Commons Sitting of 11 March 1893

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
MOTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of Cheltenham, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 257.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary districts of Bradford (Yorks.), Brentford, Epsom, New Windsor, Stoke-upon-Trent, and Wigan, and to the Hertford and Ware Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 258.]

NOTICES.
  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH LIGHTHOUSES, &C.
  MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet): I beg to give notice that on the Vote on Account I shall call the attention of the House to the continued neglect of Her Majesty's Government to carry into effect the unanimous resolution arrived at by the Royal Commission upon Telegraphic Communications with Lighthouses and Lightships, in December last, and the great risk thereby incurred and loss of life at sea.
  ADMINISTRATION OF IRISH AFFAIRS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to give notice that on the Vote on Account I shall move to reduce the sum by the amount of the Chief Secretary's salary, in order to call attention to the administration of Irish affairs by the right hon. Gentleman, his action in excess of the law, and his acquiescence in a system whereby lawbreakers and criminals have escaped justice.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to give notice on the Vote on Account to call attention to the continued neglect to carry out the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission with regard to the Civil Establishment, both upper and lower, of the Civil Service, and move to reduce the Vote.
  LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.): I beg to give notice that on the Vote for Clerical Assistance to the Law Officers of the Crown I shall move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
QUESTIONS.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY.
  MR. PARKER SMITH (for Sir J. LUBBOCK,): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, steps to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Forestry?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. GARDNER,): When the right hon. Baronet addressed a similar question to my Predecessor, he was good enough to give him nearly a week's notice. I should be much obliged if he would extend the same indulgence to myself.

  THE DISCUSSION OF THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any precedent known of the first Vote on Army Estimates being discussed on a Saturday?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): This is the first of 12 questions addressed to me appearing on the Paper for the first time this morning. Many of these questions, including this, are such that some inquiry has to be made in order to make an accurate reply, and to offer any other reply would be disrespectful to the hon. Member putting the question, and to the House. I must ask the noble Lord to postpone his question.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Mr.Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman being unable to deny my allegation
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord is not entitled to say either that I am not able to deny his allegation, or that he has made any allegation at all. He has only asked a question.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I wish, Sir, to put this further question to Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman being unable to deny my allegations as to the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government so far as the Military and Naval Services are concerned is without precedent. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government were aware of that fact when they gave notice of the Motion for to-day's Sitting?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask the noble Lord to postpone that question also.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): Are we really to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has lent himself to this arrangement of Business without having gone through the elementary preparation required?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE NAVY ESTIMATES,
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if there is any precedent known of the first Vote in Naval Estimates being discussed on a Saturday?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): There has been no time. The noble Lord has given me no notice of this question. I saw it for the first time at half-past 10 this morning. But I can tell the noble Lord of one thing for which there was no precedent in his time. When the noble Lord got his Vote for men he got his Vote for money too.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR LEYLAND: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be able to dismiss the Estimates at all to-day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  APPOINTMENTS FOR TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester,N.E.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has considered the propriety of offering appointments as telegraph messengers to meritorious members of the Royal Military School, Chelsea?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The suggestion contained in the question, and which was mentioned to me the other day by my right hon. Friend, is well worthy of consideration, and, together with other subjects connected with the employment of telegraph messengers, is now receiving attention.

  SOLDIERS IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Reports have been received from the military attaches of Her Majesty's Embassies abroad as to the employment of soldiers in the Civil Departments of the State; and whether he will lay such Reports upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The answer is, Yes.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Treasury Committee has been appointed to consider what posts under Government Departments can be given to Reserve and pensioned soldiers; and, if so, whether such Committee has yet reported; and what Government Departments have offered appointments preferentially to soldiers?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): A Committee has not sat upon the general question, but there has been a Committee on the subject of Messengers, &c. If the right hon. Baronet desires information about this Committee I hope the question will be postponed until Monday.

  THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Law Officers of the Crown, under the new Regulations applying to

  1701
  their office, are allowed to take Chamber practice for private clients?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C RUSSELL, Hackney, S.): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I presume the hon. Member refers to the advice given to clients as opinions. The Rules do not prohibit that in express terms, but undoubtedly the spirit of the Rules does prohibit advice to?clients if that interferes with the efficiency of the Law Officers in their attention to Public Business.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask for a distinct answer to the question, whether or not the Law Officers intend to undertake private Chamber practice?
  SIR C. RUSSELL: So far as I am concerned, I do not. I cannot speak for my colleague.
  MR. HANBURY: What is meant by "private" clients? Will the Attorney General explain what he really means by Chamber practice for private clients?
  SIR C. RUSSELL: I must ask for notice of any further questions.

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Greenwich Age Pensions (1892)?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No, Sir. I cannot answer this question without notice. I must ask that it be put down for next Thursday.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But the subject has been before the right hon. Gentleman for some time.

  GROCERS' LICENCES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. TAYLOR (Norfolk, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether all grocers and off-licence holders in Scotland hold Justices' licences, and, as such, will come under the terms of the Local Veto Act?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): Those grocers and provision dealers who wish to trade in exciseable liquors require Justices' licences in Scotland.

