

Field

38

Garrison

38

Militia (brigades)

35

Volunteers (corps)

60

Infantry battalions

Foot Guards

7

Line

65

Militia

135

Volunteers

207

But, in estimating the military value of these battalions of Volunteers, it must be remembered that in the event of any prolonged anxiety it would be impossible to keep in the field the full strength of our Volunteer Army. A very largo deduction must be made for men who, being engaged in civil occupations, will necessarily be absent, except in cases of great emergency. On the other hand, the number of the Army Reserve is gradually growing towards the full number which is required to bring up our Army to its full fighting strength when necessary. At the present time it numbers about 47,000 men. Owing to the change in the term of colour service in 1881 2, there will be a decrease in the Reserve in 1888 of no less than 9,000, unless we can adopt other means for adding to it; but after that date it will again steadily increase under present conditions until it reaches 60,000 in 1894. The desire to utilize this disposable force to the fullest advantage has led to the adoption of various schemes of mobilization, of which I proceed to give a short account.

(Mobilization.)
The success of the Prussian organization in 1870 for the first time drew the attention of this country to the question of the localization of our forces in peace
212

213
time, and to the means of mobilizing them with rapidity when war was anticipated; and accordingly, in 1874, a plan for the localization of the forces was worked out and adopted, followed shortly afterwards by one for the mobilization of the Army. The former practically applied only to our Infantry. Under it our whole Infantry, whether Regulars, Militia, or Volunteers, was formed into brigades, each attached to a certain portion of the country, and each having a general head-quarters at the depôt of the Line regiments belonging to the brigade. The tie between these Linr regiments and their district was at first slight, and consisted only in the fact that their depot was situated therein; but the Auxiliary troops were really and genuinely local, and belonged entirely to the district with which the localization scheme associated them.
The next step taken was to arrange for the proper mobilization of our forces when war was apprehended; that is, for their assembling, receiving their reserves, their stores, and their fighting equipment, and for their classification into Army Corps, each ready to move to the point where its services might be required, as an organized fighting body complete within itself in all arms of the Service. It was with this object that the mobilization tables of l875 were drawn out, under which the whole of our land forces were divided into definite brigades, divisions, and Army Corps, each with its local head-quarters and its staff organization; and also, speaking broadly, these tables indicated the place at which each unit was to receive its reserves, its arms, and its stores.
This scheme of mobilization was very carefully devised, but it had the serious defect of aiming too high. It assumed as its starting point that the whole of the Militia, as well as the Regular Army, was available for mobilization, and it passed over the fact that the strength of our Cavalry, Artillery, and other branches of the Service was much below what it should have been, to correspond to the strength of our Infantry. It was, I believe, hoped at the time the scheme was framed that the deficiencies in these former arms would be gradually made good, and on this basis the constitution of eight Army Corps was arranged for, in addition to the garrisons of our fortresses. The materials to complete these Corps were, however, not forthcoming, and hardly any attempt was over made to fill up the gaps existing. The result was that the mobilization scheme of 1875 never had more than a paper existence. A partial mobilization of two Corps took place in 1876, but the occasion never arose of testing any one of thorn at a war strength; and after remaining for some years as a sort of academic exercise in military organization, the scheme dropped out of the pages of the Army List and disappeared. When in 1878 it was considered desirable to make preparations for placing an Army Corps in the field, the selection of the troops to constitute it was not governed by the scheme of 1875, but was determined by independent considerations.
The next endeavour to make our standing arrangements in peace, preparatory for war, was made by Mr. Childers in 1881. He carried the localization of our forces considerably further than had been done by Mr. Card well. The whole of our Infantry, except the Guards, the Rifle Corps, and the Rifle Brigade, was definitely territorialized, and local designations, and sometimes namo3 of unnecessary length, were substituted for the old titles. The Militia and Volunteers were, of course, already local, and from 1881 it may be said that our Army has had a distinctive territorial constitution.
The preparations for mobilization made by Mr. Childers only extended to providing one Army Corps, which it was intended to be ready to take the field at any time, in any of the small wars in which we are so often engaged. It was to consist entirely of Regulars, and to furnish it, and at the same time meet considerations of expense, the establishments of our battalions were carefully graduated so that those first for foreign service stood at the highest strength. Twelve of those, together with six battalions from the Mediterranean and three battalions of Guards, were to form the Infantry of the Army Corps, which it was considered we should be able to put into the field at any moment.
This scheme, being mainly intended to meet the exigencies of the small wars in which this country is so often engaged, was inadequate to meet the real and
214

215
permanent requirements of our position; while, on the other hand, the abortive scheme of the eight Army Corps in 1875 had required larger numbers than our forces at our highest strain could furnish.
The result of all this was that, until 1886, we were no further advanced toward actual mobilization in the event of an European war than we were when the Prussian successes first compelled a consideration of the question. But it may be fairly said that although until recently the arrangements for combining our different military units into larger organizations for the purposes of defence had not materially advanced, the military value of those units is very different now from what it was in 1875. The Auxiliary Forces have been steadily approaching more and more to the standard of efficiency of Regular troops, and short service has given us a strong and available reserve on which we can place our hands at short notice.
It was under these conditions that, in 1886, a third attempt was made to grapple with the question of mobilization. The method followed on this occasion was, however, somewhat different from that which had previously been adopted. In the first attempt to deal with this problem, the proposed organization required larger forces than were really available for mobilization. In the second, the exigencies of our smaller wars had chielly been taken into account. In 1886 the calculations began with a careful examination of our actual military assets and the endeavour was made to see how these could be best put into an effective fighting organization with the least possible disturbance and the fewest additions. The problem attempted to be solved on this occasion was not what army we ought to be prepared to put into the field in the event of a big war; but, how we could get the maximum result out of our existing force with the minimum of change and of expense.
This examination brought very clearly to light one essential defect which has hitherto prevailed in our system. In every army the various arms and the various services, such as the Cavalry, the Artillery, the Infantry, the Engineers, the Commissariat, and the Medical Department, should bear to each other a certain proportion; and this proportion has been so thoroughly worked out by military experience, that within very narrow limits it may be said to have been practically determined.
But our composite Army has grown up piecemeal, and no real endeavour has ever yet been made to introduce into it any proportion between its various branches. It was at once evident, when stock was taken of our military strength, that in order to extract the full value from our material, a certain amount of conversion was necessary. There was too much of one arm and too little of another. But making allowance for this conversion and for some comparatively minor additions, the results arrived at were as follows:—
Subject to these changes and additions, our present forces might be so arranged that they would be sufficient to provide men for all our home and Colonial garrisons, and also to furnish two Army Corps of regular troops, each stronger by four battalions than those contemplated in 1875, together with a strong Cavalry Division, and the necessary troops to guard their line of communication. After doing this, there would still remain a balance of disciplined troops, which would form a nucleus round which a further army might be collected.
The details of the measures by which the above results would be arrived at are almost completely worked out at the War Office: and I hope before long to be able to show to every unit of our home forces the precise functions it will have to fulfil should this country be either threatened with invasion, or called upon to take part in a serious war. I feel assured that when our Auxiliary Forces realize what an integral part of our national defence they will form under the new scheme, they will cheerfully submit to any modifications in their present condition that it may require.
I am not going to assert that our land forces have in all respects reached the condition aimed at by these measures. But there are two great points
216

217
which may be urged in favour of the mobilization scheme of 1886. In the first place, the aim is one well within our reach, without any substantial increase of our forces, or of our expenditure. And, secondly, if this aim can be accomplished, it will give us an enormous advance in the defensive powers of the country. It must, however, be remembered that this scheme can only succeed if a certain amount of finality be attached to it. If it be accepted, as I hope it may be (and it is for this purpose that it is described in this statement), as the standard up to which our military arrangements have to work, all these must steadily be made to fit in with it. The establishment of our Infantry battalions, the raising of a Militia or Volunteer regiment, the strength of all branches of our Artillery, must all be considered and dealt with as part of a general scheme. And, above all, by establishing the standard at which we ought to aim, it will strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State for the time being in resisting, on the one hand, any attempt to enlarge any branch of our establishment beyond the strength so declared to be essential, and, on the other hand, in pressing upon Parliament, as circumstances permit, the additions to, or alterations in, our existing system which are still urgently required.
This scheme of mobilization having been generally accepted by my predecessor (the present First Lord of the Treasury), the steps which are necessary, or are being taken to make it a reality, may be best described by a short reference to each branch of the Service.
I take first those services in which the mobilization scheme mainly contemplates the utilization, and not the extension or conversion, of our existing forces.

(Cavalry.)
It is satisfactory to learn that this country already possesses sufficient regiments of Cavalry to satisfy all the requirements of the new scheme, though in this, as in other branches of the service, the necessary supply of horses is one of great urgency and importance. Both as regards efficiency and popularity, I am informed that the Cavalry never stood higher than at the present moment. On the 1st of January last the Cavalry of the Line was no less than 527 in excess of its establishment, and we have been compelled to suspend recruiting for this arm of the Service in more than one district.

(Infantry.)
Neither is any considerable change contemplated in our present force of Infantry. After providing for the reinforcement of Home and Colonial garrisons, there still remain more than sufficient battalions of Infantry for the proposed establishment of two Army Corps and the necessary line of communications. The present Estimates provide for a small reduction in the numbers of every Infantry regiment from 750 to 730. This reduction is in consequence of the fact that the abnormal demand for the increase of the British Army in India having been nearly satisfied, the necessity for so large an establishment no longer exists.
For this branch of the Service also the reports of recruiting are satisfactory. The Inspector-General states that the great advance made in 1885 has been fairly maintained during last year. The total number of recruits tested and finally approved is 39,409, which, though less than in 1885, was considerably more than in any other year since the introduction of short service. the report also shows that an increasing number of the men recruited for Infantry regiments were born in the regimental district.
The effect of the now mobilization scheme, as regards the Cavalry and the Infantry, may be described as a readjustment of existing forces, but in respect to the Artillery and Engineers, organic changes, and a great deal of new material, are entailed by the requirements of the new system.

(Royal Artillery.)
In the event of war, the demands upon the Royal Artillery, according to the new scheme of mobilization, would be as follows:—
(a.) For Horse and Field Artillery to furnish artillery for two Army Corps, a Cavalry Division, and their line of communication:—

8

batteries of Horse Artillery of six guns each.

24

batteries of Field Artillery of six guns each.

14

Ammunition Columns formed from Field batteries.

The total number of batteries required being 46, and the total number of guns 192.
It may be observed that the proportion of guns to Infantry is larger than that which prevailed in the German Army during the war of 1870. In peace time five of the Horse Artillery batteries and 13 of the Field batteries will be maintained at 1st Army Corps strength, with six guns each; 11 batteries of Field Artillery will be kept at 2nd Army Corps strength, with six guns each, while the three Horse batteries of the 2nd Army Corps, and the remaining 14 Field batteries will be kept up with only four guns each. In war, of course, these Horse batteries will take the field with six guns each.
Comparing this establishment with that of our existing organization, it represents a reduction of two batteries, and the conversion of four batteries of Horse into Field Artillery. No doubt these two additional batteries would have been valuable for home defence, but they are not required for the two Army-Corps which alone we could hope to mobilize, nor for service with the existing Army in India; and for purposes of home defence their reduction is more than counterbalanced by the largo increase in the number of guns which will be issued to the Volunteers, and for which provision is made in the Estimates.
The conversion of the batteries of Horse into Field Artillery has been the subject of much comment. It involves, I need scarcely say, no diminution of that feeling of admiration for the condition of this splendid force—a condition which has always done so much credit both to Officers and to men; but, as was pointed out by Lord Napier of Magdala in a recent debate, the existing proportion in our Army of Horse to Field Artillery is larger than that in the German, and slightly larger than that in the French Army. The real value of Horse Artillery batteries is to be found wherever extreme rapidity is required, and in all other cases they possess disadvantages in the largo cost which they involve, and in the increased number of horses which are necessary, and which require far more food, forage, and transport in time of war; and when it is remembered that the weight of a horse's daily ration is about the same as that of six men, both having to be carried, the importance of saving every unnecessary horse becomes apparent—all the more when the special difficulty of horse supply in our own country is borne in mind. It is, moreover, represented that the tendency of modern Artillery tactics is against the frequent moving of Artillery when once in action; and therefore, except in the case of the batteries which are attached to, and move with, Cavalry, extreme rapidity of movement is not required.
The simple fact is that we have at present more Horse Artillery than is required for two Army Corps and a Cavalry Division, while we have not enough field Artillery. If Parliament is prepared to sanction a large increase to this latter force, then it may be ready also to leave intact the former. But I do not think I should be justified in asking the country to bear the additional expense this would cause while the excess of Horse Artillery above the requirements of two Corps and a Cavalry Division remains as now. And short of this—if the mobilization scheme is to have any real existence—there is no alternative but the conversion already decided on.
(b.) In the event of war, the Royal Artillery will also be required to provide garrisons for the fortresses at home and abroad for our coaling stations, and for some of our seaports, besides filling up the batteries in India to full strength.
220

221
The careful examination which has taken place has revealed a serious deficiency of men for these purposes, even including the First Class Army Reserve, which can at present furnish only one thousand men. This is a matter of extreme urgency, as to which no avoidable delay can possibly be defended. For home garrisons the Militia and Volunteer Artillery have been utilized to the fullest extent possible; but the latter are not available for foreign service, and the former only partially so, while the necessity for the increase in the Garrison Artillery is mainly caused by the garrisons necessary for the coaling stations and military ports abroad.
It has, therefore, been proposed to raise the establishment of the Garrison Artillery at home to 40 batteries, exclusive of depôts, and to keep those 40 batteries up to a full strength of 128 non-commissioned Officers and men. This represents an increase of about 1,800 men over those now serving, with an addition of only 16 officers. If carried out it would fill up the great deficit and facilitate the increase of the Reserve. This recommendation is now being acted upon, so far as is possible, bearing in mind the present condition of recruiting for Garrison Artillery, and the probable increase which can be obtained during the coming year. Estimating the total deficiency at 1,800 men, it is not expected that we can get more than half that number this year, and accordingly provision is made in the Estimates for that increase.
Before quitting the subject of Artillery, I may mention that while all the Volunteer Artillery living within a certain distance of our seaports has been utilized for the defence of our fortresses, there are 21 inland corps, some 12,000 strong, situated so far from the forts to be defended that they have not been included in the garrisons. These it is proposed to equip with more guns, and in time of emergency they will form a most valuable supplement to our regular Field Artillery.

(Royal Engineers.)
The effect of the mobilization scheme upon the Royal Engineers is very difficult to explain, especially as some of the questions which regulate it have not yet been decided. It may, however, be shortly stated that there is a large deficiency of Engineers for field, as well as for fortress purposes. In the former case we should require for two Army-Corps and their line of communication, an addition to our pontoon troops, our telegraph battalions, our field companies—in fact, to almost every branch of the corps.
The Estimates of 1887–8 make provision, for the first time, for such an increase of the Engineers as will meet the requirements of two Army-Corps, with the exception that in the case of the Second Pontoon troop the necessary cadre only has been provided.
The exact extent of the deficiency in respect of Fortress Engineers depends upon certain questions, of which I will here mention only the most important. In the defence of our home forts, the one essential condition is that there should be absolute unity of command, so that in the presence of danger there may be no risk of divided responsibility or of difference of opinion. In this view both the Admiralty and the War Office, I need scarcely say, heartily concur, and a Committee is now sitting to consider the best means of promoting this unity, without unduly interfering with the land defence on the one hand, or on the other with that portion of the sea defence which sailors are best qualified to conduct against a hostile fleet. Upon this point I have no doubt that a satisfactory solution will be arrived at, but until it is, there will remain the question as to which is the force to be charged with the supervision of our submarine mining defences, upon the solution of which depends the amount of increase that will become necessary in the Corps of Royal Engineers. It is not, therefore, possible at present to lay down the arrangements for this corps in the same detail that has been done with others.
While upon this point, I may mention that a great deal has recently been accomplished in submarine mining, especially at our military and mercantile ports, for which money has been taken in the Estimates of recent years. This
222

223
Service is now being rapidly pushed forward, and forms one of the most important of our means of defence.
The ultimate result produced by the change of establishment now contemplated is shown in the following table:—

STATEMENT showing variation in numbers for 1887–8.

Officers.

Warrant Officers.

Sergeants.

Drummers, &c.

Rank and File.

All Ranks.

Horses and Mules.

INCREASES:—

Royal Artillery

37

84

8

876

1,005

Royal Engineers

2

1

33

6

305

357

82

Infantry Transport

240*

Colonial Corps (Local Artillery)

6

12

5

194

217

Commissariat & Transport Corps

51

17

140

208

68

Miscellaneous

12

6

18

Total Increases

45

1

192

36

1,521

1,795

390

DECREASES:—

Cavalry of the Line

7

1

13

1

22

50

Royal Horse Artillery

29

45

10

504

588

328

Royal Artillery

6

Infantry

137

206

11

3,350

3,704

2

Total Decreases

173

1

264

22

3,854

4,314

386

Net Increase

14

Decrease 2,519

Increase 4

Net Decrease

128

72

2,333

* Infantry transport.

Turning to the Auxiliary Forces, no change is proposed either in the Militia or in the Yeomanry.

(Militia.)
The Militia has been gaining in numbers since 1883, showing on 1st January, 1887, an increase of 2,202 in enrolled strength compared with the previous year. To complete the establishment 11,000 men are still wanted, but this force gave nearly that number of recruits to the Army during last year. There is still a large deficiency of Officers, though it is satisfactory to note that, in spite of the large number passing into the Army, there has been a gain of 119 Officers during the year. The Militia, indeed, not only fulfils the important function of being, under the Territorial system, the conduit pipe to the Army, but the mobilization scheme assigns to every one of our Militia regiments a necessary place in the homo and colonial garrisons.
(Yeomanry.)
The Yeomanry holds its ground fairly well, although no class has suffered to a greater extent from the agricultural depression than that from which this force is recruited. Their efforts deserve encouragement and support, and I may mention that with the assistance of the Under Secretary of State for War, whoso interest in the force is well known, I am at present considering whether it would be possible to afford to Yeomen greater facilities at the close of their permanent duty for finding a ready sale for such of their horses as are suitable for Cavalry remounts. If such a system can be devised, it would in itself afford some encouragement to the force.

(Volunteers.)
I come now to the Volunteers, amongst whom it has long been a grievance that too little attention has been paid to them, and that too low a value has been placed upon them by military authorities. That complaint, if ever well founded, no longer exists.
The Volunteer Force has now been included in the mobilization scheme for the general defence of the country. In the event of any necessity arising, every corps within a fixed distance of the harbours and forts to be defended, will be called upon to join the other land services in garrisoning those places; whilst the remaining Volunteers outside those limits will be mobilized at such points as the circumstances of the case require. No greater compliment could have been paid to the Volunteer system, than that it should have come to be recognized as an integral and essential part of the organized defence of the country. But, if the Volunteers are really anxious, as I for one feel pure that they are, that the services they are prepared to render should be turned to account at such a crisis to the greatest advantage, they must be prepared to co-operate with the military authorities in supplying the deficiencies which at present exist, rather than in supplementing those branches of the Service of which the numbers are already adequate, if not excessive.
It was for this reason that my predecessor decided to entertain, this year, no applications for any increase of Volunteer Infantry. The enrolled strength of this force last November was over 226,000 of all arms, leaving only a margin of about 27,000 before the authorized establishment is reached.
It was, in his opinion (one in which I entirety concur), wise to arrest the increase of Volunteer Infantry until it was determined whether an increase in other arms could not be brought about, which would render the defence of the country more perfect. In some parts of the country there exists a strong desire to raise Submarine Mining or Medical Staff Corps, which deserves every encouragement, and a most interesting experiment is about to be tried at Crewe in the formation of a Railway Corps thoroughly fit to render service in the defence of the country, and to furnish a force of Engineers fit to lay a military railway in any part of the world. A certain proportion of this Corps will be passed into the 1st Class Army Reserve, and will be placed on precisely the same footing as the Post Office Corps, who have done such good service in the field.
On the other hand, in some parts of the county, the mobilization scheme has revealed a deficiency of Artillery, of Engineers, or of Submarine Miners.
Our first duty, then, appears to be to see whether the same loyal spirit, which has produced the Volunteer movement and given it that continuity which has so surprised its enemies, will not enable us little by little to supply the gap now existing in our system of defence, without largely adding to the total establishment of the force. In the same spirit, that of recognizing the Volunteer Force as an integral and essential element in the defence of the country, we ought to approach the report of the Committee on the Capitation Grant.
That report, I am sorry to say, discloses, on the face of the returns which have been made public, a most unsatisfactory financial condition. It is only fair to say that the alleged insufficiency of the grant of public money, which was the main reason for the appointment of the Committee, is confirmed by the report. But it shows, in addition, a very large expenditure upon unnecessary objects, which has, in many cases, imposed a burden of debt, threatening the existence of some of our most effective battalions, and which makes the difficulty of obtaining Officers a great and a growing one. It appears, further, that many Commanding Officers, who have long foreseen the danger which is threatening them, find themselves powerless to restrain this expenditure, or to find any successor to themselves willing to assume the burden of a growing debt.
If, therefore, Parliament is to be asked to increase the Capitation Grant, it seems to me that the opportunity should be seized to establish a proper examination of the expenditure of all Volunteer Corps. For this purpose a form will annually be issued from the War Office which will be returned by each corps at the close of the Volunteer year, showing its expenditure under different heads. This will afford an opportunity of examining not only the items of "necessary" expenses as defined by the Committee, which may fairly be charged to the Parliamentary Grant, but will also, as I hope, enable the War Office to strengthen the hands of Commanding Officers in checking unnecessary expenditure, and in gradually reducing the existing debts. Some forms of expenditure must, however, be in future absolutely prohibited, as, for instance, any extra payment for camp allowance, or extra pay for the Permanent Staff.
With these preliminary stipulations, I am prepared to propose to Parliament to increase the Capitation Grant to Volunteers, but in a form somewhat different from that recommended by the Committee. Their recommendation would establish two rates of grant, one of 30s. for each efficient, and another of 35s. for those who shoot out of the third class. This system would in practice be somewhat cumbersome, Reference to the Musketry Returns of the two previous years would be rendered necessary in every case of a Volunteer failing to pass into the second class, in order that the proviso suggested by the Committee, "that those who fail to pass out of the third class during the course of any three years should cease to draw any grant whatever," may be observed.
I prefer to adhere to the present system of one rate of Capitation Grant, and to make its amount 35s. But in return for this we are, I think, justified in endeavouring to obtain from the Volunteers even a higher rate of efficiency with the rifle than that demanded by the Committee. It will not be forgotten that up to the present time no accuracy with the rifle has been demanded of the Volunteers. As long as each man fired off 60 rounds of ball cartridge, he might shoot into the ground or into the air, and yet remain efficient as regards musketry. The great improvement in match shooting which has been so marked in recent years does not appear generally to extend to the bulk of the force, but it is confined to those who are really anxious to improve themselves as marksmen. The first condition of improvement in the Volunteer Force, then, appeal's to be a general efficiency with the rifle. I propose, therefore, that the first year (1887–8) shall be a year of grace and training, when the Capitation Grant of 35s. can be earned by all men who hit the target 12 times in their 60 rounds, but that in subsequent years it shall be paid only to those who pass out of the third class, with the exception of the recruits; and lost anyone should suppose that the test imposed is altogether excessive, I may add that even at the present time 90 per cent. of the efficients pass out of the third class. This will enable all corps to earn a large sum this year, and to prepare themselves, by weeding out those Volunteers who have no efficiency whatever with the rifle, for greater stringency in the future conditions of the grant.
I may add that special circumstances as to Artillery and Engineers justify me in recommending the increased grant in their case without any such conditions.
Closely connected with this subject is that of ranges, the closing of which in many parts of the country is placing great difficulties in the way of earning the Capitation Grant. Unfortunately, as the country becomes more densely populated, this difficulty is not likely to decrease, and some remedy, even if to some extent an artificial one, becomes urgent. Safety screens have been erected on several ranges by Mr. Morris and the Royal Engineers, with the effect of making them practically safe. The chance of a bullet missing the screens or the butt is reduced to a minimum.
Unfortunately, there are two objections to their use: one the expense (£60 per firing point), and the other that whilst the erection of a safety screen makes the range safe (say) at 200 yards, it obviously renders the range useless at longer distances, owing to the interposition of the screens. It has been suggested that the only way of overcoming this difficulty is to allow the Volunteer to shoot his course, in these exceptional cases, at the safe distance only, the figures on the target being reduced in proportion to the distance at which he is supposed to be shooting. This is, of course, an artificial expedient, to be justified only by the necessities of the case. But we are making experiments in the matter, and if may be desirable to adopt some such system rather than to throw upon the shoulders of the Volunteer Force or upon the public funds a charge for ranges of a very serious character.
Further facilities will, however, be also afforded to Volunteers by the adoption of the recommendations that allowances be paid to Volunteers having to travel long distances to their places of firing. Provision is made in the present Estimates for these allowances, as well as for grants for marching columns, and for knowledge of tactics and signalling amongst Officers.
I am not able to accept the proposal of the Committee for the general provision of greatcoats, which would obviously be liable to abuse; but I hope that Parliament will approve the items, which we have included in the Vote, for giving a grant of 2s. for each greatcoat of approved pattern produced at an inspection.
There remain a few special questions without a reference to which this Memorandum would be even more incomplete than it is.