  SILVER COIN FOR THE WEST INDIES.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have a sufficient quantity of silver coin to supply the wants of the West India Colonies, in some of which it is urgently needed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I have not had long to consider my answer to this question, but I have done my best. I have got an answer through the telephone. This is it—
  "The colonial banks act as agents for the distribution of coin, and they have been supplied with the whole amount for which they have applied."
  MR. E. B. HOARE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have done my best to obtain accurate information,

  THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before the discussion on the Evicted Tenants Commission is taken on Monday, the Report of the Commissioners, with or without the Evidence, will be in the hands of Members?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Secretary of the Evicted Tenants Commission states that every effort has been used to complete the printing both of the Report and of the Evidence. The work is being done in Dublin, and that causes some delay. The printers have undertaken to forward copies of the Report for distribution to Members to-night, and the Minutes of Evidence will follow as soon as possible. I can only add that if the Report should not be in the hands of hon. Members by Monday morning, the Government will not feel justified in proceeding with the Debate.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain how it is that although the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission was placed upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament on Thursday, 9th March, and appeared in the Press on the morning of Friday, 10th March, there was

  1703
  not a single copy to be obtained in the Vote Office up to 10.30 p.m. yesterday for the use of Members of this House?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A copy of the Report and of the Evidence was presented by me to the House on Thursday evening. It lay in the Office, and was, I believe, seen by several hon. Members, and a précis of the Report, because the whole Report had not appeared, must have been obtained, rightly or wrongly, by some Member who had access to it.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: Arising out of that, may I ask whether substantially the account that has appeared in the Press is a true and correct account of the Report of the Commission?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not examined minutely the précis of the report in the Press, but I gather that the portion of the report containing the recommendations of the Commissioners is correct.

  COURTS MARTIAL ON ROYAL MARINES.
  COLONEL LOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is a fact that when the Royal Marines are at sea their officers are not allowed to sit on Courts Martial for the trial of their own men; and, if so, would he explain on what grounds?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH; The hon. and gallant Member was good enough to write me a letter on this subject, and it has been referred to the proper quarter in the Admiralty, whose opinion has not yet reached me.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: When does the right hon. Gentleman think it probable he will be able to answer the question?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I expect the information every moment.

  CUBAN IMPORT DUTIES.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether English rails are subject to a duty of 20 per cent. in Cuba, though American rails are admitted free of duty; and whether the Government are in negotiations with Spain to put an end to this state of things?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the statement in the question, but I have no doubt the hon. Member puts the fact as it exists. The
  1704
  Governments on both sides have expressed their willingness to enter into negotiations for a Commercial Treaty, and the question of Differential Duties will occupy their serious attention.

  THE BAGOT STREET WORKS, BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any department of the Enfield Factory corresponding with the Bagot Street Works, Birmingham? As the matter will be referred to in the forthcoming Debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer the question now?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. If he will kindly put his question down for Monday in a somewhat more explicit form I shall be happy to answer it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am sorry to have had to put it down for to-day. It was my intention to put it down for Monday, thinking the Debate would come on then or later. The terms in which I have put the question are understood by the officials connected with the factory.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have consulted the officials, and they do not understand the question.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, but an answer is absolutely necessary for the purposes of this Debate. Bagot Street is a repairing shop, and the question is whether there is a corresponding works at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I can give a rough and ready answer to that inquiry; Bagot Street is mainly, if not entirely, a repairing factory. There may be some repairing work done at Enfield, but I do not understand that there is any repairing branch there in the sense that Bagot Street is a repairing branch.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Is not the difference that the charge for the Enfield Factory is borne on the Ordnance Vote, while that for Bagot Street is borne on the Store Vote?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is not the question on the Paper. I do not imagine the right hon. Gentle-

  1705
  man cares which Vote bears the charge. All he asked was whether or not there was at Enfield a department corresponding with the Bagot Street works. I have answered that.

  THE NILE VALLEY RAILWAY.
  SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any information of the intention of the Egyptian authorities to extend the railway up the Nile Valley towards the Egyptian frontier, and if any correspondence has passed between the two Governments upon the subject; and, if so, whether there is any objection to laying such Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  SIR E. GREY: I have sent for information, but it has not reached me, so I think it would be desirable to defer the question till Monday.

  LEAD PENCILS FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
  MR. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of lead pencils annually supplied to the various Public Departments of the State; what proportion of such pencils is derived from Home and what from Foreign manufactories; what are the average prices of the Home-made and Foreign-made pencils, respectively; and are the Foreign-made pencils superior in quality to those of Home manufacture?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The right hon. Gentleman will readily see I have had no time to get this detailed information as to lead pencils.
  SIR J. GORST: But surely it could have been obtained from the Stationery Office?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have endeavoured to obtain it there; but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not easy to get such information at a moment's notice.

  NITRO-GLYCERINE.
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the only factory of nitro-glycerine in Scotland (the chief ingredient in cordite gunpowder) is
  1706
  located at Ardeer in Ayrshire, and is conducted by the Nobels Explosives Company, Limited; that General Noble, the late Superintendent of the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey, by local advertisement and personal interview, induced some of the most experienced workmen employed in Nobels factory, and who were acquainted with the secret processes connected with the manufacture of nitro-glycerine, to leave their employment and take service in the Government factory; and whether this method of obtaining skilled workmen and information to enable the War Office to compete with private traders is in accordance with the Rules and usual practice of the War Department?
  MR.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question. I have to remind him that litigation is pending between the War Department and this Company, and while that is going on it is undesirable that any question as to it should be put or answered in this House.
  MR. COCHRANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the litigation pushed forward as rapidly as possible?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:We are doing so as much as we can.

  HOODED VANS IN LONDON.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of accidents caused by hooded vans in London during the year; whether vans, in which the driver is entirely surrounded on three sides, are permitted in any other city in the country; and whether he will take measures to insure that proper precautions are insisted on by which, in all vehicles plying the streets, the driver shall be able to have a sufficient view at the sides to prevent danger of collision with other vehicles or of running over foot passengers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): With reference to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, I am unable to give an answer, but am in communication with the Commissioner of Police. With reference to the third paragraph, the police have no power to enforce regula-

  1707
  tions requiring the driver of a van to be seated on any particular part of it, or that the van should be furnished with windows.