(Field gun.)
Satisfactory progress is being made in supplying the Artillery with the new field gun. Further experience tends to confirm the very favourable estimate which has been formed of it. It possesses the advantages of rapidity of working, a low trajectory, and great velocity. By the close of the present financial year 19 batteries will have been furnished with it. The Estimates now presented make provision for 9 more batteries, thus completing the equipment of the two Army-Corps.
(Magazine rifle.)
After a series of exhaustive experiments with every description of magazine rifle, the Committee specially charged with this question have found themselves able to recommend two forms of rifles (the Lee-Burton and the Improved Leo) for final trial. If this should prove to be, in either case, satisfactory, as there is every reason to hope, the construction of the now magazine rifle will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

(Coaling stations.)
It will be observed that provision is made in the Estimates for carrying on the works of defence at our coaling stations, and for providing them with guns; beside the amount to be voted for the work of submarine mining. The sum taken is somewhat in excess of that which has for the last two years been included in the Estimates. It will enable the defences of Hong Kong, Sierra Leone, and, approximately, those of Singapore, to be completed. Some advance will be made in other cases also, but it cannot be denied that an acceleration of this work beyond the rate of progress laid down in 1884 would be eminently desirable, especially as it is well known to everyone who has looked into the subject that more than one station of primary importance still remains undefended. But, at any rate, no Government could possibly justify to itself any
230

231
less expenditure for this object, because it would involve the neglect of precautions as to the necessity of which there has hitherto existed a very general agreement.
EDWARD STANHOPE.
WAR OFFICE,
28th February, 1887.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  COAST DEFENCES AND COALING STATIONS—THE PROTECTED BARBETTE SYSTEM OF FORTIFICATION.

    RESOLUTION.
    COLONEL DUNCAN, in rising to call attention to the heavy expenditure caused by neglecting to employ the protected barbette or disappearing system in coast fortifications; and to move—
    "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the best way of utilizing the protected barbette or disappearing system in coast defences and coaling stations,"
    said, that in these Military Estimates there was nothing which was in any way a mystery, or into which the common sense of a Parliamentary Committee was not competent to inquire. Military affairs owed much to the Volunteer movement, which had made all classes in the country familiar with such questions. It was the duty of Parliament to legislate not merely for the laws and liberties, but also for the lives of the people, and he thought that if he could show that the adoption of the system he advocated would minimize the risk not only to our soldiers, but to the whole population in time of war, he would be justified in bringing forward this Motion. He thought that he might take it as a postulate that we were no longer able to feed our people without importing food from abroad. That implied the existence of a Naval Force to protect the food-bringing ships; because the interruption of even one day in our supplies would give rise to panic and distress. But a Fleet for the purpose which he had described would have but an ephemeral value if it had not a protected base. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), in his apologia, had said that we flung ourselves into the arms of engineers. We certainly had done so some score of years ago, and the engineers had created frowning fortresses, which had merely invited notice,
    234
    and the system of which had become obsolete before the mortar was dry. Time had passed, until the demands of the country and the resources of our manufactures showed that it was necessary and possible to make some change, although every obstacle had been for many years put in the way; and in spite of the opinion of a Committee in favour of some system of giving invisibility to our fortifications, and in spite of the opinions of the ablest engineers, every difficulty was put in the way of Colonel Moncrieff, as to the merits of whose invention there could be no doubt, and which consisted in this—and he thought it was the principal—that its adoption would greatly minimize the risk to which life was exposed by the present system. The official mind, however, was an interesting, but very irritating study; and the officials of the War Office had started with the assumption that all change must be deprecated, and detested the very presence of an inventor. But circumstances sometimes proved stronger even than permanent officials, and the recent development in machine and quick-firing guns had shown the absolute necessity of making a change. That necessity had now given weight in the official mind to arguments long neglected, and the angel of common sense had at last troubled the waters of the pool of officialdom. In fact, to make a man stand at a gun in open barbette, in an embrasure or elsewhere, exposed to the fire of these machine and quick-firing guns, was an utter impossibility, with any regard to the end to be attained; for it was simply to pronounce upon him a sentence of certain death. It might be asked why he wished for a Parliamentary Committee and not a professional one. His answer to that was, that although a professional Committee might be very useful for advice, and even as an Executive Body, a Parliamentary Committee had more power as an expression of the opinion of that House. He should like to see Committees of that House studying questions of design and principle, and not only that of paying the bill; he thought that, in such matters, the Representatives of the people ought to take some share of responsibility. The question which he had brought up was becoming more and more important. In various parts of the

    235
    world besides the Coasts of our own country, on which there were over 1,600, we had muzzle-loading guns which might be efficiently and economically worked by moans of this system, by which the guns were absolutely safe, being only exposed at the moment of firing. The system was not only applicable to small guns, as had been thought at one time to be the case; it was applicable to all. All that was wanted now was a little wind to fill the sails of the War Office officials, such as could only be given by that House. The adoption of the protected barbette or disappearing system would save the money which was spent upon the maintenance of the old fortifications, and there would also be a saving as regards garrisons. Great interest was undoubtedly taken by Members of that House in such matters, but this interest must not cease with criticism; they must also accept some responsibility for the consideration of these questions. As a soldier, he wished to see Parliament inquiring into such matters. For two years a movement had been going on quietly in the right direction; but a little incentive was required, and every-thing should be done to insure that the plan, unlike these of General Trochu, should not be only a plan upon paper. When things were done in a scare and a panic they were always done at great expense; and by the House and War Office officials working deliberately and hand-in-hand the country would be enabled to get more value for its money. Although the Continent was at the present moment quiet, it was a matter of serious concern to think what the position of England would be in the event of a European war, when they looked at the huge armaments of other nations. If a Committee such as he now asked for were appointed, the country, for the first time in its history, would be undertaking the consideration of our fortifications without panic. It was stated that £3,000,000 sterling would have been saved if this system had been adopted some years ago; and he thought that an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee into a system of defence admirably suited to the conditions of modern war-faro might obviate the spending of perhaps many millions more. Lee them, at all events, avoid the risk of spending more money uselessly, and this they
    236
    would do by the adoption of the system, which lie had referred to. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the test way of utilising the protected barbette or disappearing system in coast defences and coaling stations,"—(Colonel Duncan,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)said, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating to the House the reasons why the Government were not able to accede to the request just preferred by the hon. and gallant Member with so much ability. As regarded one point touched upon, he would only say that, while he had no exception to take to the praise which the hon. and gallant Member bestowed upon inventors, he could not but remember that, when last Thursday the claims of a valuable invention were voted upon by the House, the hon. and gallant Member found it necessary to vote with the opposite Party. With regard to the alleged necessity for Parliamentary inquiries in order to fill the sails of the War Office, he thought, on the contrary, that the War Office was already scudding under quite a sufficient press of canvas. In fact, it was, if further over weighted, in danger of foundering, and none of its officials had any disposition to whistle for a breeze. the Government were unable to accept the Motion for several reasons. In the first place, they could not accept it for the same considerations which prevented them accepting the suggestion to refer the Brennan torpedo to a Parliamentary Committee—namely, that there must be a limit to the devolution of Executive authority, and when the whole question had already been considered by competent and responsible officers, they must throw upon them the responsibility for the advice they gave to the Secretary of State for War. In the second place, it was already proposed that a Parliamentary Committee should be appointed to go thoroughly into the question of the

    237
    Army and the Navy Estimates, and it was possible that the matter which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would come within its purview. And, in the third place, there was a special reason why a Special Committee should not be appointed, in the fact that, generally speaking, the War Office had practically accepted the view which the hon. and gallant Member had put forward. They had accepted the principle, as a principle, of the protected barbette or disappearing system of emplacements as against casemates; and, as a matter of fact, out of 48 guns ordered for coaling stations, 32 were on disappearing mountings, and 16 on the barbette system. At present, as the House might be aware, there wore in the Service two classes of disappearing mountings—the Moncrieff counter-weight carriages, and hydro-pneumatic mountings, the former being the old type of mounting, the latter the now. Of the counter-weight type they had 79 in position, and five in store at Woolwich unappropriated. Of the 79, 34 were in the Western and Southern Districts of England, one in the South -Eastern District, 11 in Ireland, 19 at Bermuda, 12 at Malta, and two at Halifax. Of the hydro-pneumatic mountings, the War Office- had ordered six 6-inch muzzle-loading guns and 28 6-inch breech-loading guns. Eight of those were allotted, temporarily, at all events, to Home Stations, 12 to Aden, nine to Hong Kong, two to Jamaica, and one to St. Lucia. It had not yet been demonstrated that these hydro-pneumatic mountings were suitable for heavy guns; but two experimental mountings were under order from Elswick and Messrs. Easton and Anderson for 9·2-inch breech-loading guns—the gun from Elswick would be ready this month—the latter was complete—and if they wore successful, further orders would probably be given. Two orders for 10-inch mountings had also been given to the same firms. There was a proposal now under consideration, made by Colonel Moncrieff, to apply his counter-weight system in substitution for the fixed mountings of the 9-inch and 10-inch rifled muzzle-loading guns now in the Service, and the Inspector General of Fortifications and the Director General of Artillery were now considering the possibility of carrying out Colonel Mon-
    238
    crieff's idea. Such was the exact position of the Service as regards the disappearing mounting system; and he might be allowed to add that, as between barbette and hydro-pneumatic mountings, the former was 50 per cent cheaper. Thy cheaper way of mounting was, generally speaking, used when the guns were placed in an elevated position; when they could be more or less concealed from the sight of an enemy—the hydro-pneumatic mounting was employed when guns could not be so withdrawn. Already all questions regarding fortifications, including the mounting of guns, went through a seven-fold process of inquiry and report—surely a good reason for not adding an eighth in the shape of a House of Commons Committee. It was upon that ground, and on the further grounds that he was unwilling to relieve officers from all Executive responsibility, and that a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the Estimates was about to be proposed by the Secretary of State for War, that he ventured respectfully and regretfully to say that the Government were not able to accede to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE-COAST DEFENCES OF GREAT BRITAIN.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR EDWARD HAMLEY, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
    "That there is urgent necessity to set in operation a complete system for protecting this Country from an enemy's enterprizes, and to provide for it financially by means more adequate than are to be found in the Annual Estimates,"
    said, he was going to venture to call the attention of the House to the defences of the Kingdom, and in doing so he might be allowed to observe that the Memorandum just put forth by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) appeared to him the most satisfactory statement of the kind that had been issued in his time, for it recognized the necessity of a complete scheme of defence, and implied an intention to provide for it. In dealing

    239
    with the subject he would like to begin by conciliating possible objectors. Many hon. Members regarded all proposals for an increase of our armaments with distrust, as in their minds tending also to increase the probabilities of war. He wished to assure them that he would deal only with matters absolutely and purely defensive, which, far from increasing those probabilities, would tend to diminish them by lessening the chances of invasion, for the most formidable enemy would think twice be-fore invading a prepared Great Britain. He would also ask those hon. Members who attached to all military plans a bellicose and provocative character to believe that officers who occupied themselves with measures of defence must be actuated by the desire to preserve the people of England from those very evils which the most peace-loving of our citizens desired to avert. They had lately heard proposals from a very influential Member of the House to cut down expenditure by the simple method of making it conform to the standard of some former year. But he would remind hon. Members that material of war was becoming every year more and more costly, and also that when expenditure on necessary armament had been for a series of years less than it ought to be, there would inevitably come a time when it would look greater than it ought to be. Therefore, endeavours to rule present and future expenditure by the standard of the past were absolutely irrational and fallacious. The situation, then, as it impressed itself on his mind was this—a small Island on the one side, a whole Continent of possible enemies on the other; the Island having a Coast line which offered to the enemy many imperfectly defended ports and numerous favourable landing places, and opposite to it impregnable harbours, where Fleets could assemble, and whence invading Armies could issue; the Island with a large population indeed, affording plenty of willing defenders; but these, for the most part, so imperfectly equipped that they would be absolutely unable to take the field even for a few days—and even when they sent forth an Expeditionary Force it could only be made complete by pulling to pieces the Regular Forces left at home; while opposite they saw the Continent absolutely swarming with
    240
    Conscript Armies burning for action, kept at all points fit for immediate war, in equipment, in training, in organization, in transport, in means of concentration—the fact that each was always in presence of tremendous antagonists binding all under the heaviest penalties to maintain themselves in the completest readiness for action. And when they remembered that this Island contained immense wealth, and that that wealth would be looked on by the enemy as the legitimate reward of victory, it was no wonder that the situation inspired many experienced soldiers, many experienced sailors, and, he might add, experienced War Ministers, with absolute dismay. Economists argued that because England had never been invaded in our time it never would be. He was not aware that the Bank of England had ever been broken into in our time; but that was no reason why the Directors, while continuing to pour gold into their cellars, should dispense with bolts and bars and police. Now, if he referred for a moment to the Navy—which he did with great deference to the Naval Members of that House—it was because, it being often and justly styled our first line of defence, that phrase was taken to mean that it could be relied on for the defence of our Coasts. But experienced sailors and other naval authorities had lately assured us that its many Imperial duties would not leave it to be relied on for this task, and that such an alliance of Great Powers against us as we often hear talked of might well deprive us for a time of the command of the Channel. It was for such an opportunity, and for that alone, that Napoleon was waiting in 1805, when it was to be noted the naval power of England was at its height. His Army of Invasion was ready at Boulogne—transport flotilla prepared for instant embarkation—all that was wanted was the presence of the French and Spanish Fleets in the Channel for a few days, when a powerful Army, commanded by Napoleon himself, would have descended on our shores, and nothing but a series of fortunate events, leading to the victory of Trafalgar, prevented this plan from being realized. They must, then, take it for certain that if we were to be secure we must render our Coast independent of our Fleet; and he now turned to the question of insular defence, which might be considered as

    241
    of two kinds—first, the means of repel-ling an enemy's ship from the Coast; secondly, of opposing an invading army. So dependent were we on our communications with other lands, that it was difficult to say which of our many great Ports we could lose without sustaining vital injury. But the great Military Ports having Dockyards and Arsenals were of prime importance. It was on these that our ships of all sorts must rely for secure harbourage against an enemy superior at the moment. And as soon as our Fleets were at sea, it was on those Ports they must rely for indispensable supplies of all kinds. It was to them disabled ships must look for repairs; it was in them new ships must be built to replace the waste of war. They were, then, indispensable to our Navy. On the other hand, should an enemy seize one of these Ports, imagine what a footing it would give him for invasion, with a safe harbour in which to land his troops and material, on which to rely for supplies of all kinds, and in which to mature his plans before marching on London. A generation ago the Government of that time (Lord Palmerston's) was aroused to a sense of our weakness, and fortified the most important of these Ports against the ships and artillery of that time. But ships and guns had since made progress at a fabulous rate, so that now, while the works then constructed might be ruined by the armament of some foreign ironclads, we had not, so far as he was aware, a single gun mounted on the works that would pierce the armour of a first-class war ship. Since those times, however, a new kind of defence had been devised—that of torpedoes and submarine mines; and these were in course of being applied very completely for the defence of our Ports. Placed under water at certain points and in sufficient numbers, and exploded by electricity from the shore, the mines would inflict ruinous injury on the most formidable ships. But in dark nights or fogs they were, of course, less to be relied on; and it was a regular branch of naval tactics to send light craft to destroy them, or nullify their effect. Consequently, these defences required themselves to be defended, and the appropriate means was found in light, quick-firing guns, and machine guns to lire on the light craft. But if the iron-
    242
    clads could stand in with impunity, they would crush these light weapons with their huge shells. Therefore, in order to keep them off, it was necessary that the defence should possess guns capable of piercing the armour of first-class war ships. Here, then, they had all the requirements—the submarine defences, the light artillery to protect them from the boats, and the heavy artillery to keep off the iron-clads. What was needed, then, was artillery of the kinds mentioned, and suitable forts to hold and protect it. Now, he would not convey the idea that because we were still unprovided with guns and works the officials whose business is was to provide them were in fault. They had, one and all, for years been persistent in their representations. Indeed, considering the great interests involved, it was almost pathetic to read the remonstrances uttered by these War Office officials and War Ministers and their reception by the Treasury. Scarcely inferior in importance were our great Commercial Ports, on which we relied not only for the maintenance of our trade, but for the means of feeding our population. Setting London aside as of a paramount importance that we all recognized, what would be the effect in this country if the telegraph should announce that a hostile iron-clad was approaching Liverpool? Should its enterprize be successful, should it with impunity set on fire or hold to ransom that great city, the example would inspire incessant depredations on our Coasts; while, on the other hand, the sinking of an iron-clad or two in such attempts would be a warning that the enemy could not afford to neglect. Now, such of these Ports as were situated on rivers or estuaries were more easy to defend than those which lay open to the sea, and which might, therefore, be bombarded at long range. It was very satisfactory to know that our chief river harbours were being now put in a condition of submarine do-fence; but it was still necessary to supplement that kind of protection with artillery, generally by guns placed in earthworks. Some Ports, like Liverpool, had expanded so greatly towards the sea that they were now within range of ships. Therefore, the chief requisite—though in less degree than for the Military Ports—still was light artillery, to protect the submarine mines, and

    243
    armour-piercing guns to keep off iron-clads. These guns might, according to circumstances, be placed in existing works, adequately strengthened, or in earthworks on commanding points, or in floating batteries. In fact, he was certain that the statement of our exigencies by those whose business it had been to consider these matters would confirm his view—namely, that our requirements were mainly limited to guns of the classes he had named, and to sufficient works in which to place them. Now, the estimate of cost of guns, of completing the submarine defences, and of the works for the whole system of Military and Commercial Ports throughout the Kingdom, was, in round numbers, under £.5,250,000. With respect to the question of cost, it seemed to him well worth consideration whether the great Ports whose property and trade and the safety of whose inhabitants these measures were designed to secure might not, on due appeal, see lit to contribute to the expenses. It was true that the question was a national one; but they had the paramount interest in it, and by taking a special part in their own defences the necessary works could proceed simultaneously, and be all the more acceptable, because giving large employment to labour in their respective localities. Another consolation was afforded by the fact that the problem of defence was no hasty scheme inspired by panic, but had been long and carefully considered by experienced officers, and that nothing but money was wanting in order to begin at once to put it in execution. And there was yet another circumstance which might bring us comfort. We were often told that when implements of war were undergoing constant changes, so that the weapon or the ship of one year was obsolete in the next, it was not worth while to provide ourselves with them till finality should be reached. The argument, though fallacious, as tending to render our armaments inferior to those of Powers which kept abreast of the times, was easily turned to powerful account. But what he would point out was that finality was, in an important particular, now in sight. For it was evident that if ships were to keep the sea and to possess high speed—both indispensable requisites in war ships—there must be a limit to the weight of armour they should carry; and if the
    244
    limit was over-passed, they became means of destruction, not to the enemy, but to their own crews. That limit must now be nearly, if not quite, reached, so that the armour-piercing guns of to-day would remain permanently effective, and we need not hesitate to provide ourselves with them. And, finally, he should point out that in a competition in defensive strength between ships and shore batteries the batteries could always be made stronger than the ships, and could also be provided with appliances for screening the guns, which a ship did not admit of; and we might thus feel confident that we could render our Military and Commercial Ports absolutely secure if we chose to set about it. He now came to the question of our internal defences against invasion—that was, the Army with which we could meet an invading Army; and he concluded that everyone would agree that, if we had an Army at all, it should be sufficient for that purpose. We might remember that no less influential a person than the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) suggested that we should dispense with costly defences, and rely on a substitute of unparalleled cheapness—our "undying historic memories." It was unfortunate that the only historic memory applicable to the case should be our subjugation by William the Conqueror. But however that might be, he could imagine the perplexity of a hostile Army landed and looking to be met with a storm of shot and shell and a forest of bayonets on finding itself confronted only by "undying historic memories." He was inclined to think that, on recovering from its pleased surprise, it would resume its march upon London, while we, on our part, would have to console ourselves with the advantages which the noble Lord said our refusal to spend money on armaments would have secured to us—namely, cheap beer, and tea, and tobacco, and an Income Tax still not exceeding 8d. But he feared the beer, and tea, and tobacco would be for the refreshment of the enemy, who would also undertake the control of the Income Tax along with all the rest of our National Revenues. Happily, we had something more substantial to rely on. In conjunction with the Regular Forces in the country, the Militia and Volunteers formed an immense Army, fit in num-

    245
    bers and in quality of men to oppose any Armies which could land on our shores. But those Armies would consist of trained and disciplined troops, while our Auxiliary Forces could give only a fraction of their time to military exercises. Moreover, they could not take the field for want of equipment. The first stop was, then, to equip them. Supposing them to be as complete in field equipment as the Regular Army, there were circumstances which would be much in favour of our national troops defending their own soil against even a professional Army which crossed the sea to attack us. In the first place, we might be prepared beforehand to such a degree that it might almost be said every soldier would know his own place in the system of defence. For in Great Britain we had a very compact and not extensive theatre of war, in which the points at which an enemy could land and the groups of roads by which he would march inland were all ascertained, as were also the positions in which in each case the Field Army could be concentrated to oppose him. And troops could act efficiently on the defensive with much less training than if they had to manœuvre and attack. After being trained in their own exercising grounds in the construction of hasty intrenchments, such as all troops were expected to assist in making, and in the occupation of them for battle, they could, in the place of the present annual exercises, rehearse what would be their part in case of war—whether the defence of their own particular section of coast line, their share in a pitched battle, or the duty of garrisoning fortresses. For instance, it being known beforehand where a battery would be placed near the Coast for the defence of the Mersey, the Lancashire Volunteers might be trained in occupying ground for the defence of that battery against troops or seamen landed to attack it. Again, the line being known beforehand of a position, say in Sussex, to oppose an invading Army coming from Brighton, the troops to form the Field Army being all assigned to their corps in it, might be encamped in their places for their Autumn exercises in the parts of the line they would occupy. And, lastly, all the troops destined to garrison the fortresses in their own localities—those of Devon
    246
    and Cornwall, for example, for the defence of Plymouth—should, as a regular annual exercise, form the actual garrison of that place for a time sufficient to make them thoroughly acquainted with their duties. That was specially necessary for Volunteer and Militia Artillery, who would thus become familiar with the many appliances, the magazines, and stores of all kinds, and the actual guns—and that was most important—which would be in their charge in resisting an attack. And whatever bodies of Artillery were disposable for Coast defence or for the Field Army should receive at once the guns—and practise with them—which they would use in the field. A step had already been made in that direction, with the best effect, in giving the Volunteer Engineers who were located on the banks of our great rivers an important share in taking charge of and working the submarine defences of the neighbouring ports. Besides thus assigning the troops to their own ground we should possess another kind of advantage, for while an enemy must bring everything with him—horses, forage, provisions, transport—we should possess ample supplies of these all over the country, and by keeping a constant register of them—horses, wagons, wagoners, and forage—in each district, they would be always available on the shortest notice. We had already gone so far as to make considerable progress in a military study of the country by instructed officers. That should include the registration he spoke of; and also the precise use of every road and portion of railway for any intended concentration should be laid down beforehand and exact calculations of all movements prepared. Such matters would, in his opinion, be best intrusted to a specially selected staff under experienced direction, and their work might be periodically submitted for approval to a military council, also specially selected. Besides men, and material, and equipment, there would still be another matter indispensable to the efficiency of our Field Army, and that was the building of stores and magazines at points where they would be ready for the supply of the troops with equipment and stores and ammunition and guns when taking the field. In this way the whole scheme of operations for our Home Army might be laid

    247
    out in all its particulars; and what would else, on the approach of an enemy, be a scene of hopeless tumult and confusion, would become one of orderly and prompt action. And as nothing so demoralized troops as apparent want of purpose of those who directed thorn, so nothing gave them such assurance of victory as to sec that all their movements were tending to the execution of a well-considered plan. And, in the meantime, the immediate effect on the Auxiliary troops themselves could not be but most encouraging—everyone would know and feel that he had certain duties, and that he was fitting himself to perform them, and a Volunteer, instead of that somewhat vague entity which he now felt himself to be, would know that he had a distinct part in that design of defending the country for which alone the Volunteers were called into existence. Lastly, in all schemes of defence, it was necessary to secure the safety of London by forces independent of armies in the field, so that no corps suddenly cast upon the Coast for the purpose, or which should have succeeded in evading for the moment our Field Armies, should be able to clutch us by the throat, a move which might be itself decisive and bring us to our knees. The plan he advocated to prevent this was the most inexpensive, and, he would add, the most easily practicable that had yet, as far as he knew, been propounded. It was to raise the Volunteers of London from 25,000 to 60,000, and to train them specially for its defence—by laying down the positions which they must occupy on any side threatened in order to keep an enemy at arm's length—and to give the London Artillery Volunteers, already sufficient for their purpose, the requisite number of guns of position. Thus a line north from the Thames at Barking would bar the approaches from the Essex Coast; one by Erith, through Chislehurst to Bromley, would close the approaches from the Coast between the mouth of the Thames and Hastings; other positions would complete the circuit around London, and the capital would be secure against a sudden rush from any side. And these guards of London would always be kept instructed and prepared for this service of its defence. He calculated that all these steps necessary to put our National Forces in this condi-
    248
    tion of defence—the equipment, the leases, and construction of all magazines and stores, the execution of the military plan of defence, and the raising of certain additional Volunteers, especially Artillery—for they were not always most abundant in the localities where most needed—would cost less than £1,000,000. He had now, in as few words as he could employ, endeavoured to place be-fore the House the requirements for Home defence. He had spoken only of Great Britain, because he wished to confine the first view of our defences to what most nearly concerned us, what was most vital, and what could be most easily taken in at one view. It needed no words of his or of anybody to enable hon. Members to imagine what weight and consideration we should derive in the Councils of Europe from a recognition of the fact that this Island was practically impregnable. Many plans of invasion now reposing in many foreign war bureaux might then be torn up. Commercial enterprise of all kinds would, he imagined, receive a fresh impetus from the feeling of security against recurring panics. And all this might be realized for the sum he had stated—that was to say, in round numbers, £6,250,000. It might, perhaps, be asked why so small a sum could not be spread over a term of years, and provided for in the Annual Estimates? He answered, first, because that plan had been so often found a total failure. As an instance, he might quote that the defence of our Commercial Ports was provided for in this way—the cost was to be spread over five years; last year was to be the first of those years, when £100,000 was to be taken for the purpose in the Estimates as the instalment of that year. What was the result? The sum was cut down in the Estimates to £10,000. If this work was to be done by means of the Annual Estimates, then if it were over done, of which he was seriously doubtful, it would be certain to be spread over a period vastly in excess of that originally estimated for. He would ask, then, that it should be raised by a loan, and set apart for the purpose intended, and for no other, and thus made secure from the exigencies and temptations of the Budget. Another advantage would be that the work might proceed at once all over the

    249
    Kingdom, and be finished in a comparatively brief time—two years might see it accomplished; a period surely long enough for us to remain with our defences incomplete. Also, in considering the comparative smallness of the sum, he would point out that it was only a part, though a vitally important part, of the Imperial scheme of defence. The defence of Ireland must be provided for when the proper time arrived, and of the Colonies also; the coaling stations were already in progress, but that progress might be greatly accelerated by including them in the loan; and notwithstanding the progress of the Navy, the Admiralty would not object, he presumed, to be endowed with the financial power to raise the Navy to its proper pitch. And it must be remembered that, of all modes of expenditure, the various defences of the Kingdom were the most satisfactory, as at once giving a vast impetus to employment at our great centres of population. This plan of a loan had already been tried on former occasions with success, and on occasions, he might say, not comparable in urgency to the present crisis. There was, then, no novelty in what he proposed, nothing which had not already been agreed to and found to answer. We should thus have a guarantee against the tendency of all Governments in this country—a natural tendency, but one nevertheless very dangerous—to be so solicitous to discharge their duty as guardians of the public purse that they were apt to neglect their other duty as guardians of the public safety. From this cause, and also because of the vast means of offence which other nations had accumulated, we had fallen far below the requirements of our position. We were fond of boasting that we had an Empire on which the sun never set; but we forgot that Empire was a luxury expensive in proportion to its extent, and that the boast would be indeed a vain one if, when the time came, we should be found unprepared to defend our Possessions.
    CAPTAIN COLOMBsaid, the scope of the question of defence could not be limited purely to the United Kingdom. The danger of invasion from a given Power was largely influenced by its carrying power—in other words, its Mercantile Marine. He entirely agreed with the hon. and
    250
    gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) that if this country went to war with a Maritime Power there would be a scene of disastrous confusion, due more to moral causes than to a hostile landing being effected. It was hard for him, at least, to realize that any Power could throw 100,000 men on our shores unless we had, more or less, lost command of the sea. Moreover, it would puzzle any European Power to concentrate carrying power for such a force. The great danger to this country would lie in a series of small blows delivered at its seaports, and for that method of attack we were unprepared. We had for years talked much of the defence of our seaports, but had done very little. The value of the export and import trade of London and Liverpool was in excess of the value of the total sea-borne commerce of Franco, which meant that if we wore unprepared a blow could be delivered by a small force at or off these places which would be equivalent to the universal destruction of the whole sea-borne commerce of France. Then, again, the trade of the Port of London alone was more than double the value of the whole sea-borne commerce of Russia. The effect of leaving our Mercantile Ports undefended would be to enable a French or Russian cruiser to do irreparable damage to our commerce. He protested against any delay in taking the common-sense precautions which were absolutely necessary. Assuming, however, that there maritime or coast provisions were made, no complete step would have been taken for the safety of the people of the country. It would be in vain that our Ports were protected, or our coast line secured. We could not maintain a passive defence of this Kingdom for more than a few weeks, because the people could not live. If our arrangements for the protection of our sea communications were weak, the effect would be apparent in time of war almost immediately. The sense of insecurity would at once affect the Stock Exchange; there would be the stopping, first, of the food supply, and, secondly, of the importation of raw materials. The price of both would go up, the factories would have to close, and. hundreds of thousands of workpeople would be turned on the streets, where they would be met with extremely dear bread. In fact,

    251
    such a state of confusion and disorder would arise—with which it would be almost impossible for the authorities to cope—that the results would be irreparable; and under the pressure of such circumstances no Government could carry on even a passive defence. Further, he wished to point out that the interests we had to defend were drifting further and further away. The task of establishing satisfactory defences was vastly more complicated than it was when we last fought for our supremacy at Trafalgar, when we had a population in the United Kingdom of only 15,000,000 persons to be provided for, and when the food supply of the country was provided within our own shores—wholly independent of external resources—but now all that was changed. In those days one ton of shipping was sufficient to meet the wants of six inhabitants, whereas now each man, woman, and child required the services of a ton and a-half of shipping during the year. Then, 23–24ths of our external trade was confined to European waters; now, more than a moiety of it was thousands of miles beyond European waters. It would not matter, therefore, whether the blow was struck in the Channel or thousands of miles away, the consequences might be equally grave. He earnestly trusted the House would forget for a moment current controversies and Party differences, to consider whether, in the event of war, in two months, under conditions which it was perfectly possible and reasonable to contemplate, our naval and military preparations wore adapted to our requirements. If not, a great responsibility rested upon them not to shirk the question, and not to shirk spending such sums as were reasonably necessary. It was not merely or primarily a question of expenditure, but one of administration; and he desired to say that he would be no party to dipping further into the pockets of the taxpayers unless the present system of administration was entirely changed. Between the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Colonial Office, a great deal of money was lost. With constantly changing Heads of Departments, and a general tendency to get rid of export authority, there was no guarantee for economy and efficiency. While cordially supporting the Motion, his contention was, let naval work be
    252
    done by naval men, and military work be done by military men, and lot us appoint, for a fixed period of years, a capable War Minister, who should be responsible to this House and the country, and control the war expenditure and all war forces.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he thought it desirable that some sort of protest should be raised from that side of the House against the assumption which had pervaded several previous speeches—that our chief business was to spend money on naval and military armaments. He was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member who had just resumed his seat (Captain Colomb) say he was not inclined to dip more deeply into the public purse, because he desired, in the first instance, to see some improvements in administration. He agreed with him so far, but he could not agree with the general tone of alarm which characterized the greater part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. But not only ho, but other hon. and gallant Gentlemen who spoke before him, complained that, do what they would, and do what their Predecessors would, they had never been able to stir up the Administration of the country to a proper state of alarm as to the perils which are always impending over our seaports and our sea coast. He was aware, as one who had taken an interest in public affairs before he became a Member of that House, of the repeated efforts which had been made to stir up alarm on this subject. Every few years there was a panic excited, and a few millions had been spent; then the panic subsided, and the people became indifferent until the hot fit came on again. Why could not the Government be stirred up to take so serious a view of this matter as the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought necessary? He thought it was because the Government practically believed that our seaports are safe. And why? Because they thought that it was not for the interest of anyone in the world to attack them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of this country as an Island teeming with wealth; and he seemed to think that all other countries were teeming with burglars, and that their one idea was to come and rob our ports. He was aware it was often said that expenditure on military and naval armaments was a

    253
    question of policy; and he was of opinion that, if we pursued a right line of policy, our seaports would never be in danger. Why did the United States feel so tranquil? It was because their position and their policy kept them free from the entanglements of the Old World. It might be said that we should have a difficulty in pursuing an isolated policy like that of the United States. He admitted that we could not take up quite the same position as the United States; but he said that our position as an Island, separated from the Coast of Europe, enabled us to keep clear of most of the difficulties, the petty jealousies, the international rivalries, and the dynastic intrigues which constituted the questions which were perpetually threatening war on the Continent of Europe. For if we could mind our own business, and attend to the substantial interests of the country, we should never be in danger of invasion. In that way we could secure the blessings of peace. They had all heard of the difficulty of getting more, money out of the already over-burdened taxpayers of this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) had told them of the touching appeals made by military administrators, and even by the War Minister himself, to the Treasury to give them a little more money for naval and military armaments. But there were appeals far more pathetic than these appeals, such as that made by the Victoria University for £2,000 a-year to improve the education of the Northern Districts, appeals for free schools and for technical education to keep us abreast of other countries in the world. Those were more pathetic and interesting appeals than appeals for increased armaments; but these appeals on behalf of the higher wants of the county would never be met so long as we lavished our treasure on the means of destruction. He was as anxious as anyone that our land should be kept safe from attack; but the taxpayers could not bear the two burdens—that of the old barbarism and of the new ages of improvement. They could not afford at the same time to lavish our treasure on guns that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) said, take £200 to fire a single shot, and at the same time supply our people with free schools, technical
    254
    instruction, and all the higher needs of this age of progress. We could not bear the two. He, therefore, thought it was the duty of our Government so to frame our policy that we should not irritate other nations of the world, and not invite attack, confining ourselves to minding our own business. If we took that line, he contended there would be less expenditure necessary for our Fleet to protect our commerce and Dependencies, while for our military strength we could depend to a large extent on our Volunteers. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to laugh at the Volunteers. ["No, no!"] Possibly, then, it was himself they were laughing at, and their laughter had more justification. Although the Volunteers might not have in all respects the value of long-trained soldiers, yet he did think that should an enemy invade our land—a thing to his mind almost impossible—our Volunteers would be able to give a very good account of him; so that for purposes of defence we might rely more than we did on our Volunteer Service. He rose to make one protest against the assumption that the chief object of the House was to prepare for war, and also to urge that if we only adopted a common-sense, pacific policy, we could do with much less expenditure on our Naval and Military Services.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he believed that the country owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member who had introduced the debate (Sir Edward Hamley); but he thought it was a mistake and fatal policy to spread over a term of years a work that ought, in the interests of the nation, to be undertaken with the least possible delay, in order that the country might be put in a state of defence. There were two subjects to which he desired specially to draw the attention of the House, One was the proposed reduction of the Artillery Force. He asked the Secretary of State to pause before committing himself to the mistaken policy of reducing our Forces in the very arm which it was impossible to supply at short notice. Comparing the numbers of the Artillery Force of this country with those of the Artillery Forces of Continental nations, he found that Great Britain had 612 guns to 337,000 men, including the Native Indian Army, which was without Artillery; France,

    255
    1,938 guns to 565,000 men; Germany, 2,040 guns to 460,000 men; and Russia, 2,278 guns to 871,000 men; so that the proportion of guns for every 1,000 men was in Great Britain l·81; in France 3·43; in Germany 4·43; and in Russia 2·61. Instead of economizing by reducing the Field Artillery, lot the authorities begin their economies in that Augean Office—the War Office—and other Departmental Offices, including the Circumlocution Office described by the Surveyor General of Ordnance—and sweep away half that army of quill-driving officials, who could not distinguish a cutlass from a piece of hoop iron, or a properly made cartridge from one that would jam, and who went upon the principle that because these things were in store they had got to be used, and who seemed to think if their ideas and calculations were not carried out the Army must go to the dogs. In 1884 he insisted upon the necessity of the numbers of the Army being increased, and received an answer from the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) denying such necessity. He was, however, glad to say that within two years of such answer his right hon. Successor at the War Office Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) added to the numbers of the Army some 20,000 men—the numbers being in 1884 201,905, and in 1886 220,063. In 1884 he also pointed out that the term with the Colours ought to be increased; and he was glad that something had been done in this direction. Lord Airey's Committee, composed of a distinguished body of officers, laid down in their Report four cardinal points—that the term with the Colours ought to be altered; that the numbers of the Army ought to be increased; that the system of one battalion feeding another should be abolished; and that once a man was posted to a battalion he should remain with it during his whole active service. The first two recommendations had in a degree been carried out; the last two had been disregarded, and the evils which they were intended to remove still continued. The system of one battalion feeding another was in the highest degree detrimental to the Service—one battalion dragged the vitals out of the other, to the disgust of men and officers, and to the destruction of the morale and
    256
    esprit de corps of the regiment. Regimental officers and non-commissioned officers complained of the persistent round of drill and drudgery without over being able to see their battalion in an efficient state. In 1882, when a certain regiment was sent to Egypt, 400 Reserve men had to be drafted into it to fill up the vacancies left by 400 recruits who were left behind; and the officers gave a pitiable account as to the state of their regiment for several months after—the Reserve men having been away some time from the Colours, and being rather lax, and there being no sufficient leaven of old soldiers. The using of the Reserve in this way had the further objection that it was using up our second line in the first. If the Reserve men were called upon in this way, there would be nothing to fall back upon. Next, as to the system of sending men from one battalion to another. It was a great hardship on the men, who had thus to break up old friendships, and were always in a state of uncertainty as to whether they might not the next day be moved into another battalion, and be made to serve under new officers, of whom they knew nothing. It really seemed as if they were tending towards the system of a third unit. There wore at present nine double battalion regiments with both battalions abroad, and with depots of 650 men each at home; and the Cameron Highlanders, which is a single battalion, with a depot of 321 men, so that out of the 68 depots there were 10, or one-seventh of the whole, under the system that he advocated. In addition to this, every depot was in excess of its strength, some double or treble, and in some cases four times the number of its establishment. Taking the first 12 regiments on the list, he found that they had an effective strength of 2,104 men, against an establishment of 828 men. Two of these with 277 and 243 men respectively against establishments of 69 each. Taking the whole Army, the numbers were 14,971 effective, against an establishment of 10,396, showing an excess of 4,575. It could not, therefore, be said that the depot system was not capable of expansion, as hero they had it already expanded by nearly 4,600 men. Why not extend it boldly still further, instead of allowing it to creep in by degrees in the face of paper establishments? He

    257
    should like to see three battalions to every regiment, one to he always at home, and to act as depot. Effective battalions were wanted at home as well as abroad, and under the present system they would never exist. It was absurd to appoint Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry composed of officers of distinction and practical experience if their recommendations were to be overruled by civilians and financial considerations. He hoped that before the debate closed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) would be able to give the House an assurance that before next year the whole of the recommendations of Lord Airey's Committee would be considered, with a view of abolishing or mitigating a system which was fraught with injury to the Service, and a danger to the country at large.
    GENERAL FRASER: Permit me, Sir, to endeavour to put forward a clear statement of a question now pending of momentous importance to the whole nation, to the efficiency of the Army in general, and of the Cavalry Service in particular—namely, the proposed immediate abolition of five of the batteries of Horse Artillery, out of a Home Establishment of 13 batteries. It will be allowed on all sides that no reduction in any branch of the Service should be carried out, unless it is distinctly evident that the efficiency of the Army will be increased thereby; or else that an important economy will be effected by such reduction, without impairing that efficiency. I request the indulgence of the House whilst I prove, from the mouth of distinguished soldiers accustomed to organize and command Armies, and by not complicated statistics, that the efficiency of the Service would, on this occasion, be deeply impaired, and that the cost of the re-establishment of these batteries at a future time will be extremely heavy. I venture to claim that I am able to show that sufficient Horse Artillery is an essential and most important element in an Army; that its conversion to Field Artillery is no sort of compensation for its loss, as Field Artillery cannot perform the duties of Horse Artillery; and, further, that I am able to prove, by the simplest calculation of numbers, that if the proposed abolition of five batteries of Horse Artillery takes place, it will
    258
    only be possible to make the First Army Corps up to the War Establishment: that the Second Army Corps would be mythical, and that all Horse Artillery in India and elsewhere will be dependent for reinforcements and supply in cases of any emergency, and even for relief, to the breaking up of that First Army Corps. The reduction of the five batteries out of 13 of the Royal Horse Artillery would affect, to a vital extent, the operations of the divisions and brigades of Cavalry in the field, in which Horse Artillery boar a part of such paramount importance; and it must tie the hands of the Commander in campaigns and battles when he would wish to throw guns up at speed into important positions. Marshal You Moltke has given his opinion that—
    "Because, in modern warfare, the long range and destructive fire of Artillery necessitates a scattered formation, there will be more frequent opportunities for Cavalry."
    General Sir Edward Hamley says, in his Operation of War—
    "Let it also be granted that Cavalry properly trained and led, may play as great a part as ever on the stage of war: combined with new and larger proportions of Artillery, its action may be decisive of the fate of battles, and launched in pursuit of a broken foe it may finish a campaign which would else wade through fresh carnage to its woeful end."
    Further, he says—
    "To gain from this mobility its greatest effect, field batteries should, to a certain extent, be converted into Horse Artillery, by which the greatest possible rapidity of manœuvre would be attained; batteries would constantly shift their position, so as always to take the line diagonally or in flank, and by rapid retreat would baffle a counter attack."
    In 1870 Horse and Field Artillery were ordered to push on at once to the battle field of Spicheren. The Horse Artillery accomplished the distance—21 miles—in three hours, and arrived in time, while the field batteries took four and a-half hours, and only came up when the action was over. The same happened to the same batteries on another occasion, when the field batteries were again too late. Marches at such a pace are impossible in Field Artillery, and, therefore, they cannot take the place of Horse Artillery. Prince Kraft zu Hohenlohe desires that the whole of the Corps Artillery should be composed of Horse Artillery. We have the instance also of Sir Drury Lowe's Cavalry and Horse

    259
    Artillery's brilliant advance on Cairo after Tel-el-Kebir. Horse Artillery is an arm most difficult to construct, and impossible to improvise. The impression that the new Horse Artillery gun is a heavy gun, that cannot work with Cavalry, is quite erroneous; it is a 12-pounder breech-loader, powerful and accurate, with all ranks mounted, and it is able to go anywhere with Cavalry—whose right arm it is—when pushing out miles in front, on outpost duty, in advance and rearguard duties, reconnaissance, covering the deployment, and concealing the movements of an Army, keeping up communication and cutting off and threatening those of the enemy, protecting the fronts and flanks of an Army. It is a powerful auxiliary in the attack, and a friend in need in pursuit, and in the hour of danger and defeat; it can keep pace with the advance, and by pouring a destructive fire on the enemy, pave the way for the Cavalry to victory; it dislodges the enemy from positions in which the sword cannot reach him, and it does fearful execution when the enemy's Infantry, concentrated in masses, bids defiance to the horsemen; it checks pursuit, and gains time for the Cavalry to re-form under fire; it is of great use in passing defiles and bridges in the face of the enemy, in defending broken ground against odds, and in many other ways it is Cavalry's best assistant. The action of Cavalry and Horse Artillery in spreading a curtain round an Army was brilliantly exemplified by the Germans, in the War of 1870, by which, often without bloodshed, their sudden appearance, miles in front of the Army, caused towns to give up their keys and surrender. The enemy felt, the touch was never left go, troops were watched and their movements reported, whilst the main bodies were advancing at comparative ease. Cavalry and Artillery work in complete harmony with the Infantry—the principal arm always—and subordinates its action to that of the latter. The rapid advance to the Moselle of the Cavalry, and the consequent paralyzation of the French plan of operations, contributed not a little to the success of the German operations. Cavalry and Horse Artillery can never be dissociated. Frederick the Great, fully recognizing the necessity of this association in the Seven Years' War, organized batteries of Light Artillery,
    260
    capable of moving at the pace of squadrons, and intended to support all their enterprizes. The Duke of Wellington's letters from India describes the advantages that Lord Lake derived from attaching quick-moving guns to his Cavalry. Amongst numberless instances, let it be remembered, that Lord Gough, at Sobraon, kept his Horse Artillery' fresh, and brought it up at speed to carry annihilation into the Sikh Army, retiring across the Sutlej. To-day we read in the Italia Romana, in a letter from an Italian officer in Abyssinia—
    "We are all sure that the catastrophe would have been averted, if the column had been accompanied by a small force of Cavalry and guns."
    Valentine Baker Pasha has said, that had a Horse Artillery battery been available at the second action at El Teb, where he was himself severely wounded, the loss to the British Force would probably have been greatly diminished, as the battery could have taken, from its mobility, the works of Osman Digna in flank before the delivery of the main attack on the front. Horse Artillery is essential to the rapid movement and the quick tactic of the present day. Field Artillery—to whom all honour in their magnificent service is due—in consequence of the weight and the impossibility of carrying the detachment men on the carriages, the difficulty of keeping up a supply of men in time to fill up casualties, and the slow advance, as the men who work the guns have to march on foot—are not available for this duty. A true and well-known axiom is—
    "Mobility is an essential for good Artillery; it is the power to move rapidly when requisite, not continual movement that is required."
    General Lord Wolseley, in his Pocket Book, lays down—
    "It must be remembered that batteries of Field Artillery are not supposed to move faster than a walk, as the gunners march on foot."
    An incident at the Alma may be mentioned. Lord Raglan prayed that some guns might be brought to a particular knoll, whence they could dislodge the enemy's guns on the causeway. Two guns of Turner's field battery were at length brought up—a gun horse killed in the river had delayed them—had this been a Horse Artillery gun a detachment horse would at once have replaced it—then two guns ultimately reached the spot indicated, but without these