  THE MEMBERS' LOBBY.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is prepared to have the paint cleared off from the stonework in the Members' Lobby, and to restore the mason work as it was before the time when Mr. Ayrton was First Commissioner of Works?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I am not prepared to recommend a waste of the public money in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

  THE NEW LABOUR CORRESPONDENT.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements were made by him to secure the appointment of competent and impartial persons as Labour Correspondents in connection with the new Labour Bureau; and if he will state the politics of the gentlemen already appointed to these posts?
  MR. DALZIEL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, if he took politics into consideration, made any distinction between Liberal Unionists and Conservatives?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Three new Labour Correspondents have been appointed in connection with the Labour Department. One of these is a lady. Before appointing these officers I made careful inquiries into their fitness for discharging the duties intrusted to them, but my inquiries did not extend to their political opinions. I have heard it stated, however, that one of them is a life-long Member of the Conservative Party.
  MR. J. COLLINGS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will inquire whether one or more of these gentlemen were not distinguished as notorious partizans during the General Election, in consequence of their uncompromising support of the agitation in favour of separation?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Surely I ought to have notice of a question like that. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to distinguish between the Labour Correspondents of the Board of Trade and gentlemen who as local correspondents contributed information to The Labour Gazette.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Are these gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman calls Local Correspondents paid by the State?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, I answered that question yesterday. They are paid small sums of from £10 to £20 a year according to the services that they are required to render in their separate localities.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer this question now, or shall I put it on another day? Will he furnish the same information with respect to these local correspondents that he has given with regard to the Labour Correspondents?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My answer is that arrangements have been made with certain gentlemen in labour centres in the United Kingdom to supply information on matters affecting labour questions in their various districts. The politics of these gentlemen have not been inquired into in any single instance.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg, then, to ask, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1883, when the Board of Trade made a great number of appointments of the same kind, the whole matter was referred to a small Committee of permanent officials, so that there should be no suspicion of Party bias? Has the same course been followed in this case?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No single appointment has been made except on the recommendation of the permanent officials, and Mr. John Burnett has taken the pains to go down to the districts where he has been in doubt, and to select the best man for the appointment. I have not appointed a single person except on the recommendation of the permanent officials, and I have not inquired into the politics of those appointed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who were the permanent officials whom he consulted?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir. I take all responsibility for them upon myself.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask whether, besides the small sums paid to the local correspondents, any allowance is made for travelling or other expenses?
  MR. MCNDELLA: If they are called upon to travel—a question which has not yet arisen—of course their expenses will be paid. But the object is that these local Labour Correspondents shall supply information as to labour questions in their own districts.
  MR. FORWOOD: Will any portion of the cost of these Correspondents appear on the Supplementary Estimates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly not. The appointments do not take effect till the 1st of April.

  THE HOWE COURT MARTIAL.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Papers relating to the Courts Martial on the stranding of H.M.S. Howe, which have been ordered by the House to be printed, will be distributed to Members?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have endeavoured to obtain the information, and am sorry to be unable to get a day named. I am afraid several days will elapse before the distribution of the Papers can take place.
  MR. T. G. BOWLES: May I ask whether the Government will postpone the consideration of that portion of the Navy Estimates upon which we can raise the question of the Howe Court Martial till the Papers have been distributed?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There is not the slightest intention to take the Martial Law Vote till the Papers are in the hands of hon. Members.

  WAGES IN GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government intend to submit a Supplementary Estimate to enable them to carry out the Resolution of the House of the 6th inst. relative to the wages of the workmen in Government establishments?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Resolution refers to naval establishments, and no proposal has yet been submitted by that Department to the Treasury.
  SIR J. GORST: While the Motion refers to naval establishments, the Secretary of State for War referred to Government establishments generally, and I wish to know whether a Supplementary Estimate will be presented to carry out the recommendations?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No; certainly not.
  SIR J. GORST: Do I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that no effort will be made by the Government to give effect to the declaration of the Secretary of State for War?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not say that. I said no Supplementary Estimate would be laid on the Table.

  AUSTRALIAN COALTNG STATIONS.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the condition of the Australian coaling stations at Thursday Island and St. George's Sound in respect of fortification and armament?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member must see that an hour and a-half's notice is hardly long enough to enable me to-get this information.

  THE EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take any steps that the recommendations of Mr. Childers' Committee of 1876–7, as to the employment of discharged soldiers, sailors, and Marines in various civil posts under Government, may be more thoroughly carried into effect?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Steps have been taken, and will continue to be taken, to carry out these recommendations. For clerical duties under Government, a Civil Service certificate of education is required. Such appointments are open to soldiers if they qualify for them. But as to all such appointments as messengers, office keepers, &c., I can only say, speaking for my Department, that for many years none but former soldiers have been appointed.

  THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) BILL.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am at present unable to fix any day.

  RYE CATTLE MARKET.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has received a Memorial from the Rye Cattle Market Company, asking that their licence to hold the usual fortnightly market on Wednesday, the 22nd instant, may be renewed; whether the measures recently taken to cope with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Guestling have proved effectual; and whether he can hold out any hope that the Board of Agriculture will be able to grant the request of the Rye Cattle Market Company, and renew their licence within a measurable period of time?
  MR. GARDNER: I have received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers. There is good reason to hope that the measures we have taken to cope with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Guestling will prove effectual, and that we may be able to relax the existing restrictions before very long.

  DUBLIN RATE COLLECTION DEPARTMENT.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. R. M. Richardson, an officer receiving £120 a year with a bonus of £10 in the Department of the Collector General of Rates in Dublin, who has been retired after 14 years' service, at 10 days' notice, on a superannuation allowance of £6 10s. under "The Dublin Corporation Act, 1890," while of seven officers retired under the Act five were awarded two-thirds of their salaries as retiring allowances; and if he will state on what grounds Mr. Richardson was awarded only l-20th of his salary and bonus; and whether he will re-consider Mr. Richard-
  1712
  son's claim, with the view of granting him a more equitable retiring allowance?
  MR. J. MORLEY: This question is so full of minute detail that I must ask for further notice.

  SLAVERY ON THE MADAGASCAR COAST.
  SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have given any sepcial undertaking for dealing with the Slave Trade on the coast of Madagascar, in lieu of the right of search which until now the British Government has been understood to possess, and which it has now given up?
  SIR E. GREY: The right of search has been given up by this country because the protectorate of France over Madagascar is recognised by Her Majesty's Government. France gave an undertaking that she would be responsible for dealing with the Slave Trade in her territorial waters.

  MEATH TRIALS.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Attorney General directed a number of Party riot and assault cases from the County of Meath to be tried at the recent Londonderry Sessions, taking up a considerable time, and of a very serious character; and if such action is not contrary to all precedent and practice?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My hon. Friend has been obviously misinformed. It is quite impossible that cases from Meath County should be tried at Londonderry Sessions. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the Judge at the Meath Assizes expressed himself well satisfied with the verdicts of the juries both convicting and acquitting.

  THE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary for War whether, having regard to the hardship that has arisen in some cases, troop sergeant majors of Yeomanry who have qualified for pension by being compelled, under the new Regulations, to give up their appointments at short notice, he will recommend commanding officers of Yeomaury to give such sergeant majors at least three months' notice before they are retired, in order that they may have an

  1713
  opportunity of obtaining civil employment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask that this question be postponed.

  THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many counsel are engaged on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the Behring Sea Arbitration; and whether they are to receive any, and, if so, what, remuneration for their services at that Arbitration?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: This question should be addressed to the Foreign Office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I put it to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  SIR E. GREY: There are four counsel engaged. They will receive remuneration, but the exact amount is now a subject of correspondence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me who the counsel are?
  SIR E. GREY: The late Attorney General, the present Attorney General, Mr. Box, and Mr. Robinson.

  THE LIGHT ON THE CLOCK TOWER.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the column of electric light which is flashed from a theatre in Shaftesbury Avenue; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing a similar light on the Clock Tower of the Houses of Parliament in the place of the inefficient gas light now in use there?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The new signal gas light recently placed at the top of the Clock Tower is at present incomplete, and cannot be perfected till the Easter Recess. The desirability of substituting a flash electric light has not, so far, been considered, and the propriety of making such a change is, I think, very doubtful.

  THE YEOMANRY.
  MR. DIGBY (Dorset, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability
  1714
  of making it optional on the part of officers commanding Yeomanry regiments to retain or dispense with the non-commissioned officers of the present permanent staff who may be surplus to the new establishment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:As to all these questions respecting the Yeomanry force I have not had time to get information, and I shall be obliged if hon. Members will postpone them.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a year's grace to Yeomanry regiments whose strength has been fixed at three squadrons, in order that their Commanding Officer may have a fair chance of raising his regiment to four squadrons. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer these questions now, will he tell us when he would like them put down?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I should think the proper time to raise these questions will be on the Yeomanry Vote.
  MR. LONG: As to that, we can judge for ourselves. I want to know when he will be prepared to answer the questions?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:Oh, in a few days I will answer them, so far as the information in my possession allows it.

  TROWBRIDGE BARRACKS.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention not to send another battery of Artillery to Trowbridge when the one now there leaves?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the Military Authorities are strongly opposed to the maintenance of single batteries in isolated quarters, and there is consequently no intention to send another battery to Trowbridge.
  MR. LONG: Is it not the case a large amount of money has been spent on these barracks? Is it proposed to make any use of them, or will the Local Authorities be invited to offer suggestions as to their use?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:Perhaps the hon. Member will ask the late Secretary for War as to the amount of money spent on the barracks. If he puts his question on the Paper, I will answer him on Monday.

  NAVAL ENGINEERS.
  MR. TAYLOR (Norfolk, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why chief, staff, and fleet engineers, who, according to the official Navy List of January, 1893, were entitled to the option of retiring at the age of 50, are now compulsorily retained, serving for five years longer; and whether in consideration of five years' compulsory additional service their rates of pay and retirement may be made, at least, equivalent to those accorded to medical and accountant officers?
  SIR U. KAY-SIIUTTLEWORTH: The optional retirement of engineers at the age of 50 years has been suspended. The Regulations do not admit of the payment of more than the maximum rates of pay.
  MR. TAYLOR: I shall raise this question on the Estimates.

  THE GUARDS.
  MR. HOZIER (Lanark, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a battalion of the Guards is to be sent to Egypt; and, if so, whether he will state the approximate date?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:No positive decision has been come to.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY GUNS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there are at this moment upwards of 200 muzzle-loading 9-pounder guns in the hands of the Royal Artillery in India; whether these guns are of an obsolete pattern condemned for many years; and how soon a modern breechloading gun could be supplied to the whole of the Royal Artillery in India, provided that immediate orders were given to all establishments in the country capable of manufacturing them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone his question.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the first two paragraphs?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I saw the whole question could not be answered. I am not able to pick and choose between parts of a question, so it had better be put off.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of information as to the two first paragraphs.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have a considerable knowledge myself of the subject on which the question is put, but I should prefer to be perfectly accurate before I answer.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In con-sequeuce of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I shall in Committee of Supply move the reduction of the Vote for the Royal Artillery.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect us to be able to discuss the Army Estimates without consideration, when he himself is not able to answer the most elementary questions?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say I was not able to answer elementary questions. I said I declined to answer questions of this sort without being certain of the accuracy of my answer.