    261
    detachments, who had been unable, being on foot, to keep up, the Artillery officers, including Colonel (now Sir) Collingwood Dickson, and Brigadier General Strangways, who had been at Leipsic, and was killed at Inkermann. and who was commanding the Artillery of the Crimean Campaign, dismounted and worked the guns with their own hands. Had this been a Horse Artillery battery, the detachment would not have been left behind. As a result of this incident, the number of Horse Artillery batteries was speedily and importantly increased. Are we to expect in all future wars that a contingent, such as we sent to Egypt, will suffice, and that no further batteries of Artillery would be required? Turn back to 1854–5. Is no experience gained by the unprepared state of the Army in those days? The position of England is quite exceptional, and it does not do to compare her with other nations. Not only have we to keep up the usual proportion of Horse Artillery guns recognized for the requirements of our Cavalry and Corps Artillery, but we have always India, for which we must be prepared to meet an emergent demand at any moment for more guns; and also, looking at our numerous Colonies and interests abroad, how often do we not have to enter into small wars where, possibly, Horse Artillery are required, sometimes without a Cavalry Brigade? I would instance the case of the Trent affair in 1862, when a battery of Horse Artillery was placed under orders to proceed to Canada, but subsequently countermanded. There has been a battery of Horse Artillery in Egypt for a length of time without a Cavalry Brigade. Owing to the great mobility of Horse Artillery, it has frequently been sent on service to accompany Infantry. For instance, the Chestnut troop with the Light Division in the Peninsula; C Troop with Light Division in the Crimea. Several instances in India, especially in frontier warfare. The non-commissioned officers and men are specially selected, as well as the officers; and it is their pride in their work and efficiency, and in the knowledge of their own value, which has kept them always in their high state of efficiency. The contemplated reduction of the five batteries of Horse Artillery will seriously affect the pay of non-commissioned officers and men of those bat-
    262
    teries. The change will deprive every non-commissioned officer and artificer of 2d. a-day, gunners 1½d. a day, drivers ½d. a-day, trumpeters no less than 9½d. a-day. The trifle that Government may save by such economy will do an infinity of damage in the Recruiting Department, and to the confidence in the class from which the best soldiers are drawn. I have it, on the best authority; that a very largo number of men who enlist for the Artillery ask to be sent to the Horse Artillery. They are told that that cannot be, but that they must work their way to it by good conduct and smartness. Beyond doubt, surplus Artillery is worse than useless; it hampers and delays the columns, keeps troops out of action for escorts, blocks roads, and impedes a retreat. Have we at present a surplus? No; on the contrary, we have not one man, one horse, one gun too many for our absolute requirements. To supply the two Horse Artillery batteries sent to Egypt in 1882, the batteries left at homo were so crippled that they could not have drawn their own guns out of the barrack yard. The Secretary of State for War has spoken of this reduction as being, in part, simply "a conversion." Death itself is simply a conversion; he admits that five batteries of Horse Artillery are to be obliterated, which loss is tantamount to death to them, and to the Service; besides this destruction of five batteries, certain other batteries of Horse Artillery will have only four guns instead of six—namely, after the reduction, there will be five batteries with six guns, and three batteries with only four guns. The reduction of certain batteries by two guns in peace time, to be put into store, is most paralyzing. In Germany the batteries in peace time are reduced; but men are available immediately from the "Reserve," which is a fact there, and not a fiction as in this country. Artillerymen from the "Reserve" have to attend trainings at manœuvres a certain number of times, so as to keep up their knowledge. Our Reserve Artillerymen never have this practice. Further, the mode of draught in their Artillery is the same as that for all farm purposes; ours is quite different. The horses of the country are all available; ours are not. They are also registered; ours are not; pairs of horses accustomed to work together, can be procured and put into

    263
    batteries at very short notice. In our Service, we should have to unman and unhorse other batteries, supposing that they exist. The Secretary of State for War claims that the increase of guns for Garrison Artillery, and for the Volunteers, will make up for the loss of guns that should be in the fore-front in a campaign. It would be as well to say that, in the interest of India, the 11th Bengal Lancers are to be reduced, but that the 3rd West India Regiment is to be increased. The allotment of baggage animals to Infantry regiments—namely, 240 horses (see Army Estimates), cannot be put as a set-off for the loss of five batteries of Horse Artillery; and the arrangement does not got over the fact that 30 guns, with the greatest mobility, are lost to the Service. We, at the present time, have of Horse Artillery—four batteries of six guns for the First Army Corps; four batteries of four guns for the Second Army Corps; five batteries of four guns for a Reserve. It is quite safe to say that, to complete the batteries of the First Army Corps to War Establishment, every gunner, driver, and horse of the five Reserve batteries would be required. If these, then, are abolished, the batteries of the Second Army Corps will have to supply, as far as they can, the men and horses required, and thus the Second Army Corps' batteries will be entirely denuded of horses, and almost entirely of non-commissioned officers and men. It is only by keeping up a strong force of Horse Artillery that we can hope to put an efficient proportion of it in the field. The difficulty in these days of procuring good horses, sound, and of proper stamp for the Horse Artillery, is great, even in peace time, when there is no hurry; and what may we expect when war is upon us? Remember, a single unsuitable horse may mean the impotence or loss of a gun. It was my duty to buy, as quickly as possible, 500 horses in Ireland, during the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt; horses for Horse Artillery and Cavalry were most difficult to procure, and but very few indeed were at all fit to send out to a campaign; baggage horses were easy to obtain. The power of Artillery in the field is in the number of guns efficiently put into the field; and not in the number of men capable of garrisoning the forts at home and in the Colonies.
    264
    If it became necessary to increase the Garrison Artillery, it could be done at any time, to a very largo amount, from the Auxiliary Forces—Militia and Volunteers, Reserves, &c. Guns put into store are guns reduced, as the men and horses to work them will not be kept up. The Secretary of State for War has not explained the cost of the proposed changes, or the amount of saving in expenditure; we must therefore conclude that the saving is nil, or else that the saving is to be expended elsewhere he states that all the Horse Artillery that will be required—that is, for this now scheme of organization—will be eight batteries of six guns each for the First and Second Army Corps; that none of them will be kept on war strength, and five only of those eight batteries will be maintained at First Army Corps strength with six guns; that three Horse Artillery batteries of the Second Army Corps will only have four guns each, and men and horses in proportion—adding that, "in war time, of course, these Horse Artillery batteries will take the field with six guns each." He does not explain how this is to be, as the five other batteries to-day in existence, and able to supply officers, non-commissioned officers, men and horses are to be abolished next month It should be understood that there are to be three Establishments in the Horse Artillery—batteries at war strength, at which there are to be none—175 men and 163 horses; First Army Corps' strength, at which there are to be five batteries—162 men and 104 horses; and a low Second Army Corps' strength, at which there are to be three batteries—120 men and 72 horses. Therefore, it is evident that to form only four batteries at war strength in case of need for the First Army Corps, it would be necessary to denude the whole of the 2nd Army Corps, with the exception of 470 men and 84 horses, and this without eliminating the men and horses unfit for active service from any of the eight batteries that it is proposed only to retain. Are the two Army Corps—if they can be formed—(which they have never boon, except on paper, for 12 years) to be left entirely without reserve? Is India, in emergency, to be dependent for a supply of Horse Artillery on the breaking up of these two Army Corps? If the proportion of Horse Artillery is too

    265
    large for our Army, it would appear that the authors of this new scheme are the very advisers who are responsible for the taxpayers of the country having been for years past heavily burdened for an excess of force in this arm! Field Marshal Lord Napier of Magdala, in "another place," has clearly demonstrated that the proposed reductions in the Royal Artillery in general are fraught with extreme peril—that they would cripple efficiency; that 30 guns would cease to be Horse Artillery guns; that more than 600 trained and skilled Horse Artillerymen would be taken from this important arm, and would have to be sent to other duties which require much less skill; also that the Imperial Forces have not, by an immense number, their proper proportion of guns, according to the proportion recognized by the principal Military Authorities of Europe. That noble and gallant Lord took the numbers of batteries of Horse and Field Artillery, assuming that, on an emergency, the considerable number of batteries that have already been reduced from six to four guns might be completed to six guns—a process most exhausting to other batteries—and proved that the 106 batteries of 636 guns are not, in any way, in proper proportion to the Imperial troops, of which Returns give a total strength of 289,960, and that this 636 guns would stand to them in the proportion of only 2·2 guns to 1,000 men. Napoleon laid down three guns to 1,000 men—a low estimate for the present day—but according to which we should require 869 guns, or 233 more than we possess. The German standard is now 3·6 guns per 1,000 men, according to which we should have 1,043 guns, instead of 636. Jomini, with whom General Lord Wolseley agrees in the Pocket Book, says this—"the proportion should be three guns to 1,000." Frederick the Great began with this proportion, but quickly increased it. In India, in 1879, a proposal very similar to the present scheme of reduction was recommended by a Commission on Army Organization. The Minutes of the Commander-in-Chief in India on the Report is so much to the point that I venture to quote from it. The Commander-in-Chief wrote—
    "It is proposed by the Commission to reduce the Horse Artillery in India from 15 to 10 bat-
    266
    teries. In this sweeping reduction I cannot concur. The Commission consider that after providing this arm for two Army Corps, no more is required. No Reserve and no means of keeping complete or efficient the 10 batteries of Horse Artillery in the two Army Corps has been provided, nor is any provision whatever made to meet the contingency of more of this arm being required elsewhere. It suffices to say that, in Bengal, with six Horse Artillery batteries in the field and four in the rear, these latter have been so denuded of men to replace the casualties in the former, that it has been found absolutely inexpedient to further denude them of the few effectives still left; and we have been obliged to telegraph home for 110 men of this branch to meet requirements during the coming season, and which will cause an increase in the present fixed Establishment of this arm in Bengal of 70 men. Such facts speak for themselves."
    Now these were six-gun, not four-gun, batteries. Again—
    "No Horse Artillery would be available for external uses in the event of any considerable force being despatched beyond sea. In fact, this branch, which perhaps requires the longest training of all, is entirely overlooked, not only as regards Reserves for that portion employed in the field, but also with reference to any internal or external contingencies which might arise during another war, such as that in which we are now engaged.…. At present, Bombay, with its two batteries of Horse Artillery in or about to take the field, has no Reserve, and if the casualties from invaliding, &c, in these batteries approach those of the Horse Artillery batteries, which took the field from Bengal in 1878–9, the result will be that, after completing the foremost battery from the one in rear, the latter will be unable to turn out more than two guns, if it be not rendered entirely unfit for service."
    The Commander-in-Chief in India explains—
    "To place a battery in the field, the first thing to be done is to transfer to it men and horses, not recruits and raw horses, but men and animals trained to the work. The wear and tear in the field is excessive, and has to be met from batteries in the rear. The history of I. C. Royal Horse Artillery, and a statement of the drafts required to keep it efficient, and the necessity under which it became obligatory to relieve it, would astonish those who have had no concern with the details of such affairs."
    Sir Frederick Haines, in a further Minute on the subject, remarks—
    "In my Minute of the 20th March, 1880, reference is made to the fact that Bombay had but two batteries of Royal Horse Artillery, that they were in or about to take the field, and that they had no Reserve. What happened? E-B battery suffered severe losses at Maiwand, an it was necessary to repair them by the despatch of a complete division, men and horses, harnes and gnus, from a battery in Bengal, at Umballah, Bombay, having no reserves either in men or horses trained to that branch of the service."

    267
    He further explains—
    "On the outbreak of war it would be necessary to complete the batteries selected for service in the front from those that remain in rear. There are many men and horses, though equal to the ordinary duties of peace time, are quite unfit to stand the exposure and privation of active service, and all of them have to be eliminated, and their places filled up by effective transfers from the other batteries. This same process has to be continued throughout the campaign, and the result is that, whilst completing and maintaining the batteries in front, we render inefficient a large proportion of those in rear, and this to an extent which is not apparent from the mere returns of the casualties occurring in front—for while giving away these serviceable men and horses, the rear batteries, in many instances, have been receiving in exchange the inefficients they replace, so that not only are the numbers reduced, but their quality becomes seriously deteriorated; in fact, they can no longer be looked upon as efficient batteries. In India, in 1878, to complete 10 batteries to a war footing, it required 105 transfers of men. To complete the same batteries for service again in 1879, it required 214 more men. The drain, therefore, on the rear batteries during one year alone amounted to 349 men, which is equal to the strength of two batteries. To complete I.C. Royal Horse Artillery in the field, for the period of the war, lasting eight months 42 men and 41 horses were required; for the second period, lasting live mouths, 41 men and 46 horses were required; or, in the whole period of 16 months, from the time they were warned for service in 1878 until their recall in 1880, they expended 83 men and 90 horses, which was more than half their original strength."
    The Commander-in-Chief added to his Minutes these words—
    "The advantage of Horse Artillery consists in its mobility, which enables it to act with Cavalry. Field Artillery is less mobile and to substitute it for Horse Artillery would be either to deprive the Cavalry of its guns, or to reduce its mobility to that of a Field Artillery, the rôle of which is to work with Infantry; and also it appears to me that by looking too much to the saving that might be effected in the time of peace, the necessity of being prepared for war has, as regards this branch, been lost sight of."
    It is fully recognized abroad that—
    "Horse Artillery must be trained and kept ready; it is too late to make them when war begins."
    Mounted Infantry, and much that is most useful, you can improvise. Since the Mutiny, no Horse Artillery in India are manned by Native Artillerymen; consequently, the Horse Artillery batteries are completely dependent on the Home Establishment for Reserves. The Indian Government keep, at its own expense, two small depots in England, consisting of recruits intended to replace
    268
    annual reliefs in India of men discharged and invalided, and a certain number of old horses, and old guns, for training purposes only. The whole of the Horse Artillery throughout Her Majesty's Dominions would be dependent, in case of necessity, on the breaking up of the First Army Corps to fill up any casualty that might occur. The Secretary of State for War has stated that he would not place a responsibility on the House that he should himself bear. That responsibility on this occasion is indeed most onerous. The responsibility of deducting so seriously from the efficiency of the arm, most difficult to establish, and of such eminent importance in war; and this responsibility he must take in direct opposition to those officers who have had immense experience in organization and in war, and who have commanded our largest Armies, in opposition to the opinion of officers of high standing in the Continental and English Armies—in opposition to statistics which prove distinctly that the whole fabric of the First Army Corps must fall to pieces if this reduction is persisted in. One question must strike all thinking men. What is this First Army Corps?—for 12 years a paper Army, only to be found in the Army List—it cannot exist in substance—it must be but a shadow of the substance; for instance, one regiment of Cavalry that helps to form it has, out of an Establishment of 400 horses, 82 three year-old, and 48 four year-old, and 30 wanting to complete. I may here say that one battery of Horse Artillery has, during the past year, been raised, at considerable expense, to the First Army Corps' strength. It is now complete with men and horses, and the latest equipment throughout. The battery is to be reduced at once, or converted into something else. Does this seem to be wisdom? Thanking the House for the indulgence extended to me, permit me to say that it has been my duty, for several years, in India and at home, to instruct Horse Artillery and Cavalry combined; also that I have witnessed Horse Artillery so enfeebled and reduced by the casualties of a campaign and climate that it could hardly reply to the enemy's fire. I feel sure that it is the wish of Englishmen that troops in front of campaigns may be sustained in a way worthy of England.

    269
    No doubt, the proposed reduction of so many distinguished batteries is a source of bitter disappointment to officers, noncommissioned officers, and men. Famous batteries are to be obliterated, for a time at least. Who's heart has not thrilled at the story of the deeds of the Rocket Troop—the only English force at Leipsic—the Battle of the Nations! where 80,000 men were killed—and of the glorious history of the Royal Artillery, which splendid corps has won the motto that stands pre-eminent amidst all trophies—"Ubique." On this I will not further enlarge. I have avoided all thought of sentiment. I represent the case solely on practical grounds. In the interests of the nation and of the Army, I do earnestly entreat the Secretary of State for War to relinquish this scheme. As to the question of expenditure. In the recent five years, under my command were some 50 batteries and battalions, and it has been my duty to inspect every regiment of Cavalry at home, and my knowledge of soldiers tells me that there is no wish that the expenditure of public money on the Army should be increased; but that there is a very deepfelt anxiety that waste and extravagance should be put a stop to, that the money should be well spent, and that sudden and reckless blows should not be struck at any branch of the Service which, hitherto, it has been accounted necessary to maintain in the highest state of efficiency. In the next campaign on the Continent, that an English Army may be engaged in, may the Commander, by consummate skill, paralyze his enemy by gaining his flank, by cutting off his communications; then, indeed, will the bloodshed be comdaratively small, and most assuredly in succeeding in that grand aim, Cavalry and Horse Artillery, with its mobility and speed, will prove itself to be that Commander's best weapon and England's truest friend.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid, he hailed with the greatest pleasure the appearance for the first time of a lucid statement, which afforded some promise of a consecutive and well-thought-out scheme of organization in our Army. He hoped that it might be found to combine efficiency with economy, and with those strong military features to which previous speakers had referred. While he said
    270
    this, however, he concurred in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Lambeth (General Fraser), who had stated the case against reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery. He should like, however, to put the case even more strongly, and to say that he believed no possible economy which could be attempted would lead to greater extravagance or waste in the end than this economy which had been palmed off on the Secretary of State for War. He was at a loss to conceive who were the military advisers of the right hon. Gentleman. He was almost inclined to think that some of the right hon. Gentleman's advisors had been attempting to play a practical joke upon him; but it was a joke which would not be likely to be successful, when the right, hon. Gentleman had held the reins of Office for 12 months more. If there was any real military weight at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, where was it to be found? Who was the military originator of the scheme? Certainly not the Adjutant General (Viscount Wolseley), who was opposed to it, and there was the strongest possible condemnation of it by Lord Napier, whose authority stood only second to, and whose experience was in some respects more varied than, General Wolseley's. But it was not only in regard to the Home service that he objected. he contended that it was a veritable breach of faith in regard to our Army in India, and of the contract entered into with the Indian Government in 1879–80. This reduction was unwise, not only as regarded the Army at home, but as regarded the possibilities of augmentation in case of war in Europe, and the possibility of our having considerably to reinforce our military forces in India. To his mind, the proposed economy resembled the economy which would be practised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, if he were to take his best case of Sunday razors and apply them to the cutting of paving stones. He could not conceive any greater waste or misapplication of money than that which would eventually be caused by replacing the Horse Artillery, a splendid arm of the service, which they were now destroying for no purpose whatever. He recognized the necessity that we should have two Army Corps, capable of being placed in the

    271
    field at short notice, instead of one; and in this connection he supported the Secretary of State for War in that augmentation. But he trusted, before the debate closed, the House would have an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he reserved an open mind on the question of reducing the Horse Artillery, and that he would reconsider the subject before the Estimates were finally passed. As an instance of the importance of Horse Artillery at certain critical moments, he would refer to an illustration partly used by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. The battle of Sobraon had been referred to, an action in which the regiment in which he had the honour to serve had taken a leading part (the 10th Foot). The battle was fought on February 10, 1846. In the course of the fight 12 guns in all of Horse Artillery were brought into play at a critical moment of the action on the 1,000 of Sikhs then swarming across the river, and, by their aid, the neck of the Sikh arm}' was practically broken in less than twelve minutes. He could also cite, as further examples of the immense importance of the services of Horse Artillery at critical moments in action, the ease of the battle between the French and the Germans at Gravelotte, where he was a personal spectator of the scene, and also the experience of a battle fought by Lord Wolseley in Egypt, at Masammah, on the 24th August, 1882. He turned next to a most important question connected with the popularity of recruiting. As a magistrate of two counties he had observed that there could be no more deplorable position than that of soldiers passed into the Reserve, who were often obliged to go about the country like beggars, unable to find the means of obtaining a decent livelihood. Something, he urged, ought to be done to prevent men who had served the Government in a military capacity from becoming reduced when they passed into civil life into the condition of waifs and tramps, who had frequently to ask for charity because they could not procure suitable civil employment. If some prospect of occupation in civil life could be held out to those men it would be of very great advantage to the Army and its recruiting, and also to the employers of labour, who, if they knew that all the men were not liable to be taken away from them at short notice, would not, as they did now,
    272
    think the Reserve men were a class who ought to be avoided like a pestilence. That was a matter in which he was sure that all economists might concur, and he hailed with satisfaction the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman held out to him of having that important subject discussed fully when the Vote for the Reserve was brought forward. With regard to the details which had been placed before them by the right hon. Gentleman, they were not only useful in the highest degree, but they were put forward in a manner which offered ever}' assurance) that the right hon. Gentleman was entering on a career of usefulness which would correspond to the high promise that he had given in the offices of State which he had hitherto filled. It was a distinct advantage that he had now laid before them an organized military system and the prospect of organizing two Army Corps instead of one, and that the line of communications of the two Army Corps would also be looked to. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should not see his way to taking steps for the improvement of the organization of the Cavalry. Since 1875 our Cavalry organization had been truly declared to be the most wretched and unsystematic in the world; and no greater field of usefulness was still open to the right hon. Gentleman than that of giving a methodic organization to our Cavalry, both at home and in India, which, as to both horses, men, and officers, were second to none in the world. He did not think they could find in Great Britain one regiment, and not half-a-dozen in India, which they would send into the field at the present moment with a strength of 600 effective men and 600 effective horses. There was another subject which an hon. and gallant Member had touched upon, that of Mounted Infantry. He was very much disappointed that no mention was made of that arm of the service, which used once to be sneered at by the Cavalry, but was now acknowledged by them to be their best assistant. Lord Wolseley had always said that our Cavalry was so very expensive, and in such small numbers, that we could not spare a single horse for Mounted Infantry. But he had advanced the opinion that Mounted Infantry could be improvised whenever a campaign took place. Upon that subject he (Sir Henry

    273
    Havelock-Allan) begged most respectfully to disagree with the noble General, who formed his opinion in 1882, when we had the nucleus of a good Mounted Infantry which had gone through the two Zulu campaigns of 1879 and 1880. He understood that a proposition for teaching men of the Infantry some part of Cavalry duty—about 50 in each battalion—set on foot by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fifz Wygram) had been again submitting this year in the Southeastern Division by Sir Baker Russell, and especially at the camp at Shorncliffe, and that it had been rejected because it would cost the paltry sum of £5,000. If they could form a permanent nucleus of Mounted Infantry of only 10 or 12 squadrons which could be supplemented when necessary, it would be worth, not £5,000, but £10,000 or £12,000 a-year to the country as an adjunct to the Cavalry. There was one other subject upon which he would like to touch, although as a regular soldier it might be considered impertinent on his part; but he knew that many Volunteer Colonels were very much interested in the matter, and that must be his excuse in mentioning it. A Committee had sat on the particular mode in which it might be desirable to increase the Capitation Grant to the Volunteers. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to increase the Grant of 30s. to.35s. all round, but he himself agreed with those Volunteer officers who said they would rather have the 35s. differently distributed. The present system went very hardly with those men who were bound to shoot out of the third class before they could earn any grant at all. He believed there had been a very strong feeling expressed that, with all the desire which the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly had shown of encouraging the efficiency of the Volunteers by giving them a larger money grant; still that grant had been made in a way which did not entirely meet their wishes and requirements, and they asked for a reconsideration of the matter. If, instead of there being one grant of 30 s. and one of 35 s, there were one grant altogether, and there were a relaxation of the stringency of the rules relating to musketry for two years—after that he would like to set them more stringent—the efficiency of the whole body would be much increased.
    274
    To revert to the civil employment of reserved soldiers, he trusted he might not be mistaken in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman intended to give him an opportunity of discussing at the proper time that important question. He took it for granted that when the right hon. Gentleman had further considered the matter he would give him a Committee on that subject, for he thought that would commend itself to everyone who desired economy and who wished to promote the efficiency of the Army.
    CAPTAIN COTTONsaid, he hoped the House would allow him, as an Artillery Officer who had served in both the Royal Horse Artillery and the Field Batteries, to state his opinion on the proposed conversion and reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery. He congratulated the Government on the now departure which they had taken in endeavouring to render effective the paper system which had hitherto existed, of forming two Army Corps for our home Army, and of placing them on such a footing that they should be lit for immediate service. They all remembered that before the last Franco-German War Marshal Le Bœuf in 1870, told the Emperor Napoleon that the Army of France was complete in all its details, down to the very last button on the soldiers' gaiters. No doubt the buttons were there, but no one could place their hands on them when they were wanted, and that was very much the case with some matters in our Army. He rejoiced to think that the Government had realized the grave evils which existed, and were endeavouring to remedy them. But as an Artillery Officer, he could not be silent on the proposed conversion of the Royal Horse Artillery. As he understood it, the Secretary of State for War stated that, as there was a deficiency in our Field Batteries, in order to compensate for that deficiency without increasing the expenditure, he wished to convert certain Horse Artillery batteries, of which he had a surplus, to provide for the want of Field Artillery. That was an intelligible proposition enough, but he would reply with two others; first, that the Horse Artillery was a. corps d'élite, one on which the greatest care and discipline was lavished, so that it was the most difficult branch of the Army to reconstitute. The next proposition was that if they