  SCOTCH CROFTERS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any emigration of Scotch crofters is now taking place from the Highlands to British Columbia; and how far the loan made for that purpose to the Columbian Government has been expended?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The arrangements made by the late Government were to the effect that a loan was sanctioned to the British Columbian Government to assist the emigration of Scotch crofters. The British Columbian Government, under a Statute, propose to conduct that emigration through the

  1717
  agency of a company which has not yet been formed. The loan has, therefore not been made, and still less expended.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the rate of daily remuneration for Commissioners and witnesses respectively (including travelling and sundry expenses) in connection with the Evicted Tenants Commission; and whether any remuneration was given in the form of costs or otherwise to the legal representatives of any of the parties who appeared before the Commission; and, if so, what were the particulars of such remuneration?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. Justice Mathew received, in accordance with precedent, the sum of two guineas a night for subsistence allowance and actual travelling expenses. Mr. Roche, Q.C., received remuneration also, in conformity with precedent, in the cases of practising Queen's Counsel engaged in Government inquiries, at the rate of 10 guineas a day for the first 28 days, and five guineas a day for each subsequent day, and also travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of one guinea a night when absent from Dublin. Mr. Redington received no fee, but received the ordinary subsistence allowance of one guinea a night while away from his home, and personal travelling expenses. Witnesses received travelling and subsistence allowances at the established rate dependent upon their profession and station in life. In the case of one solicitor who saved the Commission much time and expense, the Treasury acceded to the request of the Commissioners in granting that a special gratuity should be paid to him of £50, and one similar case is under the consideration of the Treasury at present.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): Are these items provided for in the Supplementary Estimate which we are to discuss on Monday?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, Sir.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.): In the absence of the hon. Member for the Wellington Division of
  1718
  Shropshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he hopes to begin the distribution of the new rifle to the Militia and Volunteer Forces, in place of the obsolete weapons now in use?
  CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is impossible to say at the present moment when the distribution of the new rifle will be made. It is necessary, first, to put it in the hands of the Army, and to create a sufficient reserve for the Army. I must take exception to the word "obsolete" being used in regard to the Martini-Henry. Though its place is to be taken by a new weapon, it is not obsolete.

  SALMON FISHING IN SCOTCH RIVERS.
  MR. THORBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give any information as to the intentions of the Government as regards the introduction of a general measure dealing with salmon fishing in Scotch rivers?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have several times given an answer on this question, to the effect that, when the Deep Sea Fishery Bill now before the House is disposed of, the Government will approach the question of legislation about salmon, especially with regard to the Tweed and the Solway.
  MR. THORBURN: I was not aware that the question had been answered before.

  THE. HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state that the United States have now definitely disclaimed any intention of annexing the Hawaiian Islands, or of extending a protectorate over them; and whether he can lay upon the Table any further Correspondence dealing with this matter?
  SIR E. GREY: The hon. Member will have seen that the Treaty of Annexion has been withdrawn from the American Congress. They have made no communication to us of their intention of annexing the islands. I can, therefore, make no statement about it. Without being given an opportunity of referring to Correspondence I cannot make any statement as to its publication.

  FOREIGN MEAT.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great importance attached by the agricultural interest to the labelling of foreign and colonial meat and of the improbability, in the congested state of Public Business, of the Bills dealing with this question being considered by the House, he will grant a Select Committee to inquire into the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I think this subject is included within the scope of the Reference to the Committee, which is to deal with agricultural questions, and the Government have, therefore, no intention of holding a separate inquiry.

  ARMED VOLUNTEERS IN IRELAND.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the establishment of an armed Volunteer Force in Ireland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the establishment of an Irish Volunteer Force was expressly provided against in the Bill of 1886? Why is it not forbidden in the present Home Rule Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I shall be better able to answer the question when we come to the discussion of the Home Rule Bill. There is no Volunteer Force in Ireland, and I know of no proposal for establishing one. Her Majesty's Government have not had the subject under consideration.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman declines to say now whether the words in the Bill which refer to the Naval and Military Forces include or exclude a Volunteer Force? It would be a great convenience to us to be told that.
  [No answer was given.]

  UGANDA.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will fix a day for taking the Supplementary Estimate for the service in Uganda?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have no intention whatever of fixing the discussion of the Supplementary Estimate for the service in Uganda for a particular day.

  PEERS AND POLITICS.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Aberdeen Free Press of Friday, 10th March, 1893, from which it appears that a telegram was recently sent by Lord Mount Stephen asking his Unionist friends in Dufftown to support the Unionist candidate at the approaching election; and whether, in view of the Rule of this House, with reference to the interference of Peers in Parliamentary elections, the Government propose to take any action with reference to the subject?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This case has only been brought under my notice by the question of my hon. Friend. I will not now enter into any discussion as to the Resolution of the House relating to the subject of the interference of Peers at elections. This is a case of alleged interference by a Peer opposed in politics to Her Majesty's Government, and I do not think it would be wise for Her Majesty's Government to entertain the question of putting in force— presuming we can put it in force—a Resolution which has not been enforced for a great length of time, in the case of a gentleman opposed to them in politics of their own Motion and without any intervention on the part of the House.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the usual notice of opposition to the Channel Tunnel has been given by the Department of the Board of Trade; and what course the Government intend to take on the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have not thought it necessary to take any action in this matter. In a new Parliament I prefer to leave it to the judgment of the House.
  MR. HENEAGE: I wish to ask if it is not usual for the Board of Trade as a Department to give notice to the pro-

  1721
  moters of the Bill that they will he obliged to oppose it when it comes on? Has that official departmental notice been given?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have not thought it necessary to take any action in the matter. I shall leave it entirely to the judgment of the House.
  MR. HENEAGE: Will it be left to private Members to move the rejection of the Bill?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE TREATY WITH JAPAN.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been received from the Japanese Government for the re-opening of the question of Treaty revision with that country?
  SIR E. GREY: No proposal has been received from the Japanese Government on this subject.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
  MR. FORWOOD: As to the Navy Estimates, I wish to ask whether the money taken in Vote 1 for men will be available on and after April 1st for the use of the Board of Admiralty for paying wages, for materials used in the construction of the proposed new vessels, and for the general expenditure of the Admiralty?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not like answering a question of that kind offhand; but if the hon. Member wishes to know my opinion at the moment, I rather think the money will be so available. I do not, however, wish to vouch for the accuracy of that opinion.
  MR. FORWOOD: Then I would put the question to the Secretary to the Treasury. Will any of the money voted for men be used for the construction of new ships after April 1st?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I thought the hon. Member was referring to the general Vote for the Army.
  MR. FORWOOD: No; the Navy.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There will be no departure from the usual course.

  SUPERANNUATION OF TEACHERS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice —namely, whether he will be kind enough to make some small financial provision for beginning the superannuation fund for elementary teachers in the manner recommended by this House?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on the subject.
  MR. HOZIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the claims of the Scottish teachers in this respect?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that when England gets anything Scotland will be pretty sure to do the same.

  IRELAND AND A VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to an answer the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield in relation to Question No. 60, might I respectfully ask him whether he could not give us the information desired, with a view to the discussions on the Home Rule Bill? As I understood his answer, he appeared to think
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I had risen with the intention of referring to this matter when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. Though there has been no notice of this question, and though I have no right to fix the legal signification of words, there is no reason why I should not state the opinion of the Government. I consider that the establishment of a Volunteer Force is decidedly included within the scope of the Government of Ireland Bill.

  THE ORDNANCE FACTORY VOTE.
  MR. HANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Ordnance Factory Vote will come on? Is it usual to take money in the Army Estimates for the Ordnance Vote before that Vote has been submitted to the House?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not able to say what is usual. There will be no departure from the ordinary practice.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not ask what is usual, but whether the right hon. Gentleman is not compelled by law to bring the Vote on before applying money to the Ordnance Factory Vote?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If so, I shall do it.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Public Accounts Committee stated that the Ordnance Factory Vote ought always to be taken before the conclusion of the financial year?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If that is so I shall do it. I do not mean to say that I shall necessarily follow the course recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, but the usual practice which has been followed by the right hon. Gentleman himself will be adopted in this case. There may be some recommendations of the Committee that have not been carried into effect yet.
  MR. HANBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman legal power to take money from the Army Vote for the purposes of the Ordnance Vote before that Vote is passed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If not, it will not be taken.

  THE DEBATE ON THE REPORT OF THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to ask either the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question as to Monday's Business in consequence of what fell from the Chief Secretary in answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member asked a question as to the time at which the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission will be in the hands of hon. Members, and the Chief Secretary replied that he regretted that the Report was not in the hands of hon. Members now; that he hoped it would be in their hands on Monday, and that if it is not issued on Monday morning he will not ask the House to discuss the question until Monday evening. I hope, myself, that it will be in the hands of Members on Monday. There are certain questions connected with the Commission which have no relation to the Report, and I hope it will be understood that we are not to be precluded, after the pledges given by the Government, from discussing these ques-
  1724
  tions, whether the Report is in the hands of Members on Monday morning or not.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As it is not absolutely certain that the Report will be in the hands of Members on Monday morning, and as it is undesirable that Members should remain in uncertainty as to the Business for Monday, I think it would be convenient to the House at large to change the Business for Monday and to fix this discussion for Tuesday.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Then, what will be the Business for Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the answer given by the Secretary of the Treasury just now, to the effect that some of the cost of the Evicted Tenants Commission did come out of Supplementary Estimates? I think there has been some mistake about that. It appears that some of the money does come under the Supplementary Estimates, therefore we shall be entitled to discuss the Report of the Commission whenever the Supplementary Estimates come on.
  MR. J. MORLEY: It would save the time of the House, and contribute to the continuity of discussion, if the criticisms of hon. Members opposite were confined to the Report and other incidents of the Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with that, but I am afraid that so large a question cannot be adequately discussed on a Tuesday afternoon.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: A great deal of the conversation that has been taking place across the Table of the House has been quite inaudible to me and hon. Gentlemen sitting near me. I desire to know whether the Debate on the Evicted Tenants Commission is to come on on Monday or not, or in what manner it is to be discussed? I have undertaken to challenge the policy of the Evicted Tenants Commission Vote whenever and however it comes on. I have not hoard a word of the conversation, and I entirely decline to be bound by any understanding that may have been come to across the Table. I have undertaken to move the rejection of the Vote, and will challenge the whole policy of the Commission. [Cries of "Order!"] I beg to move the adjournment of the House. [Interruption.]
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the House will keep silence and allow the hon. Member to ask a question.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am sorry to have been obliged to appear to threaten by moving the adjournment of the House, but I say I have a right to put a question on a subject of great importance without interruption from hon. Members opposite. I desire, in the first place, to know whether this Vote is to be taken on Monday or not? In the second place, I wish to know, if it is not to be taken on Monday, when do the Government expect it to be taken? and, in the third place, we have heard something dropped by the Leader of the Opposition about certain expenses connected with the Commission, and I desire to know whether we are to have a fair fight on the policy of the Commission on the Vote for the Commission, or whether the subject is to be raised on the Stationery Vote, or something of that kind?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As I understand it, there is no doubt at all that this discussion is to take place on the Temporary Commissions Vote. We are satisfied with that. As to the time of the discussion, my suggestion of transferring it to Tuesday does not seem to be acceptable in all quarters; therefore it will stand for Monday.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: As to fixing the day, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the fact that on the same Vote a question of great importance as to which I have a notice on the Paper has precedence—I mean the Labour Commission? My Motion is to reduce the item for excess expenditure on the Labour Commission. That question comes before the Vote for the Evicted Tenants Commission. Has the right hon. Gentleman this fact in his mind?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have no control over the proceedings of private Members, who think it their duty to give notice of Motions that, under the Rules of the House, would stand for discussion before the Evicted Tenants Commission. The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of his privilege, therefore the right hon. Gentleman will undergo no damage in the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, at the request of Mr. Speaker, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS.
  MR. LOCKWOODsaid, he rose in pursuance of the following notice on the Paper:—
  "On Army Estimates, to call attention to the case of Dr. Briggs, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the refusal to reinstate him."
  He said that although, as it would be observed, the case to which he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War involved the position of an individual, yet he ventured to think that the course of treatment to which that individual had been subjected had made the question more than one affecting an individual— had made it, in fact, a national question. For the person whose name was connected with the notice he had given was a person who had served with very great distinction in our National Army. He took it to be a matter of national interest that persons who served the country should, at any rate, be justly treated, in connection with their service. He wished, first of all, before he proceeded, to tell the House how Dr. Briggs had been treated, to inform the House shortly what had been the nature of the services that gallant officer had rendered to the country. He entered the Army in 1875, being attached to the Medical Department. In 1877–78 he served in an expedition, not merely rendering those services which were immediately connected with his profession, but rendering services in the presence of the enemy, and he was rewarded with a medal and a clasp for that campaign. Then in 1878 and 1880 he served in the Afghan War; in 1884–85 he served with eminent distinction in the Soudan expedition, being present at more than