    275
    reduced the Horse Artillery batteries to a minimum, the time must inevitably come on active service when they would have to call on the Field Batteries to undertake the duties of the Horse Artillery; and that, he maintained, they were quite unable and unsuited to perform. Many nations were not decreasing, but strengthening their Horse Artillery. Belgium was doing so, and also Italy; while he had good authority for stating that Spain would be glad to do the same, could she afford it. While he did not believe we intended to go to war with anyone, he would ask whether, if we were to have an Army at all, this was a time to mutilate and cripple one of its most important branches? He quite admitted they would have a sufficient number of guns in comparison with those of foreign nations; but the First Army Corps was supposed to be thoroughly equipped and ready for service at a moment's notice. If that was not so, then the whole raison d'étre of the new scheme went away. With the First Army Corps they were to have five Horse Artillery batteries, with six guns each; but the batteries were not complete. They had no ammunition waggons. At the moment they were needed for service the Horse Artillery batteries would have to be put up to the war strength at once. Now the present full strength of a Horse Artillery battery was 104 horses, but the war strength was 168 horses; so that before we could embark a single man on active service we should have to increase these five batteries by 61 horses each—total 320. The only way we could get these horses would be by denuding the Second Army Corps of its horses. That was a very important point, and worthy of careful consideration. Then the men of the Horse Artillery were specially selected, not only on enlistment, but also on transfer from the rest of the Artillery. Therefore, considering what the Horse Artillery was, what it cost us to keep up, and the care there was to maintain it as an efficient force, it was evident it would be a work of the greatest difficulty to reconstitute it if once disestablished. Then there was the privilege of slightly higher pay, which the Horse Artillerymen enjoyed, and he thought that the loss of even 1s. per week would not be looked upon by the men with favour, especially
    276
    by those who were married, while it would have a doubtful effect on the recruiting. With regard to the proportion of field guns per 1,000 men, it was already less with us than it was with some of the foreign nations. Russia had always had a strong force of Artillery; Germany had a little over 3 per 1,000; the French had 3¾ while we had under 3 per 1,000. These figures were only at the commencement of a campaign; but very often circumstances occurred in campaigns when the Field Artillery in places had to be very largely increased. When the Gorman Army invested Paris in 1871, the number of Field Artillery guns was increased to 4 per 1,000; in Prince Frederick's campaign it was also increased to 1 per 1,000. Then, if occasion did occur when it was necessary to largely increase your Field Artillery generally, it is quite conceivable that occasions might also occur when there would arise an increased demand for Horse Artillery in particular. They were told that under the circumstances of modern warfare it was not very often necessary to change the position of Artillery, and therefore the Horse Artillery were not of so much use as they were formerly. He disputed that altogether. With a small active Army like ours they ought to use all the mechanical means in their power to strengthen it in every respect. They must have a very large number of guns, which should be able, not only to carry out the ordinary duties of Field Batteries, but, when required, to take up new positions with the greatest possible amount of mobility and celerity. This could only be done by Horse Artillery. It was an arm of the service which, as was said to him the other day, had to ride 25 miles to covert before it began its day's hunting. With the inferior breeding of the horses, the severe work they had to do would most surely tell on the Field Batteries. This would happen—either the men would have to dismount when going up hills, and they would arrive at the scene of action thoroughly exhausted, or there would be no gunners at all. It seemed to him quite impossible that Field Batteries could ever be a complete substitute for Horse Artillery. The Secretary of State would be better advised if he had drawn his information on this subject from practical Horse Artillery and Cavalry officers. Especially he would ask the House, before he sat

    277
    down, not to be misled on this subject by what had been said in "another place" by the Under Secretary of State for War, that, as regarded the Artillery, there was not, taking the whole force, a reduction, but an increase; that there was a reduction in field and horse, but a considerable increase in the garrison artillery. Why, it might just as well be said that there was no reduction of the Cavalry and Infantry of the Line if you took 500 men from them and added the same number to the Marine Artillery. Under all these circumstances he would ask the Secretary of State for War if he could not see his way to reconsider the question of the conversion of these batteries of Horse Artillery. There was one battery which had a glorious history, which had played a glorious part in covering the retreat at Maiwand and prevented it being a rout; and he would ask the Secretary of State to pause and see if he could save it from being entirely expunged from the Army List.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he must express his acknowledgments to the Secretary for War for the excellent Memorandum which had accompanied the Army Estimates this year, and hoped its publication would be an annual one. Satisfactory as the Explanatory Statement was in many of its details, especially in regard to clearly showing the large sum borne by the Army Estimates for the cost of stores for the Navy; there was one reference to the cost of the Artillery batteries which appeared meagre, for it failed to afford any information about the relative charge for Horse and Field Artillery, and yet advocated economy by breaking up Horse Artillery Batteries, in order to raise up more Field Batteries. He could not but wonder at the partial attempt which the War Office had made to effect economy by reducing the Horse Artillery by five Batteries and replacing them by Field Batteries. He was no admirer of an undue proportion of Horse Artillery; but he thought it would be better for the Secretary for War, if he desired to effect economy by changes of organization, to look in other directions for hotter results. We had undertaken the defence of India, and to supply that country with a sufficient force of Artillery; but he had no hesitation in saying that the Artillery
    278
    Establishment in India was entirely below what it should be. At present we supplied India with 11 batteries of Horse Artillery and 42 of Field, in all 318 guns, giving about three guns to 2,000 Infantry and Cavalry; a proportion far below the number which the most experienced General agreed on as necessary—the Horse Artillery guns, 66 in number, being far less than the number needed for our Indian Cavalry. He thought the House was entitled to ask that the views of those who had advised the Secretary for War to make this reduction should be published, and that proof should be given as to whether higher economies had been advised in other brandies of the Service. Those who had studied the organization of the Cavalry and Infantry could point to large economies being possible in those two arms. For instance, the Household Cavalry of three regiments and 21 troops, comprising only 950 privates, could be converted into one regiment of six squadrons of 120 effective privates in, each; the surplus 200 privates being told off into band, acting non-commissioned and employed men. So also with regard to the Cavalry of the Line, consisting of 28 regiments formed into 221 troops, and having about 13,000 privates; these might be formed into 60 squadrons of 150 effective privates each, leaving 4,000 surplus privates for band, employed, recruits, lance-corporals, and thereby needing only 15 regimental cadres, each of four squadrons. With regard to the Infantry of the Line, consisting of 141 battalions of 1,410 companies and 94,600 privates, this strength could only yield about 70,000 effective privates, after deducting band, recruits, lance-corporals, non-commissioned colour guard, pioneers, employed. This effective number could be formed into 600 companies of 120 privates each, and requiring about 100 cadres for battalions of six companies each. Those were economies on an effective scale, which might, on money considerations, be enforced with a far more useful end than that resulting from the abolition of 30 fully-equipped Horse Artillery guns, of such good organization as could not be equalled on the Continent.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZWYGRAM (Hants,)said, that the question of the Horse Artillery had been very fully discussed that evening, and

    279
    he wished merely to refer to one particular point which he thought had not been sufficiently pressed. There were two distinct uses for Horse Artillery; in the first place to accompany Cavalry, and in the second place to act as a re-servo to be sent to any point which might be pressed in an unforeseen manner. With regard merely to its first use, no doubt the proposed organization was sufficient; but as regarded the second, which was becoming of more consequence every day, he thought that it was utterly insufficient. In former days the range of muskets was small, and battalions were drawn up in close order, so that the line of fire was concentrated, and the amount of ground covered was, comparatively speaking, restricted. Now, on the contrary, in a great battle the troops covered three, four, or five miles. The Horse Artillery was with the attack, and the Field Artillery with the Generals commanding the different divisions. On a sudden attack upon any vital point it would be impossible to get up the Field Artillery in time. If the General commanding the division had to send Artillery to a point two miles and a half off, with the détour behind the troops which would be necessary, it would take Field Artillery an hour before it could get to the spot, whereas Horse Artillery could get there in 20 minutes. For this reason he thought that it was absolutely necessary to maintain the strength and efficiency of the Horse Artillery. Another point connected with the Artillery which he wished to bring before the House was the organization of the regiment of Artillery. He had not a word to say against the Artillery; on the contrary, it was a credit to itself and to the nation; but he had for a long time past thought that its organization was not as good as it might be. It was a very large regiment, and ought really to be divided into two corps, one concerned with field duties, whether Horse or Field Artillery, and the other having to do with garrison guns. These two duties were now totally different. In former days there had not been this marked distinction; there was only one form of gun, which was a smooth bore; the mechanical portion of the gun was the same; and the largest was a 68-pouuder, the Horse Artillery being armed with a 6-pouader. Now, however, the two classes of gnus were
    280
    very distinct from one another; there was the small class of gun used by the mounted branch of the Artillery, and the enormous gun, the mechanism of which required a life of study to understand it. In spite of this, all officers of Artillery were placed in one corps, and went from one duty to another. This system was not good training for the officers, and the result was sometimes that the square man was put in the round hole. This did not conduce to the best interests of the Service, and he thought that the organization ought to be such as to avoid this evil. He would, perhaps, be told that the system was an advantage in allowing a certain amount of exchange; that those who were fond of riding and field sports, and were quick in the eye, could go into the mounted, and those who were interested in science and mechanics into the mechanical branch of the Artillery. He admitted that, and his suggestion would be that the Artillery should be maintained as a general corps as regarded subalterns; but that on obtaining his captaincy an officer should be placed, according as it seemed best to his superiors, either in the mounted or in the dismounted branch of the Service. "With regard to the question of the Cavalry, his opinion was that we had too many regiments in our Cavalry, with the result that they were all weak and therefore ineffective. If there was one force that ought to be kept up to its full war strength more than another it was Cavalry, because it was a force that it was very difficult to organize in a hurry. It was true that they had Cavalry reserve men, but it was his experience that when they were in the reserve very many of the men never got outside of a horse, although some, no doubt, might be employed in stable work. The consequence was that after three or four years they were not fit to come back and take their place in a regiment which was ordered for service at short notice, He thought, therefore, that every Cavalry regiment ought to be kept at all times up to its full war strength, and also that every regiment should be of the same strength. He objected to having weak regiments in the second or third line for this reason—that when they augmented the regiments of the first line they ought to be fit for active service; whereas, as a matter of fact, there were generally about 120 young men not trained and 100 recently

    281
    bought horses. This had come under his notice especially in the case of the 19th Hussars when they went out to Egypt in 1882. In his opinion every Cavalry regiment ought to consist of' five squadrons—four for active service and one to form a depot. In every troop and every squadron there were a certain amount of untrained men, and a certain number of men unfit for embarkation on the day, and under the present system it was necessary to draw upon other regiments; and the same was the case with regard to the horses. This was an evil which ought to be avoided, and if they had a fifth squadron it ought to be able to supply the complement of horses and men for service. He would probably be asked, "Where are you going to get the money for this augmentation?" He believed that they had too many regiments and too weak regiments of Cavalry; they had 17 regiments at home and one in Egypt. To add a fifth squadron would involve great expense. He ventured to suggest, how over unpopular it might be to his brother officers, that it was absolutely necessary to reduce the three junior regiments. If they did so they would get four squadrons towards the 15 which would be needed to supplement and make efficient the other regiments; and when they had reduced the regiments, the staff, and officers, they might readily get the money to furnish each of the remaining regiments with the extra squadrons which he believed to be absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Cavalry Service. With, regard to the question of the ago of the horses, his experience was that, though it was not desirable to get four-year olds, yet they would do a fair amount of work, and would go fairly well through a campaign. He, therefore, saw no objection to four-year-old horses in the Army. Perhaps a more serious matter in this connection was that owing to the small percentage of horses allowed to be cast in each year we were obliged to keep every horse materially sound up to 18 years of age, and yet it had been declared that no horse over 14 years of age was to go on foreign service. To keep horses over 14 years unfit for foreign service was an absurdity and a fraud on the nation. The nation believed that it had 7,500 Cavalry horses, while he knew
    282
    that a certain proportion, probably 1,000, were too old to go on foreign service. We had given up the system of keeping old soldiers unfit for foreign service; surely the same rule ought to apply in regard to horses. An old soldier might teach the lads habits of sobriety and order, but he failed to see that any such virtues could be imparted by an old horse that was not allowed to go abroad. A good deal had been said lately about the supply of horses in this country; but his own belief was that the supply was fully equal to the ordinary demand, but it was contrary to common sense to suppose that breeders would breed more than the trade and the commerce of the country and the usual demands of the Military Service would absorb. He believed the number of horses in the country, roughly speaking was 3,000, 000, and 500,000 in Ireland.' It would, he suggested, be a useful thing if the Secretary of State would cause the police to send in a return of the actual numbers. There were probably 2,000,000 agricultural horses, of which, after making allowances for the horses that were too heavy, and for those under four years and the number over 14 years, he calculated there were about 230,000 of proper age and about a suitable size for military service. How many of these wore sufficiently sound? Colonel Ravenhill, an experienced officer, thought that not above one in ten would be sufficiently sound for military purposes; but taking one in five as a fairer number, that would leave about 50,000 agricultural horses available. Again, 1,000,000 horses were employed in the ordinary trade of the country and among private owners; and of these, making similar deductions as before, about 35,000 would be available for purposes of war. Adding these 35,000 to,10,000 agricultural horses, there may be 90,000 to 100,000 horses suitable for Army purposes in this country. How many would owners be willing to sell? Few men keep more horses than they really required; possibly they might sell 10 per cent—i.e., 10,000; add 5,000 in hands of dealers—total 15,000. No horses are of any use for an immediate campaign except horses in actual work. How many horses did we want? It was calculated that each. Army Corps wanted 12,500; two Army Corps would want 25,000. Twenty-five

    283
    thousand horses were wanted, and for use in campaign probably another 10,000, or 35,000 horses in all. Where, then, were the rest to come from? This was a serious question. There were various means by which the authorities might get the horses. They might take the horses by conscription, but he did not think the nation would listen to such a proposal. They might persuade the nation to keep 20,000 always up in case of war, but he did not think the nation could be persuaded easily to adopt such a plan. They might have a register of horses, but he did not believe in that proposal. Then they might resort to foreign markets. Hon. Members, no doubt, had lately read glowing accounts as to the number of horses to be had in foreign markets. His own impression was that those estimates were entirely fallacious. He did not believe that there existed, either in this or in any foreign country, a surplus of horses above what the trade and commerce of that country required. In 1880 a committee of gentlemen came from Hungary and offered the Government 10,000 horses, to be landed at the London Docks. He advised the Secretary of State for War to accept the offer. The Secretary of State for War sent several gentlemen of experience to Hungary, where they stayed six or seven weeks, with orders to buy 800 horses. They came back with 420 horses only, and of this number very few came up to the promised height of 15·2. Most of them were under 15·1, a large number were only 15 hands, and some only 14·2. More recently the Secretary of State for War sent a small committee to Canada to see what that country could do in the way of horse supply. The result had been what he anticipated. While they could buy horses straight from the ranche, they came back with only 50 horses of a suitable size and age accustomed to bit and bridle. With the view of increasing the number of horses, various schemes had been suggested for horse breeding. He did not believe that any scheme would produce a greater number than the trade of the country could absorb; and, in his opinion, there was no more fatal scheme than that of stopping the export trade. It was also proposed to place stallions throughout the country; but he doubted whether the
    284
    Government could supply the number of sires necessary for horse breeding. He admitted that, to a certain degree, Government stallions might improve the breed of the horses of the country; but he denied that they would increase the number of horses in the country. There was one particular class of horse diminishing in this country essential for Cavalry purposes, and this was the riding horse. In former days every farmer rode to market; but now, owing to the improvement in communication and other causes, perhaps 20 or 30 farmers rode to market in the district with which he was familiar, where formerly there used to be 200 or 800. The result was that the number of riding horses was sensibly decreasing. Ireland was the country they had to look to for mounting our Cavalry, and he thought it might be advisable to station Government stallions in districts throughout that country. Last year he brought before the notice of the Secretary of State for War the subject of Mounted Infantry. The use of this force was increasing every day, and its importance was being recognized. In his judgment, there was no collision in the slightest degree between the Cavalry and the Mounted Infantry. The great distinction between the two forces was this—the Cavalry soldier fought on horseback, and his horse was his primary weapon; the Mounted Infantry soldier used his horse only as a means of transport to reach a particular point, where he dismounted and fought with his rifle like a foot soldier. Last year he suggested that bodies of 30 Infantry soldiers should be sent, after the drill season was over, to the nearest Cavalry barrack to be instructed in mounted duties, and to stay there from about the 15th of October to the week before Christmas, and that after Christmas a second batch of 30 men should be sent. In that way 60 men would be instructed in their duties during the year at very little expense. He was aware that a scheme had been started to set up a Mounted Infantry school at Aldershot; but to carry it out would involve the getting and keep of horses for the purpose. In the scheme he had suggested this would not be necessary, because at this particular period of the year spare horses were always available in Cavalry barracks. He did not think the Cavalry regi-

    285
    ments would raise the slightest opposition to such a scheme. He also commended the position of the pioneers to the attention of the Secretary of State for War. He asked the Secretary of State for War for one favour—namely, that he would give the new rank of major to the senior riding-master in the Army. He thought the regimental riding-masters were an excellent class of hardworking men, who had a claim to one of the honours of the blue riband, which was bestowed by new warrant on the Department.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that that was the first occasion on which they had had before them, in anticipation of the discussion of the Army Estimates, a Memorandum prepared by the Secretary of State, and thought every hon. Member must fully appreciate the advantage of having such a paper instead of the general statement hitherto usually made orally by the Minister for the Department at a late hour of the night, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman, not only on being the first to have that opportunity, but also on the eminent ability, clearness, and completeness of the paper that he had laid before them. At the same time, he thought there were some points in the paper to which exception might be taken. The earlier portion of it was framed on this principle—the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to analyze the general bulk of the Estimates, and he resolved them into three parts—namely, the personnnel, the administrative portion, and those Votes which dealt with supplies, and he founded on that the argument that after all the amount of money on which saving could be effected or to which economical administration could be applied was but small; because, if they maintained an army of a certain strength, the men must be fed, clothed, housed, and so forth, and somehow administered, and it was not until they came to the supply of warlike stores and the erection of buildings that there was any great field for economy. Now, he ventured to think that there was a fallacy underlying that argument. In the first place, among the charges for personnel there were many matters which were the most proper subjects of all for economical administration. He did not speak only of the organization of the Army itself, which surely might be either costly or cheap; but such subjects as clothing,
    286
    rations, fuel and light, transport, equipment, ammunition, barracks, barrack-stores, and others were sources of expenditure of a very elastic kind; and might either be managed economically or extravagantly according as the Minister and his assistants were frugal or careless. And even when they came to the particular division in which the right hon. Gentleman implied that the cost of the Army might be most easily diminished—namely, the supply of stores, he said very rightly that they had committed themselves to many great lines of expenditure and had entered on certain undertakings, and that it was desirable that there should be no interruption in them. But oven there they might often be misled by phrases, and it is possible to proceed a little too fast or too far even on those lines of expenditure which were thoroughly good. The right hon. Gentleman said it was notorious that reductions of Army expenditure had largely been effected in past years by drawing on their reserves of stores. He was not aware to what the right hon. Gentleman referred, or whether he could give any instance or any proof of the assertion he had made. He knew it was often made; but he could not help thinking there was a considerable danger of real extravagance in the very opposite course, and that if they had too largo a reserve of stores it was more extravagant than letting them rather run down to some extent. There were stores and stores; some stores could not be improvised, and required time to manufacture; but there were others of which the pattern was often changing, which were of perishable material, and which could be procured in this country without any long delay; and there was a danger, if the doctrine were accepted that they must always keep a large reserve of stores, of excessive expenditure being incurred in that direction without any corresponding benefit to the country. He did not at all imply that that was done in these Estimates; but when a principle was laid down as it was in that Paper it would be well to bear in mind that there was a corresponding danger in the very opposite direction. With respect to the particular scheme of expenditure under Vote 12 he had not much to say. No one knew better than he did the dreadful amount that was claimed from the

    287
    War Office year after year for the new armament of the Army and Navy, both heavy guns and small arms. They had embarked on it, and they must go on with it; but what he should like to say was that as much reluctance as was reasonable should be shown in adding new expenditure while they were still Under the obligation to continue the old. Last year, when he came into Office with his hon. Friend near him, they found, as all the world knew, that they were engaged in the terribly costly undertaking of re-arming the Navy and also of supplying the Army with large guns of a new type. They had also begun the manufacture of the new field gun, which he believed was the most excellent weapon that any Field Artillery in Europe possessed, and which ought to be pushed on as quickly as possible. But they found also that a beginning had been made with a new rifle which was to take the place of the Maitini Henry. The new pattern had been approved; an enormous extension had been given to Enfield Manufactory out of the Vote of Credit at the end of 1885. Those extensions were not yet completed: and preparation was being made for going on at high pressure with the manufacture of the new rifle. Now that new rifle was only to be a little better than the Martini-Henry, and he must say that the very first decision they came to was that if possible that expenditure should either be stopped or abated in speed, while they had the other things in hand. It seemed to them that it was desirable to slacken the rate of production of that rifle. They were exposed to blame and odium on that account; but afterwards it was found out that the pattern was not the best; and it had only just been determined to substitute a new magazine rifle, against which he had nothing to say. This was an illustration of the desirability of sometimes being slow and hesitating to embark on a new enterprise. It was said it was intended to produce 25,000 magazine rifles this year; but he understood the pattern was not yet approved; and if that were so he would ask whether it would not be wise to be somewhat slow in commencing the manufacture? Even after a pattern had been approved, especially if it had been approved in a burry, it was not expedient to be precipitate in embarking upon
    288
    such an undertaking and committing the country to a very large expenditure. It was certain that the Vote for warlike stores reached a huge amount, and it had increased rapidly of late years. In 1884–5 it was £1,250,000; and it had sprang up pretty regularly until it now reached nearly £3,000,000 not to speak of a large sum spent on this service out of the Vote of Credit. This would show how costly all this business was; but the sums involved were so large, and had such a faculty of expanding from year to year, that he trusted some assurance would be given that the limit of the present Estimate would not be exceeded in another year. Last year he consented, in the Estimates he laid before Parliament, to an increase on the previous year of £310,000; and this year there was a further increase of £374,000. It might be necessary; but the amount must be dangerously' near the limit beyond which it was impossible for military expenditure to go. Indeed, some thought it was far exceeded now. We might well consider we had reached the highest level, and that it was not to be exceeded another year. He should not say much about the Establishment of the Army; and he certainly was not prepared to give any opinion of his own on the very vexed question of the reduction of the Horse Artillery, though his prejudices would be rather in favour of that step. As to the general scheme of mobilization, he admitted that it had many advantages, and it was more than a paper scheme. It was well we should have some standard up to which we should move, some point at which to stop, but the scheme ought not to be too pedantically applied. An Army Corps was arranged for regular Continental warfare, with which we had little likelihood of having anything to do. We were mostly concerned with irregular wars; and it was quite possible that although this might be a most symmetrical and, theoretically, perfect arrangement, yet, for the purposes of our smaller wars, more of one particular arm than another might be required. Therefore, he regarded with some suspicion, as a little too austere—a little too pedantic and theoretical—any idea of fixing ourselves to a particular organization of one, or two, or three Corps d'Armée. But it would have the advantage of