  1727
  one engagement. His services found recognition in the Despatches, and, again, he was entitled to more decorations in connection with that campaign. After the Soudanese campaign Dr. Briggs was promoted to the rank of surgeon major, and at the time he received that promotion he was the youngest officer in that branch of Her Majesty's Service who had attained this rank. After those services, he had the misfortune—the very grave misfortune, which no one recognised more fully than he did himself— to be promoted to the Staff of the then Governor of Madras, Lord Connemara. He was promoted to be medical officer on that staff in November, 1886. Now, far be it from his (Mr. Lockwood's) wish or intention to trouble the House with the painful personal matters which arose between the Governor of Madras and Lady Connemara. Base charges were made against Surgeon Major Briggs—charges which reflected not only upon the lady whose name he had mentioned,but which reflected seriously on Dr. Briggs. Those charges were met by Dr. Briggs, and the Governor of Madras wrote and handed to this gentleman a written apology for having made them. But owing to this disagreement—to those charges—of course, it became impossible for any gentleman to remain longer connected with that establishment. Dr. Briggs returned to this country. He (Mr. Lock-wood) troubled the House with these details, because it was necessary that the House should know all the facts. A suit was commenced in the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice by Lady Connemara, in which she claimed to have the marriage tie between herself and the Governor of Madras dissolved. That petition, the House would understand, was met by counter-charges—by those very charges which had been made against Dr. Briggs in India, and for which he had in his possession a written apology. Those charges, however, were repeated in a counter petition, and Dr. Briggs found himself made a co-respondent in this cross-suit. Well, being placed in that position, of course it was necessary for him, as any Member of the House would at once recognise, to take every step, not only on his own behalf, but, of course, on behalf of the lady whose
  1728
  name was so disgracefully coupled with his, to meet these charges at the earliest opportunity, and he (Mr. Lockwood) must for himself say this: He knew nothing whatever of Army discipline, he belonged to another profession; but he must say this: that he should have thought that it would have been not in the ranks of the Army, but in the higher officialdom of his own profession, that Dr. Briggs would have found the readiest support and sympathy. He should have thought that the mere telling of his tale would have insured for him every facility for meeting the charges. If the charges were true let him suffer for them, but if they were false let him rebut them and destroy them. He regretted to say that, so far from that sympathy being extended to that gallant gentleman—and he said this with deliberation as knowing something of the case—so far from facilities being offered, Dr. Briggs was sorely hampered in the matter. When he returned to this country he made application, because his health had suffered considerably in consequence of the mental anxiety through which he had passed, to be relieved for a time from the performance of his duty. After some time he was accorded sick leave; but he found to his dismay that, while it had become necessary for him to be in immediate communication with the persons who were to defend him against the charges, he was ordered to a remote station in Ireland. He interviewed the Director General of the Army Medical Department, and, much against his will, went into these delicate private matters: he stated to the head of the Department fully and frankly and fairly what his position was. After those representations he was sent to Woolwich. During the time he was there he had, of course, every opportunity—the opportunity he desired—of consulting with his legal advisers. But what was his astonishment, and what was his dismay to find that, when the case was actually pending and about to come on for trial, he was ordered to India? Now, it was to be hoped that, whoever dealt with the case from an official point of view in the House, would be able to give some explanation as to how it came about that this gentleman, who had fully informed the Department as to the painful nature of his position—who had told his