    289
    giving us some solid standing ground on which we could rest, and in that sense there was no harm in looking upon it as a practically efficient organization. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Paper which had been issued, referred to the promotion and retirement of officers. The Warrant issued at the end of the year had done a great deal to remove the serious grievance of men being obliged to retire into private life when they were perfectly fit for their duties. Before he left Office he had carefully considered this intricate subject, and had approved the main provisions of that Warrant, which wont as far as was practicable in the direction the House and the country desired to see followed. In the Warrant was introduced a principle in which he ventured to think was to be found the key to any just system of promotion, at all events, in the higher ranks—namely, that rank should not be given for the sake of rank itself, but should follow employment; that no man, for instance, should be a colonel who did not exercise the duties of colonel; and so of other ranks in the Army. That system had been applied in the Warrant to the rank of colonel, and it would be the means of preventing a state of confusion that would have been hideous to contemplate, because it had looked very much as if in the coming time we should run the risk of being taunted with having no officers but colonels in the Army. the result of the inquiries which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) instituted last year regarding the Volunteer Force had been most satisfactory, and the War Office was now in possession of the fullest particulars not only as to the individual corps, but with regard to the Force as a whole. It seemed to him the proposals of the Committee as to the Capitation Grant, modified by the right hon. Gentleman, fairly met the necessities of the case. He thought, in making the considerable concession which he proposed, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in the two conditions which he had laid down—in the first place, that there should be some guarantee of increased efficiency in musketry, and some check upon, and inquiry into, the irregular expenditure on the part of Volunteer corps not recognized by the War Office. If that were done, and the additional money was granted in the way suggested,
    290
    he made no doubt it would satisfy the legitimate requirements of the Volunteers; and the very fact that they had been treated in this generous way—at the same time putting a pretty tight check upon their expenditure—would have the best effect upon the organization and efficiency of the corps.
    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTsaid, it must be a great gratification to the Royal Artillery that their cause had been espoused by Members representing other arms of the Service He considered the proposed reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery as a most dangerous step. It was proposed to strike out 12 guns from the Army, and to turn 18 guns from Horse into Field Artillery. In time of war practically a greater number would be struck out, as there would be ammunition columns wanted. In case of hostilities, the four guns of each battery were to become six; but were hon. Members aware of the great difficulty which would have to be met in making up the reduced batteries? He did not believe that those who had made the suggestion could know what it was they really proposed. They could not be aware of the trouble required to turn out a skilful driver. It took three or four years to make an efficient driver in the Horse Artillery. It would be very interesting to know where this idea of reducing the Horse Artillery had been started. He could not believe that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had suggested it, because he knew very well the value of the Horse Artillery. He did not believe that Lord Wolseley suggested it, for he had had practical experience of their value. He did not believe the Secretary of State for War had suggested it, for he had not had time to turn his mind in this direction; nor did he believe it originated with the Intelligence Department. He was constrained to the belief that some permanent official, perhaps anxious to win his 6purs, first suggested the idea. The only grounds of justification for the reduction were, on the one hand, economy and expediency, and, on the other hand, the possibility of having more guns than the Army required. As to the first, he did not think that it would be true economy to reduce any branch of the Service; but it would be very bad economy to tamper with the Royal Artillery. There was a dark shadow hanging over

    291
    Eastern Europe; would it be wise at such a. time to reduce any branch of the Service? So much, then, for expediency. If the Government wished to enforce economy, let them begin by very considerably reducing the very heavy staff of civilians at the War Office. It was also said that we had more guns than we required. We had 102,000 men in England and the Colonies, and 130.000 Native troops—a total of 298,000 men. That, on the principle of three guns per 1,000 men, meant 891 guns. We had only 492 field guns, and 144 Horse Artillery, or a total of 636 guns. In Franco they had 1,938 guns, or an excess of 882. In Germany the proper number of guns to her Army was 1,116, but there were 2,040. The proper proportion for Russia was 2,070, but she had 2,178; and Austria, which ought to have 678 guns, had l,540. The duty of the Horse Artillery was supposed to be to accompany Cavalry in the field. Its movements were very rapid. It had to clash from one part of the field to the other. A skilful General would hold his Horse Artillery in hand in order to launch it, and check a charge of the enemy's Cavalry. There were numerous instances in which the Royal Horse Artillery had not only done gallant service, but had actually saved the Army. During the Peninsula War Norman Ramsay, when surrounded by the enemy, at the head of his six guns—the "Chestnut" troop—crashed8 through the masses of the French Cavalry, who thought to take him prisoner. Nothing could have been more gallant than the way in which Major Slade saved his Battery of Horse Artillery at the Battle of Maiwand. He had had the honour of serving in that branch of Her Majesty's Forces himself, and he was sure that in the observations he had made he was merely expressing the thoughts of the officers and men of the whole British Army. He hoped, therefore, that grave consideration would be given to the matter before this proposal to reduce the Royal Horse Artillery was adopted. He trusted that the Secretary for War, in conjunction with His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, would, in consideration of the brilliant and faithful services of the Royal Horse Artillery, be able to give these five threatened batteries a fresh lease of life, and would thus furnish them with an opportunity of adding fresh
    292
    laurels in the future to those which they had already won in the past.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to look at the Army Estimates, as a whole, from a civilian point of view. The first thing that struck the ordinary Member was that, although the Military Forces were reduced, the expenditure was increased. One of the most considerable items in the increase over the Estimates of last year was that of £46,000 under the head of Retired Pay. If there was one thing which had scandalized the public with regard to the Army Estimates more than another, it was the constant increase in the non-effective charges, and especially in the amount for Retired Pay. It must be recollected that these charges were incurred solely on account of the officers. This increase was the more marked as it was accompanied by a de-creased charge for the men. It seemed almost as if everythin8g in the Army was done for the benefit of the officers. Comparatively little was done for the men. The officer's widow received a pension; but the soldier's widow received no- thing. There were many posts in the Civil Service which might well be filled by discharged soldiers, who found considerable difficulty in obtaining employment. In estimating the number of our Military Force very little reliance could be placed on Estimates, seeing that, although it 8was estimated last year that we were to have a Regular Army 177,000 strong, we had at no time more than 144,000. Again, as regarded the Militia, instead of having 141,000 men in training, we had only 108,000. He was glad to say that the story with regard to the Volunteers was a very different one. This country had every reason to be proud of its Volunteer Force, and he remembered that the more bitterly because his own people wore not allowed to bear arms, He, however, could understand Englishmen taking an honest pride in the Volunteer movement, which formed one of the brightest pages in the history of their country. As to the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, the right hon. Gentleman had been so bold and so straightforward—not to say rash—in his admissions that he trusted there was a real reforming spirit behind them. At the same time, the right hon Gentleman had had a very sorry

    293
    tale to tell. Thus, he had stated that this country could not hope, to mobilize more- than two Army Corps, and that we had not sufficient Field Artillery even for that force. Had he Mr. Arthur O'Connor) been the War Minister, he should have hesitated very much about reducing the Horse Artillery, and especially should he have refused to reduce the E Battery B Brigade, considering the antecedents of that battery. The Government should remember that it was more easy to reduce such a force than to re-establish it. He thought that an economy might be effected by causing riding practice to be done in camp. Arguments derived from the German and French Armies could not be considered applicable to our Army, the circumstances of which were wholly different. The German Army was completely territorialized. Every corps had its head-quarters, and knew exactly what it had to do. In Franco a similar system was carried out, though to a smaller extent. But the English Army was dispersed in India, abroad, and in our Colonies. There was one question which the right hon. Gentleman had boldly faced, and that was stores. Two or throe years ago he complained that military stores were being depleted, in order to keep down the Vote. He had since hoard that stores were sold for that purpose. The present War Minister had admitted the depletion of stores, and blamed indiscriminate reduction; but, besides depleted stores, he hoped the Secretary of State would tell them something about the quality of the stores. It was known that such things as picks and axes and other tools were very bad in quality, and it would be well that something should be said upon the subject. He had hoard Lord Wolseley say that the axes issued to the troops serving under him in Canada were of no use except to amuse the inhabitants. Then the clothing of the men was made of material much inferior to that of the Italian, or French, or German Armies. The Transport Service also was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and had invariably broken down in every war in which we had been engaged since the days of Wellington. Regimental transport was particularly inefficient. Yet a great deal too much money was spent in this Department. It was a hobby of the War Office—of the
    294
    civilian rather than the professional element there—that it was necessary to move every regiment every two or three years. If those movements were made less frequent, it would be possible to effect an economy of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. Then, with regard to mobilization, we were in a very backward condition. He would suggest that valuable practice might be afforded if notice were periodically given to the officers in command of military districts to mobilize within a given time the troops in their district to act against an imaginary enemy. In this way experience and facility might be obtained which would be of good service in case of war. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State for War would persevere in a bold course; and, if he did so, the ideas of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) with regard to expenditure might be realized, and the nation get value for its money.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The course of the debate has, I think, illustrated very well the extreme difficulty of an unfortunate Secretary of State who endeavours to effect economies in our Military Expenditure. It has been extremely refreshing to hear to-night from some hon. Members speeches encouraging one to persevere in an honest attempt to reduce the expenditure of the Army, because, during the greater part of the evening, we have had speeches directly tending towards an immediate increase of expenditure. But I do not think that, even as to the reductions that have been proposed, hon. Members are themselves agreed. Hon. Members really are only agreed on two reductions; they think you can get rid of the Secretary of State for War if a civilian, and that you might largely reduce the cost of the administration of the Army at the War Office. I will not dwell on the latter point, because, as hon. Members know, a Royal Commission has been appointed to investigate that very subject, and if economy can be effected upon the recommendation of the Commissioners, no one will be more glad than myself to give effect to their views, if I should have the honour of continuing in the Office I now hold. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) suggested, as another moans of reducing expenditure, that we might

    295
    more largely employ soldiers in civil situations. That suggestion has been frequently brought before this House, and has been accepted with the greatest cordiality by the War Office. Almost all the messengers at the War Office are at present old soldiers, and every exertion is being made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Brodrick) to extend the system outside the boundaries of the "War Department. I hope the House will not suppose from these remarks that I disbelieve in the possibility of economy in the expenditure of the Army. On the contrary, my short experience at the War Office leads me to believe that economy can be effected, and that it can best be effected by this House arriving at a distinct knowledge of what it wants, and what it intends to keep as an Army. Lot the House form a definite idea of the Army necessary for the defence of the country and of the Establishment necessary for the maintenance of that Army. Lot it then vote liberally every shilling required to keep up that Establishment, and let it refuse to grant any demands that cannot be justified on that ground. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who spoke in very kind terms of some suggestions made in my Memorandum, alluded to the question of the reduction of stores. I ventured in the Memorandum to say that economy had often been effected by an undue reduction of stores; but I might have gone further and said that economy had been more than once produced by an absence of all stores. Military stores have been allowed to fall into a condition absolutely unjustifiable, and it has only been the fortunate accident of Votes of Credit that has enabled the War Office to get on at all. Now that is very unsatisfactory, and I hope the House will support me in the view expressed in my Memorandum, that it is essential that the necessary reserve of stores should be kept independently of every other consideration. In connection with the question of economy, the increase of charge for the retired pay of officers has been alluded to. That increase is certainly a very unfortunate fact; but the utmost has been done that could be done to reduce it. If the provisions of the Warrant issued when my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) was Secretary of State for War
    296
    are carried into effect, it is to be hoped that, at least, a check will be put upon, if an absolute reduction is not ultimately effected in, that item. Now I will pass away from these minor points. I should like to thank the House for the reception that has been given to the Memorandum which I have put forward in explanation of the Army Estimates. It was produced under circumstances of considerable difficulty. I feel that if a Memorandum of this description is to be worth anything more than waste paper, the Secretary for War must be just as responsible for every word contained in it as if he had given utterance to it in his place in Parliament. In that spirit I endeavoured to approach its preparation, and I take the personal responsibility for every word it contains. It is not as complete as I would wish, I confess. But is almost impossible for any War Minister to say to the full extent what he should like to do. There are deficiencies which are obvious to himself, but which he is not in the present position to supply. My object in putting forward this Memorandum was threefold—to endeavour to let the country know what the available Forces of the country really are; to establish a standard towards which all our efforts from year to year ought to be directed, and which would assist Secretaries of State when proposing any necessary increase or preventing indiscriminate reduction; and it was my anxious desire that this House should endeavour to treat the defences of the country as a whole, looking at them from all points of view, and realizing that you cannot add to or take away from any portion of these defences without interfering with the general scheme. Unless you regard them as a whole you may spend a great deal of money without producing much efficiency, or you may effect some small economy which would be fatal to your general scheme. It is from that point of view that I desire the House to regard the Estimates now before it. I have no reason to complain of the comprehensive speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley), which dealt with the subject precisely in the spirit I should like to see. He was studiously moderate, and brought to bear upon all he said the education of a lifetime. My hon. and gallant Friend dwelt upon two branches of the defence

    297
    of this country, one of which was the organization of the Forces at home in the event of invasion. He pointed out that they ought beforehand to be trained and organized upon some definite and consistent scheme. That is the intention of the Memorandum laid before the House, and of the organization scheme we have prepared. That scheme, for which the War Office is much indebted to the head of the Intelligence Department, General Brackenbury, organizes the available Forces for definite purposes and in definite ways; and in carrying it out every unit of our Forces—the Army, Militia, and Volunteers—has the precise functions pointed out that it would have to fulfil in the event of invasion, and arrangements are made for training them beforehand for the performance of their duties. We are now also prepared to say that we have arranged for our Army Corps places of concentration and places of embarkation. We hope before long that stores may be concentrated at these points. When that is done we believe we shall have put into order a complete system of concentration and of embarkation for our Army Corps under the shortest possible notice. I now pass to the other branch of the subject with which my hon. and gallant Friend dealt—the defences of our Coasts. I am free to confess that the picture he drew of the present state of things is not one that can be contemplated with perfect satisfaction. In one direction, however, progress has been made to a larger extent than anyone would gather from my hon. and gallant Friend's speech. I refer in particular to the defence of our Coasts by submarine mines. That has now been going on for many years, and I am glad to say that it has made great progress. We have already spent £416,000 on such mines, and we believe that this work is progressing rapidly towards completion. But this entails further expenditure, because you must have guns to defend these mines, and to defend the quick-firing guns you must have heavy artillery behind, and this has still to be provided. Therefore we are landed at this conclusion—that all the expenditure we have undergone requires further expenditure to make it effective and complete. No definite programme as to this expenditure has ever been laid before Parliament. Great delay has occurred, for which both Par-
    298
    ties are to blame. Both Parties are also agreed that if we could get the House of Commons in the precise humour to give us what we want we should carry out the necessary plan with expedition. I believe that the works we have done have put the forts into a much more effective position for defence than they have ever been before; but much remains to be done. Hon. Members know what the provision of great guns means. We have expended great sums of money upon them which would have startled our fathers or statesmen of a generation ago. These guns cost an enormous sum of money. Our Vote for arms at the present time is one which, I am bound to say, is enormous, and which for many years has been increasing in amount. Something, no doubt, may be done by the development of the Brennan torpedo, upon which we had a discussion the other night, which can be installed at three stations for the cost of one really big gun. I take a deep interest in all these questions, and I feel the responsibility which rests upon mo. I know that the defences of this country are not all they ought to be, and I am not inclined to shirk that responsibility. And I assure the House that the Government is fully sensible of its duty in this respect. We are considering most carefully how best to secure the fulfilment of the duty which devolves upon us, and if I can see my way to make any proposal for improving the condition in which those fortifications are placed I shall at once do so. Now, I pass to another subject, upon which there has been a good deal of discussion to-night, and on which I hope the House will look from the point of view of our general organization. I refer to the position of our Artillery, which was first introduced to our notice by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham), who delivered a good rattling attack upon mo, and who was followed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lambeth (General Fraser), who spoke with the authority of a Cavalry officer. They brought before the House what they believed to be the mistaken policy of the War Office in proposing the changes we have now put forward with regard to the Artillery. Let me ask the House to look at the whole question from a general point of view. Our Artillery is required for the defence of our Coast, for the defence of

    299
    our coaling stations abroad, and for the purpose of furnishing the requisite amount of artillery for the two Army Corps, and the question we have to deal with is how to provide for these necessities without unduly adding to the burdens of the country. To provide for the adequate defence of our Coasts and our coaling stations a large increase is necessary in our Garrison Artillery, and there is also a deficiency in the batteries of Field Artillery. In order to furnish our two Army Corps properly equipped for the field it is necessary to provide ammunition columns for them, for which no provision has hitherto been made, except on the spur of the moment. How is all this to be done? In my opinion it is only to be done by cutting down any superabundance and supplying any deficiency. The only superabundance was in the Royal Horse Artillery. I do not know whether hon. Members realize the cost of this force in money, in horses, and in transport. We felt that we were gaining money and horses for the improvement of other branches of the Service. We have added also wherever we believed that there was a deficiency. We have added three Field Batteries which we believed essential for the two Army Corps. We propose to add 1,800 men to our Garrison Artillery, although the whole of this number will not be obtained this year; we hope, however, to add 900 men this year. Hon. Members who have spoken in the course of this debate have taken the view that if we wish to reduce expenditure the course we have taken is foolish. But we are not going to reduce expenditure, and Members will, perhaps, be surprised to learn that, taking into consideration the cost of horses used for other purposes, the actual increase of cost will amount to £23,000 a-year. We are not undertaking this conversion which we have proposed for the purpose of diminishing expenditure, but because we believe that it is absolutely necessary in order to make the Artillery Forces of this country adequate for our needs. With regard to this conversion, I may state that I very deeply regret any pain that has been caused to the very gallant force which it affects. The efficiency and smartness of the Royal Horse Artillery make such a task one of great pain, all the more that one of the batteries proposed to be reduced is one
    300
    whose services are as such as have been mentioned to-night. More than one oil the batteries whose reduction is proposed have a record of which the Army and the Royal Regiment of Artillery may well be proud. But I am not responsible in any way for the choice of a particular battery to be reduced. They have been chosen on grounds which I behave to be generally recognized as fair to all the interests concerned. But I have listened to the manner in which that reduction has been opposed in the course of the debate, and there are two or three observations which I may venture to make to the House on the subject. First of all it is spoken of as if this conversion of Horse Artillery into Field Artillery was an actual reduction of military strength. Now, that is not the opinion of the military advisers of the War Office. The actual reduction of guns caused by all this conversion is not the 72 guns of which my hon. and gallant Friend spoke, but only 12; and the result of the whole conversion, so far from involving a reduction of military strength, will be to add largely to the defensive forces of the country. Now, if this scheme is to be accepted at all, I hope the House will also accept the other part of our scheme. An hon. and gallant Member told us a story of the state of things two or three years ago when some batteries were sent to Egypt, the batteries remaining at homo being left in a most attenuated condition. Very likely; but our object is to have no longer a large proportion of attenuated batteries, but to make those we have effective and valuable for service. Instead of many skeleton batteries we hope to have a few organized in the most effective manner, ready to be produced whenever they are wanted. I do not know if hon. Members have thoroughly grasped the perplexity of the situation in which we are placed by the great difficulty of horse supply in this country. That difficulty is a very great one, as has been so well pointed out, but it is especially difficult with regard to Horse Artillery; and I do not know if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lambeth has over thought how he could possibly manage if all the batteries of Horse Artillery were to be called out on active service. I say there are no horses available in the country to man those horse bat-

    301
    teries in any short time and to make them fit for active service. There is one remaining point. We have heard a great deal of discussion to-night, but nobody has ventured to contradict the fact that the number of Horse Artillery in this country is in excess of the proportion of Horse Artillery in foreign countries. Hon. Members have alluded, indeed, to the general proportion of Artillery to our other Forces, but nobody has said that the proportion of Horse Artillery is not in England larger than it is in any foreign country. It is for these reasons that we have arrived at the conclusion that we ought not to ask the House to maintain this expensive arm to a larger extent than is required for two Army Corps, and that we should not be justified in continuing a system for which we cannot find a sufficient justification; and I must therefore say, with great regret, that I am wholly unable to accede to the suggestions which my hon. and gallant Friends have made that we should continue those five batteries of Horse Artillery. Now, with regard to the Field Batteries, some hon. Members have spoken as if, when we had provided for the wants of two Army Corps, we should have no Field Batteries left. That is not the case. We should have 11 Field Batteries left, and it is intended, partly for purposes of economy, to utilize these for the purpose of forming ammunition columns in the event of the Army Corps being suddenly called upon service. I must honestly say that I should be glad to have more Field Batteries, which would be, of course, always available for the many small wars in which this country might be engaged; but, after carefully considering the subject in its various aspects, we have arrived at the conclusion that we are not justified in retaining a larger force of Field Artillery than is necessary for the defence of the country while we are asking Parliament to give us more money to increase the Artillery in other directions. I will now pass to one or two other questions which have been raised in the course of this discussion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) has, in particular, called attention to the strength of our Home battalions, and he would like both these and the foreign service battalions kept at full strength. There can be no doubt that
    302
    there would be great advantages in the policy which my hon. and gallant Friend recommends; but it would involve an addition of 10,000 or 20,000 men to the Army, and I do not think that the House would be prepared to support any War Minister who should ask for such a number of additional men. Then, my hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the number of men at the depôts, and it has sometimes been urged that we should not have so many men there. The subject is somewhat new to me, and I have not yet had an opportunity of looking into it; but I have always understood that the reason why young soldiers are kept at the depots is very much the same as that for which you send boys to private schools before you send them to college. You do not wish to place them at once in the midst of all the difficulties that it is necessary for them to encounter as they advance in life. In the same way, you do not like a recruit to join his regiment until he is able to encounter the difficulties and hardships which he has to meet in the regiment and when sent on foreign service. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) has called attention to the deficient supply of horses, and the conditions on which they are retained in the Service with respect to age. I cannot follow my hon. and gallant Friend into the details which he has brought forward; but I can honestly say that I have listened with concern to the facts which he has brought before the House to-night, because I know the enormous difficulty which we experience with regard to our horses. It was, I must say, a very disheartening thing to hear him speaking of the great difficulty there is of getting horses either in this country or in Canada, and, after all, saying that he had no remedy to provide. That view, Sir, however, ought not to satisfy a War Minister, and it does not satisfy me. The subject of horses is one of the most important character, as I ventured to say earlier in the evening, and it is one which my noble Friend the Under Secretary for War and myself are taking up in earnest. We are examining all the suggestions put forward for the purpose of improving the supply of horses, and considering, with regard to the mode of purchase, whether we should not en-

    303
    courage home-breeding, by providing some means by which the farmers might know when horses were required, and by every means which we think practicable. I can assure the House that we do not intend to let this year pass by without doing our utmost to improve the supply, whether it be by following the suggestions of hon. and gallant Members, or by other means which may commend itself to the War Office. There is, I think, only one other subject that I have to deal with, and that is the subject of the now rifly which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has referred to. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of his hesitation to allow the manufacture of the new rifle last year at a rapid rate. I do not at all complain of that decision. Although I admit that the Enfield-Martini is a very efficient arm, and an enormous improvement over that which the Infantry already possess, yet, since that weapon began to be constructed, my right hon. Friend is well aware that the question of the magazine rifle has come before us. In adopting a new rifle, it is necessary that we should be very careful to insure that we get hold of the very best weapon that is to be had, before we undertake the manufacture on a large scale. I assure my right hon. Friend that the matter has been under the consideration of the War Office, and the skilled officers in connection with it, since the year 1881; and we have had a Committee composed of officers not connected specially with the War Office, but officers of the Army and Volunteers, who are most thoroughly qualified to come to a decision on the magazine arm. Every magazine arm in Europe has been examined; the most exhaustive trials have been made, and we have now arrived at the point when we have submitted for trial a very considerable number of Lee and Lee-Burton rifles. Both these rifles have been recommended by the Committee, and we have decided that the best test to which they can be submitted is to issue a certain number to our Forces, in order that they may be tried under every conceivable conditions likely to arise in actual service we hope and believe that many weeks will not elapse before the trials come to a close, and that the Committee will be able to tell us whether or nut they have definitely selected one of these rifles. I am bound
    304
    to say that if the Committee is able to recommend a rifle for use by the Army I shall not be inclined to hesitate any longer. I believe the time has come when the British Army ought to be armed with the magazine rifle, not alone because of the increased efficiency which the magazine rifle will give, but because the mere fact of the possession of that arm will give more confidence to the Army. We all know very well the confidence which the breech-loading rifle gave to the German Army, and the panic which its possession caused to the Austrian Army; but I go further, and say that I believe that either of these rifles, if they were adopted by our Army, would be a weapon far superior to that possessed by any Continental Army, and would place us, in this respect, far in advance of any other nation. There is a great deal of exaggeration abroad as to the extent to which magazine rifles have been adopted by foreign countries. There is no doubt that some magazine rifles have been adopted; but there is a great deal of doubt as to their efficiency. We shall certainly proceed with caution, and when we get the report of the thoroughly qualified Committee I have referred to, and believe that we have got a weapon thoroughly efficient, and better than is possessed by other Armies, we shall not hesitate to ask Parliament to give us the moans of equipping our Army with that weapon. There are many points of detail on which I shall be glad to answer questions in Committee; but this I should like to say now:—We have discussed general principles affecting the organization of the Army, and I hope the House will allow us to go into Committee at once and take the first Vote. I need scarcely remind the House that it is absolutely necessary for the service of the country that we should get the first Yote tonight, and I ask to be allowed to go into Committee in order that any special question affecting the Yote for men and pay for the Army may be argued and discussed. I am aware that I am, in this, asking a great sacrifice of some hon. Members who wish to bring questions forward. But my hon. Friends will recollect that the point to which, I believe, they specially desire to refer—namely, the question of increased Capitation Grants—is one which will not affect the Volunteer

    305
    Force during the course of this; year. I dwell upon that point, because it is one which I know very well hon. Members wish to raise; but there may be others to which my remarks also apply. We shall have other opportunities of discussing these matters; but the main reason why I ask that we may be allowed to go into Committee without further delay is because it is the intention of the Government to accede to the proposal, which seems to be acceptable to the House, that, to some extent, at any rate, the Army and Navy Estimates should be referred to a Committee upstairs. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow us to take the first Vote tonight, so that we may be enabled to constitute the Committee without delay.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) has made an appeal to hon. Members, who have particular points to refer to, to allow the first Vote to be taken at once. But I confess that, looking on the general question of the expenditure) of the Army, and considering the very few opportunities which lie before us for general discussion as to the Army generally, and its proper strength, hon. Members on this side of the House, at any rate, are entitled to a few minutes respite; and I ask the forbearance of the House while I make a few remarks. At the outset, let me congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the very able, fair, and courageous statement which he has made, after the short time he has been in an Office where most of the items are now to him. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very gallant way in which he has stood to his guns. He has to-night sustained the attack of every hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken on a single item in connection with which it has been imagined that it was a proposal to reduce expenditure and weaken the strength of one branch of the Army. I refer to the Horse Artillery. One hon. and gallant Gentleman has, however, shown that, in this matter, there will be no economy to the taxpayer, and that it will, in. a certain sense, weaken the strength of the Army. We have had a regular field day on the present occasion; and I never remember one on which professional talk has been so universally
    306
    indulged in. I almost regret that any civilian, who has simply the interest of the taxpayers of the country at heart, should venture, by a single observation, to destroy the harmony of those hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have had the whole evening to themselves. But I wish to draw attention to one remark which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made at the outset of his speech. He said, first make up your mind as to the strength of the force required for the defence of the country, and then consent to the maintenance of this force at an efficient point. Well, Sir, I agree with that view as being thoroughly business-like; and I consider the suggestion one which ought to commend itself to every hon. Member of this House, and to the country at large. But what were his recommendations for the defence of the country? I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman there, and declare that this enormous military expenditure, which will be followed by a large naval expenditure, is wholly in excess of the requirements of the country. I cannot help thinking that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and the utterances of those hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken tonight are affected by the military frenzy which now exists on the Continent, and I think it would be as well if the right hon. Gentleman had turned aside for a moment and given us the views which the Government have with regard to the present state of Continental affairs. I do not hesitate to say that the Votes now asked for are far beyond the real necessities of the case; but, on the other hand, if there is any contemplation oil the possibility or probability of a British Force being sent to the Continent to take part in any great military operations, that our Force is ridiculously inadequate to such an end. I think it is necessary that the country should make up its mind as to the course it will pursue with regard to Continental affairs. It is not long ago that a right hon. Gentleman, who is assumed to be entitled to express an opinion on the condition of Continental affairs, declared at the Mansion House in the most solemn, terms that the condition of Europe, in respect to the relations of one nation to the other, was very grave indeed. I believe there is cause for the very gravest

    307
    anxiety to those who are interested in the maintenance of the peace of Europe. But the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) has also given his opinion as to the immediate position of Continental affairs, and for one in his position I may say that he has used most singular terms. He spoke of the prospect having improved. I venture to protest against that mode of speech. But has the Government made up its mind that it can in any case be its duty to take part in any Continental quarrel, and undertake the sending of a considerable force to any part of the Continent? If that is the position, then I am obliged to say that I do not think that the preparations made by the Government are by any means adequate to such a view. But I believe that the people of this country are coming to the conclusion that there can be no quarrel fomented on the Continent in which it would be the duty of this country to take any part, either military or naval. The increasing taxation which the country has been called upon to bear during the last 12 years, the depression which has become chronic in many industries, and the out cry against the intolerable burden which rests upon the shoulders of the people, convinces me that there is a growing intention on the part of the people of this country to say "hands off" with regard to Continental affairs. I should like to read a few words of my right hon. Friend the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), who said—
    "I cannot help thinking; that Europe is inarching towards some great catastrophe; the crushing weight of their military systems cannot be supported with patience, and their effects may before long sweep away the personages who occupy Thrones, and the instruments who govern in their names."
    I believe that an utterance of this sort which comes from the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham is one which must affect the mind of every thinking man in this country. It certainly looks now as if Continental nations were going towards some great catastrophe. I ask, is this country prepared to take a share in this great race, and to leap into this gulf? We are in a position so far unentangled with Continental affairs that we have the chance of holding back ourselves, and, at the same time, of exercising a wise and
    308
    restraining influence in Europe; and we are the only European Power which is able to do so. I cannot help thinking that there must be many people in this country who would be very glad if our Government could see its way towards a prompt withdrawal from any position which might involve the entanglement of the British Forces in any quarrel, either with regard to Bulgaria or as between Germany and Franco. There is absolute silence on the other side of the House. I desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). I know very well, from the kindliness of his nature, that he would willingly do all that lies in his power in order that the peace of the Continent may be maintained; but in order that was may have some security for that, I behave it is necessary for the Government to show far more courage and consistency than it has shown in its declarations on foreign policy. Once let it be known that this country will lend its best influence towards the settlement of International disputes, and then not alone would the Government consult the true interest of this country, but, instead of having to bear the humiliation which would follow the course of interference which I have indicated, its position would be raised in the minds of all right-thinking people at home and abroad. I come now, Sir, to the question whether this large Force is necessary for the defence of the Empire; and I say that I am convinced that the security of the Empire will be increased and its safety insured just in proportion as we withdraw from meddling in the affairs of Europe. If we do not meddle in those affairs we shall have the respect of Continental nations; and the more consistently we take up that position and maintain it, the more advantage will follow. What are the Forces available for the defence of the country? I shall say not one word about the Yeomanry, which everyone knows, for the purpose of defence, has been obsolete for generations; but I am about to offer a suggestion whereby the right hon. Gentleman may fulfil the demands proposed to be met next year. There is a proposal of a Capitation Grant for the Volunteers of a which is to be postponed until next year. My suggestion is, that the right hon. Gentleman should

    309
    give 10 s., and this, I am convinced, would be for the advantage of the country at large. Let them suppress immediately this soldier-play of the Yeomanry, and give the money to the Volunteers. It will cause a small increase in the Vote, but it will be approved by the country. We have 500,000 soldiers available for defence—that is, 140,000 Regular Troops, including officers; Militia, 120,000; Volunteers, 220,000; and at the back of that the Reserve Force, making a total of 500,000 men. I venture to say that, with a whole year's preparation on the part of Continental Powers, it would be impossible that they could land 300,000 men on these shores, and we have 500,000 men to meet them. Considering the security that our Fleet affords us, I venture to say that if 200,000 or 300,000 men were to embark for these shores, not one-third of them would ever reach the country. They would only be sport for our men-of-war, and the destruction would be terrific. Therefore, I say that the country would be justified in demanding a considerable reduction, both in the number of the soldiers and the expenditure which is incurred for the purpose of defence. We have never been able to get a cheap Army in this country; instead of its costing less per head, the tendency of late years has been to increase, and it will be so more and more in the Army, and especially in the Navy. As weapons become more scientific, they become more costly. I say there is no finality, either as to rifles or the armament of the Navy. There is a continuous advance made, one competitor going a step further than another, and, as competition increases, increased cost must necessarily follow. the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) brought great credit to the Conservative Party by putting forward some professions of economy in respect to the two great spending Departments, and the noble Lord left the Government because he could not make an immediate impression upon the rest of his Colleagues; but, instead of there being any diminution of expenditure, we have had, I believe, Supplementary Estimates amounting to £750,000, and we have also had an increase in the Estimates submitted to us to-night. Not only the noble Lord the Member for South Pad-
    310
    dington (Lord Randolph Churchill), but the right hon. Gentleman opposite, put forward professions of economy, by which I understand that the Conservative Party gained considerable credit throughout the country last year; but I venture to say that we have not to-night any substantial prospect of a reduction upon the Army and Navy Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman admits that in regard to our Coast defences they are left in a very inefficient position, and that it is necessary to go on, year by year, spending much more money. The right hon. Gentleman did not hesitate to say that if he were War Minister he should be courageous enough to ask the House for a considerable increase in expenditure in connection with some branches of our defences. I only wish to say, in impressing the points I have dwelt on upon the House, that this country should cither make up its mind to force every Government into an improved attitude in regard to this question of non-intervention, or it should be content to have an additional load year by year hung round its neck like Continental countries, which we see groaning under the increasing burdens they have to bear. On looking over the figures as to the proposition of annual expenditure on interest of war debts and the maintenance of armies and navies, I find it is calculated that half the taxation is disbursed in this way. But we in this country have gone far beyond that. We are spending nearer two-thirds of our taxation on the Army and Navy, interest on the National Debt, and on the small attempt we are making at reduction of Debt. This, I maintain, is an appalling state of affairs. When I remind the House that since the year 1870, or a little further back, the Civil expenditure has doubled itself—largely, of course, in consequence of that Act of true wisdom passed by this House, namely, the Education Act of 1870—when, I say, we remember that this enormous increase has taken place in the Civil expenditure, although what we are spending on education is productive, and will be remunerative, surely we ought to be making a grave attempt, on the other hand, to reduce our expenditure on an overgrown Army and Navy. I think the House of Commons will fail in its duty if over and over again this

    311
    question is not raised and discussed—if we do not avail ourselves of every opportunity that offers itself of raising it in order to make some impression on the Government, and the policy they pursue in regard to foreign affairs. When we consider the Estimates put before us year by year, and observe the enormous total of £31,000,000 spent on the Army and Navy, we stand appalled; j but we must remember that this by no means covers the expenditure. As year by year passes, we see Votes of Credit agreed to, now for £6,000,000, now for £11,000,000, for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on another occasion. If these are all totalled, it will be found that there is an addition of 10 to 20 per cent to be made in the ordinary Estimates presented to this House for Army and Navy Services. All I can say is, that I think the prospects of the country's industry are of a most gloomy character if, while we are subjected to increased competition, and to a denial of ordinary seasons at home, we are called upon to bear burdens that were unknown during very prosperous periods of our history. One of the first duties of the Representatives of the people—particularly when they know so well the suffering that almost universally prevails amongst almost all classes except those who enjoy the proceeds of public taxation—is to make an effort, it may be over and over again, to produce some permanent effect upon the Government in the way of bringing about a reduction of these swollen Estimates.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I had intended to bring before the notice of the House the question of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) in regard to the Capitation Grant for the Volunteers, and more especially to his injurious proposition to make it entirely dependent upon getting out of the third class in musketry; but after the appeal the right hon. Gentleman has made to us, I will not prevent him from taking the Votes in Committee. I am the more induced to take this course because I understand the right hon. Gentleman to promise me that he will make no order effecting a change in the matter of the Capitation Grant until he has received a deputation of commanding officers of Volunteers, and has had time to consider
    312
    the views which they will lay before him.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think the hon. Member who has just sat down is quite right in refraining from making a long speech on this occasion; but the reason which should restrain him does not apply to me. We have had three or four very able and very long speeches from the other side of the House, so that the views of hon. Members in that quarter may be taken to be pretty well ventilated. It is unfortunate that they cannot state their opinions without doing it at considerable length; but, at any rate, after what they have said, we in this quarter have a right to be heard. I think I am quite right in asserting that hon. Members on the other side have spoken for by far the greater portion of the time to-night. I will, therefore, take the liberty to occupy a brief space. I can quite see that the central idea that has been in the minds of the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is with regard to the formation of two Corps d' VArmée; but I must point out that it will be a very dangerous idea if they let it go too far. The idea is to have a completely organized Army of about 70,000 men for two Corps d'Armée, and they are prepared to make sacrifices for that. No doubt it is a very good thing to have 70,000 men who can be mobilized at any time. It is a good thing from a War Office point of view, though from the point of view of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) there should be no such idea as the formation of two Corps d'Armée, capable of rapid mobilization, as it would be a temptation to this country to in terpose in foreign complications. I am not sure that the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman are not sacrificing too much for their idea, because it seems to me that a great country requires something more than 70,000 men for defensive purposes, or for use in the event of a large war. I do not think it should be left out of consideration altogether that some day or other this country may be invaded. The hon. Member for Bradford says that if 500,000 men were sent out to invade us only a very small proportion would be able to land on our shores—that probably two-thirds of them would be sunk on the way. For myself, I do not think that that would be the case; but let us sup-

    313
    pose that the 500.000 men were enabled to reach our shores—what force would you have to meet them? The hon. Member for Bradford says that we should have 500,000 men to meet them—and he is not very far wrong. Taking into consideration the Volunteers and the Militia, and swelling the force of the garrisons we have in our fortresses, we might take it that we have a fair fighting force of 300,000 men. Still, does anyone think that the number of Horse Artillery we should find ourselves possessed of would be sufficient for a force of that size? They certainly would not be sufficient for such an Army, although they might be for two Corps d' Armée of 70,000 men. It must be remembered that it would take at least two years to turn a Field Battery into an efficient Horse Artillery. You cannot improvise Horse Artillery. You are now going to give up all our Horse Artillery except only so much as you require for 70,000 men. Our Horse Artillery must be ready to run away if need be, and to take rapid action in the field, and in order to bring about a proper state of efficiency in such a force you require the best men you can get, and the best training you can procure. The men must all be first-class riders as well as efficient in musketry practice. Horse Artillery, in fact, would be worse than useless on active service unless it is very good. It seems to me, therefore, that with a largo and complete Field Artillery, including in that word Horse Artillery, you will be what commercial men call cutting it a great deal too fine. The Government in 1872 reduced the Volunteer Artillery, and I remember pointing out at the time that the course they were taking was a very dangerous one. The defence for the step at that time was that the Volunteer Artillery would not be effective as a Field Artillery; but now you are reducing our Horse Artillery because they are too good. You are cutting away at both ends. You have taken away from the number of our Field Force, and now you are taking away from the Force which is by far the most difficult to re-create; and I repeat emphatically that in this proceeding you are doing a very dangerous thing. I give you this advice just as I presumed to offer you advice in 1872. It will take two years before the present Horse Artillery cease to be Horse Artillery and become Field Artil-
    314
    lery; and I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to make his conversion in such a manner that during the next two years the Horse Artillery which he is converting into a Field Artillery may be re-converted into a Horse Artillery. I think it is not at all unlikely that within this period of two years he may find it necessary to reverse the process he is now undertaking. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman another point—namely, the pay of the men. The Force that he is going to convert into a Field Artillery have been getting higher pay as Horse Artillery, and they have come to look upon this higher pay just as the right hon. Gentleman looks upon his emoluments as a right. the amount the men have been receiving as extra Horse Artillery pay is only a sum of £1,500; but this is an amount that these men will miss, and that they ought not to be deprived of. You say you will bring the men back into the Horse Artillery. Well, you may bring some of them back—you will no doubt, with the exception of a few, bring them all back. You will bring the very best of them back, but there will be some inferior to others, and these will not be picked out, so that in the matter of pay you will be inflicting an injustice upon those few left behind. The item is only a small one, but I think, in justice to these men, the point I raise should be considered. There is another argument which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made use of which I think on reflection, he, with his logical mind, will see is not a sound one. He says that one reason for not increasing the Horse Artillery is because there is not a sufficient number of good horses in the country. I contend that this matter of the supply of horses is simply a question of supply and demand. If you keep the number of horses down in peace time, you will not have a sufficient number to draw from in time of war. The question of the supply of food and the other points are only so many arguments brought in to support a preconceived idea, and I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman is pushing that idea altogether too far. You will have our Volunteers without any Field Artillery support—you take away from the Field Artillery and then you suppress the Horse Artillery, and you take away a number of horses from the Field Ar-

    315
    tillery for the purpose of putting them in an ammunition column. Supposing our two Army Corps lose a battle, and are taken prisoners, what will be our position? You will find that you have left our Volunteers with no guns at all, excepting a small force of Horse Artillery, and in the worst possible state for sustaining a fight—that is to say, with all their horses taken for the ammunition column. With regard to this other question connected with the Horse Artillery—namely, the question of horses—my contention is, that there is an ample supply of good animals in the country, which you could obtain if you would only pay a little more than you do for our supply. If you raised your contract price you would find very little difficulty, in the course of three or four years, in getting all the horses you want. I will tell you how you obtained your horses some 10 or 12 years ago, because I was acquainted with the officer who had to buy them. You had a largo contractor in London, who arranged with the farmers in the North of England to buy all the horses that they could supply of four or five years of age. It was found that the farmers sent all their best horses to dealers to be sold for carriage purposes, and those that were not good enough for carriages were thrown into the Artillery. This was because the Army contractor was not able to compete with the private purchaser. If he had been prepared to give a little more money for his horses, 3'our contractor would have been able to get the best animals. I hold that there are any number of good horses to be obtained in London alone. I am certain that if you sent men round to gather up all the horses that could be found in Hyde Park, and in other parts of London, you would get, in the course of a week, 20.000 of as good horses as you could possibly want. I repeat that you do not pay a sufficient price for your horses. There is another method, as has been pointed out by a Cavalry General, by which you could improve our supply of horses and the quality of the horses you obtain at the same time. I think this result would be effected by establishing sires in Ireland. I do not know that sires are so much wanted in England as they are in Ireland; but under present conditions in Ireland the horses run small, and are hardly of
    316
    much use for Artillery. They are well-bred animals, but rather too light. I had intended to say something about the magazine rifles, but do not think it desirable to take up the time of the House at this late hour. I must say, however, that I do not think the late Secretary of State for War gave very good advice to the present occupant of that Office. I think if you keep waiting for the best magazine rifle which can be produced, it is very possible that you may bring about a condition of things similar to that which astonished the world during the short war between Germany and Austria not long ago. We all know the extraordinary result of the adoption of the needle-gun by Germany. The German needle-gun was by no means a good weapon; but, poor as it was, it had an enormous advantage over the weapon in use in the Austrian Army. It seems to mo, therefore, that it would be advisable for the Army Authorities of this country to possess themselves now of 10,000 or 20,000 magazine rifles, although there may be a better pattern invented later on. If we had such a supply, we should be ready for any pressing emergency, and should still be in a position to reconsider the question of the adoption of an efficient pattern. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could follow the advice of his Predecessor in regard to the magazine rifle without incurring a certain amount of risk.
    DR. CLARK: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) whether he would tell us why, in the new Royal Warrant, he has deprived medical officers of their relative rank? I would tell him that the course he is adopting is causing considerable dissatisfaction amongst the medical officers of the Service. Gentlemen who have occupied the position of the Secretary of State for War have recognized that with medical officers, as with many other people, rank is everything. By your new arrangement you are bringing about a most important change in the status of the medical officers—in fact, from their point of view, you are degrading them. That is their feeling—they feel that you are degrading them to a lower status than the Commissariat.

    317
    I think this branch of the Service does rot deserve such treatment. If the right hon. Gentleman will glance over the list of casualties—if he will search among the records of the killed and wounded for the lust few years, he will find the names of a large proportion of medical officers. If he will look into the records to see who have obtained the Victoria Cross of late years, he will find that medical officers have as much right as any other men in the Service to be called combatant officers. I contend that this is no mere matter of sentiment. The position and comfort of those officers is being affected by the proposal of the Government. They are combatant in position as well as rank, and I fail to see what the Medical Service has done to justify such treatment. I think they would understand your arrangement much better if you were giving them the same pay as combatants; but you are doing nothing of the kind—you are merely degrading them from their present positions. If this policy is carried out, I believe you will find great difficulty in getting medical men to join the Army. Instead of abolishing relative rank, you ought to have given medical officers actual rank, as is done in Continental Armies. That would be considered by medical officers as something better than even an increase in their salaries. I do not know of anything the members of the Medical Department have done to cause the War Office or the Horse Guards to deprive them of the very great privilege I have mentioned. During the time I speak of they have lost greatly in killed and wounded, many of them have gained the Victoria Cross, and they have done a great deal to reduce the death-rate in the Army—the death-rate has been reduced from 19 to 6 per 1,000 at homo, and from 17 to 15 per 1,000 in India. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the reasons which have caused the Government to reduce the Medical Profession to its present position in the Army, and thus create great dissatisfaction amongst our Army medical officers.
    MAJOR RASCH: I do not propose to engage the attention of the House for more than a very few minutes; but I wish to mention certain educations which might be very properly effected in the Estimates, and the
    318
    saving applied to the benefit of the private soldier in the way of a free kit and rations, which he has always been promised, but never yet been able to get. The first item in which I suggest a reduction is that for the Staff—very nearly £200,000 is required for the General Staff. A reduction might also be very well made in the item—£90,000—for Commissariat and Transport. Our Army is the most over-stocked Army in Europe. We have the Quartermaster General's Staff and the Adjutant General's Staff—two Staffs which ought to have been amalgamated 16 years ago. We have the Medical Staff, the Commissariat Staff, and the Ordnance Staff, and I cannot help thinking that these Staffs might be amalgamated in peace time as they are amalgamated in war time. The Staff we keep at Aldershot, in order to supervise about half-a-dozen skeleton battalions, is equivalent to the entire German Staff in time of war. The next matter I wish to advert to is the increased expenditure on civilian clerks at the War Office. Last year the civilian clerks were increased to about 400, and their pay amounted to £118,000. We have about 85 military clerks receiving only £100 a-year each. The work is very easy and very quickly learnt. I cannot understand why we should not have more military clerks at £100 a-year each, and fewer civilian clerks drawing £290 a-year each. The worst of all is that these clerks have to justify their existence, and they do this by calling for Returns, the number of which increases every year. There is no reason why money should not be saved by cutting down the Returns made in the Service. For instance, the Returns which are now made monthly might be made half-yearly, and the Returns now made half-yearly might be made yearly. At present soldiers are turned into accountants, in order to produce Returns which are never wanted by anybody, which are no more good than the Blue Books which hon. Members get every morning. One word with regard to the expenditure on military law. The administration of military law costs £35,000 a-year. This expenditure is occasioned as much as anything by the number of desertions and courts martial. Last year there were 1,500 desertions, and about 10,000 courts martial. Now, if commanding officers were allowed to eliminate the

    319
    bad characters from the ranks, the number of desertions and the amount of crime would diminish. Bad characters are turned out now, but as soon as they are turned away they enlist in another regiment. The only way to reduce crime in the Army, and to eliminate bad characters, is to mark every man, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards, who enters the Army. I should like to call attention to the question of transport. In England regiments are moved from one place to another two or three times a-year. Cavalry regiments move right across England once a-year, without the slightest rhyme or reason. It is said the practice has always been carried out, and it always must be. An enormous sum might be saved by a reduction in the expenses of transport. The sums saved might be expended in ameliorating the condition of the private soldier, in giving him a free kit and free rations, and 1s. a-day, which has been promised. A free kit he never gets; but at the end of every year he finds himself £1 in debt. As to free rations, he is supplied with 1 lb. of bread and three-quarters of a pound—very often only half-a-pound—of the worst possible meat, and his 1s. a-day which has been promised to him is brought down to about 8½d. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) and hon. Members who know anything of the subject will agree with me that nothing disgusts a soldier more than to find that he has been taken in—that, in fact, he was induced to enlist upon false pretences.
    MR. DELISLE: Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme reluctance I rise to interpose between the House and the Committee; but I consider I have a duty to perform. I wish to direct attention to a very important point in the Memorandum which has been supplied to hon. Members, and to remind the House that in that Memorandum an admission is made which reflects very seriously upon the conduct either of this or previous Parliaments. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) states in this Memorandum—
    "It will be observed that provision is made in the Estimates for carrying on the works of defence at our coaling stations, and for providing them with guns; beside the amount to be
    320
    voted for the work of submarine mining. The sum taken is somewhat in excess of that which has for the last two years been included in the Estimates. It will enable the defences of Hong Kong, Sierra Leone, and, approximately, those of Singapore, to be completed."
    It is to the word "approximately" I object. I shall show, in a very few words, that the use of that word "approximately" amounts to an admission that the House of Commons has been guilty, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in the previous paragraph of the Memorandum, of "a breach of faith." At the same time, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the courage and candour which have enabled him to place before us the real state of things. We have made a bargain with Singapore to provide the necessary armaments, if the Government of the Straits Settlements would pay for the forts, and yet we have failed to fulfil the obligation we undertook. A more serious charge could not be made, and I would not have made it, especially at this late hour (1.15) of the Sitting, had I not been connected with the Colony of Singapore, and had some opportunity of learning something of the circumstances. Only the other day I received two letters upon this subject from Members of the Straits Settlements Legislative Council. I will not give the writers' names; this might be inconvenient; but I may be permitted to read passages from the letters. One of my correspondents says—
    "After the answer given by the Secretary of State for War to Sir William Crossman's inquiries on Tuesday, it is quite clear that much greater pressure than any that has yet been brought to bear is needed to make them ask for more money, which is what is required to enable the manufacture of guns to be expedited by holding out inducements to private firms to lay down machinery at once for manufacture of guns. It is nearly three years since the Imperial Authorities knew what they had to do, and they have so far given Singapore four new guns, and remounted a few obsolete inefficient ones; and they propose to give us the balance by driblets, "to be completed in 1889. And, meantime, are they going to give us first-class modern ships till we get our guns—have they got them to spare for the purpose? The Secretary of State for War says on certain stations, including Singapore, the Government has spent £183,530, and expect to spend £206,555—i.e., on the armaments of those stations: but he is very careful to avoid saying over what period that expenditure is extended."
    I will now read an extract from the second letter I have received, the writer

    321
    being a gentleman who is well up in everything which concerns the defences of Singapore—
    "I am very glad to see that you propose to call attention to the question of our coaling stations. Ever since I have come home, I have been representing how disgraceful it is that the Mother Country does not fulfil her obligations to her Colonies; and have been urging that we should not put off till to-morrow what should be done to-day. At Singapore we have rushed through what we were asked to do, only to find that a part of the ordnance has not even been ordered yet. People write and talk as if something colossal was involved. Why, if the recommendations of the Royal Commission had not been emasculated, it would have only meant the cost of construction of three first-class ironclads for all our coaling stations put together."
    Now, the point I wish to impress upon the House is that until the armaments of any Colony are completed, the money spent is as good as thrown in the sea. Your capital is dead capital; it makes no return. Therefore, I say that, in the interests of this country as well as of the Colonies, it is the duty of the Government of the day to see that at all costs the armaments and fortifications which have been commenced are completed without any delay. We are informed that Singapore will not be armed for several more years to come, except "approximately." Singapore is the high road between the Eastern Seas and the Southern Seas; it commands the whole of the trade between England and China, and much of the trade with Australia; and, therefore, it is most important that this, at least, of our coaling stations should be adequately defended. If the Government are unable to get from this House a Vote of money sufficient to enable them to perform what is a most serious duty, they ought to raise a loan for the purpose. The point has already been well touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley). The sentence which follows the one I have quoted from the Memorandum shows there is a means of doing what is a matter of duty, and which, if not done, implies a breach of faith. It is said—
    "Some advance will be made in other cases also; but it cannot be denied that an acceleration of this work beyond the rate of progress laid down in 1884 would be eminently desirable, especially as it is well known to everyone who has looked into the subject that more than one station of primary importance still remains undefended."
    I would venture to suggest that no ad-
    322
    vance need be made in the other cases until our obligations are satisfied with regard to Singapore. It is surely more prudent to have one place quite completed than half-a-dozen approximately complete. Besides, when you read these words you imagine the Government are going to act upon the lines laid down in 1884; but they are going to do no such thing. The fault lies between the Government and the House of Commons. In 1884 it was solemnly declared to the Government of Singapore that if they would spend a certain sum of money upon the fortifications, the guns should be completed and ready to be mounted on the fortifications in 1887. This Memorandum clearly shows that it is not intended that the armaments shall be completed until 1889. I maintain that if you are really in earnest in respect to the fortification of our coaling stations, you ought to set about the work at once. When I was at Singapore there was a fleet of eight Russian war vessels cruising about and surveying the harbours for nearly six months at a time. They could have seized upon the place in as many hours if war had been declared. Lest anybody should think I have been guilty of exaggeration in what I have said, I will call attention to the words of the Memorandum. My experience is a very short one; but I doubt whether any Minister of State has ever made such a candid confession which so seriously involves the credit of this House and the Government as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War does in this Memorandum. The right hon. Gentleman says—
    "I am anxious to bring prominently forward the fact that the manufacturing and engineering departments necessarily enter into contract engagements extending over several years, and that a sudden curtailment of Estimates may often mean not only the stoppage of a particular work, but the loss of a large part of the money already expended, or it may involve a breach of faith. Take, for instance, the expenditure upon our coaling stations, which is, and ought to be, regulated by the general scheme laid down in 1884, accepted by the Treasury, and at that time submitted to Parliament. Upon the faith of that scheme we have induced some of our Colonies to vote, and to expend large sums of money on the understanding that, if they would undertake the cost of the works, the Imperial Parliament would find the armaments. In more than one case the Colony has kept its part of the bargain, while the Imperial Government has not obtained the necessary funds to do so.

    323
    In all these cases the faith of Parliament is deeply pledged, and, quite independently of the great interests involved, we are bound in honour to provide the necessary funds, at least upon the scale laid down in 1884."
    If the House is not willing to vote the money this year, I ask it to authorize the Government to raise a loan with which to complete the armaments in a proper way. It' such a proposition cannot be entertained; if the House is utterly careless of the engagements made by previous Houses of Commons; if the House is prepared to follow the example of a noble Lord and sacrifice its reputation upon the altar of thrift and economy, I can only hope that the authorities who are interesting themselves in the celebration of the Jubilee of Her Majesty will devote the funds they have collected to build a superfluous Imperial Institute Hall to discharge this most important and necessary duty of the country—namely, to fulfil its engagements in respect to the fortifications of our coaling stations, at least as far as Singapore is concerned.
    DR. TANNER: It is not my intention to deal at length with the question before the House. We have practically gone round the world in our discussion this evening, and I had intended to bring under consideration, and call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who has this matter in hand to, the fitness of Seychelles as a coaling station. But, we having had a satisfactory answer from a right hon. Gentleman belonging to another Department connected with the subject, I shall not deal with it to-night. I think we have not received a satisfactory assurance from any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench with regard to the Medical Department of the Army, which, by the statement made earlier in this discussion by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), appears to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. I remember that not many years since, when that Department was as low as it could possibly be, we could not get young men at the various Medical Schools to enter for the Army Medical Department. Since that time you have had progress made in this Department, which has tended to allay the fears and satisfy the longings of men who entered the Service. I am not going to pursue that
    324
    point, however. I wish to say that I have received five letters upon the subject of the Army Medical Department from different parts of the world. Some of them are from personal friends, and, if what I understand from them be true, the state of affairs is at present very serious. The last letter I received only yesterday afternoon, and I am told that, practically speaking, the medical men in the Army who are serving at Aldershot do not know whether they are entitled to wear the uniform at all, and if they are entitled to wear the uniform, whether the badges they hold in the Service are not to be altogether done away with. These gentlemen have to go through a long training, to undergo a good deal of trouble and self-denial, and they have to expose themselves to much danger—quite as much as any hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken in the debate of this evening. That being so, I say that the rights of these men must be recognized; and I maintain, unless something is done to improve their position in the Army, that you will be placing yourselves in a false and unwise position. I will quote a few figures taken out of the last Report which I have been able to lay my hands upon this evening in the Library. I find that of 187,786 men you have an enormous proportion admitted yearly into hospital. If you take these figures and lay them to heart, you will see that by doing anything which will militate against this most important branch of the Service, you will do great harm not merely to the Army, but to the various factors which compose it, and perhaps to that portion of the population from which you recruit the Army. You have 9,302 non-effectives, and you have 3,019 men discharged last year as invalids. I say that if you do not offer inducements for the best men to enter the Army, men who are able not only to deal with sickness when it crops up, but who can distinguish whether the recruits submitted to them are sound men, you will get into your Army a large number of cripples whom you will have to discharge, and also have to pay for. There are upon the Paper a number of Amendments to this Vote by some of the highest authorities in the House; among them the hon. Member for Hackney has a question upon this very point, and I am assured by my hon. Friends

    325
    from Ireland that they are not satisfied with the answers which have emanated from the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I sincerely hope. Mr. Speaker, that before this debate closes some satisfactory assurance will be given to gentlemen who are already in the Service; and I also trust that some assurance will be given to the junior medical officers in the Army that they will not immediately be translated to a warm climate—India, for instance—in their first year of service. That has been the practice, and I have pointed out how it has happened again and again that numbers of these young men having joined the Medical Department have met their death in the first 12 months. Many of the men who enter the Service are young and unseasoned; and, therefore, I say you should give them a chance, and when they have become seasoned you can utilize them: but it is a great mistake to send out men to hot climates, as appears from the Reports presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), which show the actual cost of each trained soldier. Practically speaking, if you pass them through a certain amount of training and pay a certain amount of money for them, and if they become invalided and die in the first year of service, you will be inflicting a great loss on the country. I trust that the suggestions which I have made will be taken in the sense in which I desire them to be received by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates; and I will, in conclusion, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and other Medical Schools have practically endorsed this appeal on behalf of the Army Medical Service. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give me some assurance that the grievance of this Department of the Army will be dealt with in a satisfactory way.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee)

    SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES, 1887–8.
    (1.) 149,391, Number of Land Forces.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I should like to ask the Government whether there is any serious intention to ask for Votes in Supply to-night? We have been engaged during the whole evening in a very important and interesting discussion on the affairs of the Army, and I cannot think that the Government are serious in asking us to vote this money at 1 o'clock in the morning. I think such a proposal would be altogether unreasonable. There are hon. Members of the House who have given Notices of Amendments for the reduction of the Vote, and who, on the supposition that the Votes would not be taken at this hour, have gone away. I consider that it would be unreasonable to take Votes in the absence of hon. Members who are interested in those Votes, and therefore I think we ought to report Progress.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already pointed out that it is absolutely necessary that we should have the first Vote to-night. Hon. Members will be aware that we must comply with the law; and it was perfectly well understood that it was our intention to ask for the money to-night.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: What will be done in connection with the Navy Votes?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. SMITH): we do not propose to take the Navy Vote to-night; but it is essential that the first Army Vote should be taken.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I was asked a moment ago by a right hon. Gentleman if Members on these Benches were likely to oppose this Vote; and I am afraid that, without authority, I stated that I considered it as practically agreed that the Vote for the men would not be opposed.
    COLONEL NOLAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will answer a question on this subject, I think it will remove the present difficulty. If we give the Government the first Vote, will they allow us an opportunity for a general discussion hereafter?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: There would be no disposition on the part of the Government to deprive hon. Members of the opportunity which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for; but I may remind him that it has been proposed to refer these Votes to a Select Committee; and I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman to understand that if any delay should arise, it will not be because the Government desire to prevent the discussion which he is anxious to have.
    DR. TANNER: Throughout the long discussion which has taken place, there have been very few speeches from these Benches; on the other hand, the debate has been carried on entirely by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have spoken with several hon. Members to-night, who have since left the House in the belief that the Navy, and not the Army, Estimates were coming on. I know it was the intention of several hon. Members on this side of the House to oppose one portion of this Vote—that is to say, the portion of it relating to the Household Brigade. I cannot but think that it would be very injudicious to proceed with the Vote at this very late hour; and that, having regard to the circumstances I have referred to, it should be taken on Thursday next. I suggest that the Government should allow Progress to be reported.
    MM. W. H. SMITH: I am very sorry that it is not in my power to accede to the appeal which has been made to me. To-night was set apart for the discussion of the Army Estimates, and Thursday night for the discussion of the Navy Estimates, and it would be an interference with the legitimate discussion which might fairly take place on the Navy Estimates if the debate of this evening, in regard to Army matters, wore carried over until Thursday. I should be charged with not having foreseen the desires of hon. Gentlemen to discuss naval questions. It is essential that these two Votes—namely, the Votes for men and money in the Army—should be taken to-night; it is necessary not only in the interests of discussion and Business in this House, but also in the interests of the Public Service.
    MR. PULESTON: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, I think we all understand that these Votes
    328
    should be taken, and taken at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War dwelt upon the necessity of having a variety of opinions expressed on any subject coming before the House of Commons, and of having measures such as those that have been before us to-night generally discussed. Well, most of the subjects which have been dealt with to-night could, I think, be very easily discussed in Committee; and the First Lord of the Treasury has foreshadowed the possibility of having them discussed upon a future Vote, or in some other way. But, as I understand it, there is one important measure which has occupied a large portion of the debate to-night, and upon which there has been as strong a consensus of opinion as the Secretary of State for War, during his long and distinguished career, has ever known. I refer to the proposed changes in regard to the Horse Artillery. I take it that we shall not be able to discuss that measure again if it is the fact that the Force, as it at present exists, will be broken up in April. My desire in mentioning the subject now is to ascertain if there is any possibility, in view of all that has been said hero to-night, of the Secretary of State for War enabling the House of Commons to arrive at a conclusion on this subject by putting down the debate for some day prior to that on which the proposed change is to be effected?
    DR. TANNER["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Divide!"] I am merely standing up for absent Friends, and I should be wrong if I did not. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is in such a great hurry to got these Votes. Probably some money may be wanted; but certainly it cannot be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to get the whole amount. If I may suggest a compromise, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman would effect his purpose, while at the same time allowing us the opportunity for debate which we require, if he takes, say, one-half of the money on account. I think that is a reasonable proposal, and should meet with his acceptance. If he does accept it, the subject may be debated by Friends of mine who usually sit on these Benches, but who have gone away to-night thinking that no Votes would be taken. I object to the Government springing

    329
    Votes like this upon the House, and attempting to rush them through at this hour of the night. It is not what the country would like or would endorse, nor is it fair to hon. Members who have gone away. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, at any rate, to meet us half-way. If he is not satisfied with what I have suggested, perhaps he will offer us some suggestion of his own which will enable hon. Gentlemen not present on this occasion to speak on this Vote.
    COLONEL DUNCAN: I am sure the majority of hon. Members present are anxious to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and to pass these Votes at once. It would be a great gratification to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House if he would give us an assurance that we shall be able to have a further discussion on the question of the reduction of the Horse Artillery before that reduction takes place. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), I think we should be assured that such a question as this, and questions which interest many other Members—questions connected with the paymasters and quartermasters—should be fully discussed in the House. If an assurance is given to us on that point, I hope hon. Members will consent to allow these two Votes to pass at once.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to express agreement with what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. If these assurances are given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, I am sure there will be no hesitation on the part of the House to agree to these Votes at once. There are many points we wish to discuss, and all we desire is an assurance that opportunities will be afforded us for discussing these matters.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The Government will be extremely glad to give hon. and gallant Gentlemen, and other Members of the House, an opportunity to discuss the points which have been mentioned on succeeding Votes; but we are in this difficulty. We are more or less under a promise to send these matters to a Select Committee. We shall probably sot that Committee to work as soon as
    330
    possible; and I am sure no Committee investigating a question so large and comprehensive as the Army and Navy Estimates will be able to complete its work in the Session unless it is enabled to commence at once.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If this Committee passes the Vote, it will be beyond the province of a Select Committee to go into the matter.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: There will be no difficulty in the world in the Committee going into this question. There will be no reason why it should not examine into expenditure.
    COLONEL NOLAN: we can have a discussion on the Report of the Clothing Vote.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: So far as we are concerned, the Government would afford full facilities for discussion. We will take care that the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) will be taken cognizance of.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have no doubt that the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury are all that we could desire; but, as a point of Order. I would say it is clear that if these Votes are passed in Committee of the Whole House and are agreed to, as they will be by the House to-morrow on Report, the Votes will be passed by the House, and will be ready for incorporation in the Appropriation Bill, and no Select Committee will be able to abate one jot from that Vote. With regard to the other point, whatever may be the willingness of the Government to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House, it would be absurd to move the reduction of the Clothing Vote because we want to effect a reduction in the Brigade of Guards, or to prevent a reduction in the Horse Artillery. It cannot be done. Any hon. Member rising to Order would be able to stop the thing at once. It would be absurd to move the disallowance of £30,000 in regard to the Brigade of Guards, or £22,000 because we disapproved of certain allowances in the Clothing Vote.
    SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the nature of the instructions to be given to the Select Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates?
    MR. M. J. KENNY: What, may I ask, would be the value of any examination made by a Select Committee of a Vote already passed not only by the Committee of Ways and Means, but by the House—because the Report of Supply will be taken, I suppose, tomorrow? Such an examination, I contend, would be absolutely valueless. By the time the examination has concluded, goodness knows what change may not have taken place in the policy of the Government, which may make the recommendations of the Committee absolutely valueless for next year. I look upon the inquiry which it is proposed to hold as a mockery. We know that the Committee on Public Accounts discusses matters already debated, and we know that their inquiry is of very little use. I fail to see why the Government cannot allow the postponement of this Vote. Have the Government a reason for refusing it? Surely, if they have a reason, they can tell us what it is. Why do the Government require the whole of this money—why should they not take half of it? If they would do that it would enable us to raise discussions on questions in which we are interested, and the Government would be able to carry on the administration of the Army just as well as if they had the whole amount of the Vote.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I will give the House full particulars as to the appointment of the Committee as soon as I can. Generally, I may say we shall follow the usual precedent in such matters, and allow the Committee to inquire into the whole of the Votes, and report their observations to the House. As to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenny) opposite, who doubts of our proceeding, all I can say is that the Government are not especially anxious that the Votes should go to a Committee. We are prepared to take full responsibility for proposing the Estimates as they stand; but we conceive we are falling in with the general view of the House in assenting to the proposal for a Committee. We hope, therefore, that the House will assist us to pass the Vote.
    COLONEL BLUNDELL: I would suggest for the consideration of the Government that, instead of disbanding the Horse Artil-
    332
    lery Batteries, they should be allowed to take their turn for dismounted duty to act as Field Batteries.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: At this early hour in the morning I must say the Government would do well to postpone the Vote, in order to give us a fair opportunity of discussing it. Could they not take it on some other occasion? Personally, I have endeavoured not to obstruct the Government in any way. I have not spoken on the Supplementary Estimates, because the money we were asked to vote had been expended; but I certainly think that when the regular Estimates are brought in we ought to have a fair opportunity of criticizing them, especially when large Votes like the present are under consideration. Military men in this House are anxious, I know, to discuss these subjects, and we are bound in duty to our constituents to see that the money of the taxpayers is not wasted nor spent without fair discussion.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to know whether now, or at any future time, we shall have an opportunity of placing before hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite certain matters connected with the Army that some of us have been asked to bring under their notice? I myself have had several grievances entrusted to me to bring before the House. I do not wish to make myself obnoxious to the House now, but I do want opportunity of speech.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I will undertake to give the hon. Member an opportunity of stating his views cither in the House or to myself privately.
    MR. CONYBEARE: We are to he asked to-night to vote £4,000,000 or more for the payment of men. When we have voted the men and money, when will opportunity present itself for hon. Members to discuss other questions connected with the Service?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: He will be able to raise any point he likes before the Select Committee, and will also be able to do so in the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: He may not be a Member of the Select Committee.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: An hon. Member will not be able, on a future day, to do anything in the

    333
    way of saving money. It seems to me that to raise subjects in the future will be a perfect farce.
    MR. DEASY: I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman can only see his way to the postponement of the consideration of this matter, such postponement will facilitate the passage of the remaining Army Estimates through the House. The Irish Members are in no way to blame for the state of things that prevails at the present time. The Government might have taken this Vote at any time during the past week or 10 days, or the past fortnight; but instead of doing so they have devoted their time and attention to the passage of Rules of Procedure which are altogether objectionable to hon. Gentlemen on these Benches. I will not further refer to that, however. What I want to impress upon hon. Members is that the Government really cannot want this Vote so much to-night. They could put it off until to-morrow or Thursday without the slightest inconvenience; and, that being the case, I would suggest, in the interest of Public Business and as tending to the more rapid discussion of the Army Estimates, that those Members who desire to express their own views and the views of their constituents on this Vote should have the opportunity for discussion which they desire. I may be told that they will have on the Report stage an opportunity of raising whatever objection they may have to certain sums contained in this Vote. But we know very well when the Report stage of these Votes will be taken—at 3 or 1 o'clock in the morning, perhaps, when we have been discussing the Rules of Procedure, or some other subject, for the whole night, and when most of us will have become perfectly disinclined to discuss the subject in the spirit that it deserves to be discussed in. We have no desire to obstruct the Business of the House to-night; but I would suggest that it would be much better for the Government themselves, from their own point of view, that they should accede to the request that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If they do accede to this request, they will find that they are promoting the Business of the country.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £4,522,000. Pay and Allowances.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  MOTIONS.

    COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Addison, Bill to amend the Law relating to the recovery of penalties for the unauthorized performance of Copyright Musical Compositions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Addison, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Howorth, and Mr. Powell.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

    COMMONS.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Laud Commissioners for England, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the Enclosure or Regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the Confirmation of such Order.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament, and, if so, whether with or without modification; and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly, with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Land Commissioners.
    Ordered. That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection:—Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Wroughton, Mr. Elton, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Story-Maskelyne, and Mr. Richard Power, nominated Members of the said Committee.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

    CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE (No. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to simplify and amend the Criminal Law of Scotland and its Procedure, and to alter the constitution of the Justiciary and Sheriff Courts in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]

    RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
    Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Mowbray, Sir Frederick Mappin, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Joseph Bolton, Mr. Donal Sullivan, Mr. Heneage, Mr. Staveley Hill, and Sir Bernhard Samuelson nominated Members of the Select Committee on Rating of Machinery Bill.
    Ordered That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Bernhard Samuelson.)

    FOYNES HARBOUR (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order [24th February] for committing the Foynes Harbour (Transfer) Bill to a Select Committee read, and discharged.
    Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Mr. Jackson.)
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Two o'clock.