  1729
  sad story to the Director General of the Medical Department — should, at this time, when, above all things, it was necessary that he should remain in England to meet the charges, have been ordered out to India. Dr. Briggs, when he received this order, went again to the heads of his expostulating, and he said, as every man of Department honour would do, "It is not only a question of my own honour—the honour of this woman is at stake." He was coolly reminded that his evidence could be taken on commission—that was to say, that this officer and gentleman was to let his evidence be' taken in a back room, and then go to India, leaving the honour of this woman to be smirched with his in the Courts. That was a course which no man of honour in the House would say could possibly be taken by this gentleman. What was the alternative? Now, he (Mr. Lockwood) was trying to tell the story of the treatment of Dr. Briggs by the officials as calmly as he could, but he was bound to say he grew indignant when he said that this gallant officer was told that if he did not embark for India—and an embarcation certificate was handed to him for the purpose—he would be dismissed from the Service. Here was Dr. Briggs' position. This man's honour was affected. He (Mr. Lockwood) had always understood that, in this gallant Service, whenever the honour of an officer was at stake, he was called upon by those to whom he was responsible to take the readiest means of clearing himself from the imputations. But here they found that this officer had only this alternative offered to him, "Either you go to India and retain the emoluments of your profession and the high rank which you have won by your services to the country, or, if you do not do that you will be dismissed instantly; or," they said, "we will give you this further alternative, you may resign." The House would understand, without his (Mr. Lockwood's) stating it,, the alternative was chosen by this gallant gentleman. He did resign, and remained in this country. The trial came on on the 27th of November, 1890. An offer was made before the trial came on to withdraw the charges against Dr. Briggs; but those who were responsible for
  1730
  Dr. Briggs in that trial refused to allow such charges to be withdrawn, and insisted that this gentleman should have the opportunity of going into the box to deny on oath that there was a tittle of truth in the charges. What was the position of Dr. Briggs now? On November 27 he swore that the charges were false. No one had the courage to suggest the contrary; the finding of the jury or the tribunal before which the case came was that the charges were untrue. Again, what happened? One would have expected that the earliest opportunity would have been taken by the Department, or by these officials, to reinstate this gentleman. So far from it being necessary for Dr. Briggs to move, he would have thought that the initiative would have been taken by those who had forced the resignation on him. The trial took place on November 27, 1890; it was not until August 1, 1891, that the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) announced that he proposed to reinstate Dr. Briggs. He (Mr. Lockwood) would pause here for a moment to say that from the right hon. Gentleman and from the hon. Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) he received throughout the negotiations he carried on with them the greatest consideration. It was not the persons responsible for the Department in that House, either on one side or the other, who were to blame in this matter. He hoped that, although he should not be able to take a Division on the matter that he was now bringing to the notice of the House, there would be a strong intimation of opinion from Members on both sides. Parliament was not a dummy; and if right hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House were of opinion that this was a case of injustice, and that Dr. Briggs was entitled to be placed back in the Army in the position he had won for himself, no red-tape centurions outside should prevent this being done. Right hon. Gentlemen had the right to be regarded as other than mere figureheads in Parliament representing their Departments. They had he right to be regarded as men of discretion, with courage to exercise that discretion in the face of officials who might not agree with them. On the 1st August, 1891, the Secretary for War made a promise of reinstatement, and on November 17,

  1731
  1891, Dr. Briggs was gazetted back to the Service; but under what conditions? He (Mr. Lockwood) did not know that Dr. Briggs had won for himself a rank which no one senior to himself in the Service had attained; but when he was reinstated he found that he had lost 35 places in promotion which he had won at the risk of his life in the Service. Dr.Briggs refused to accept any such reinstatement. Communications were re opened between the late Secretary of State for War and himself and—if he would allow him to call him so—his hon. and "learned" Friend (Dr. Farquharson) near him. The negotiations were reopened. The reinstatement was cancelled in December, 1891; on March 22,1892, a question was put in that House by his hon. Friend to the late Secretary of State for War, and an answer was returned, to which he wished to call attention. The question was—
  "Whether he had further considered the case of Surgeon Major Briggs with a view to his being reinstated in the position which he would now occupy in the Service if he had not retired?"
  The Secretary for War replied as follows:—
  "I am of opinion Surgeon Major Briggs should not suffer any loss as regards position or promotion in consequence of an act which any gentleman was bound to perform, and which he performed under a pressure which no one could have resisted. Dr. Briggs will therefore be restored to the seniority he held before his retirement."
  This was a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on March 22, 1892. This man had been eating his heart out since November, 1890, when the charges against him were blotted out by the finding of the Court; but, from November, 1890, up to March 22, 1892, he had been trying by every means in his power to get reinstatement, and it was not until that statement was made by the Secretary of State that he was able to obtain it. It was charged against Dr. Briggs that he had subsequently written a letter in which he used some strong language. Did not the House think that it was likely that a man who had had such tardy justice done to him would find it difficult, under the circumstances, to use the most calm and discreet language? Let the House remember the delay that had occurred. Dr. Briggs ought never to have been called upon to resign; and
  1732
  when he had cleared his character and that of the lady who had been associated with him from all slur, reinstatement ought not to have been sought by him, but ought to have been brought to him and given without question. Nothing could excuse the delay which had occurred. But that was not all. On March 22, 1892, the highly satisfactory answer was given by the right hon. Gentleman. Gazettes came out one after another; in not one of them appeared the name of Dr. Briggs. This was a matter as to which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information. Three Gazettes came out without mentioning the name of Dr. Briggs, and nothing was heard as to any further step being taken. On the 24th May Dr. Briggs was ordered to Chester. As he had not been gazetted he sought the advice of friends. He put the matter before them, and it appeared to them an anomalous position that Dr. Briggs should go to Chester and become associated with the Staff there when he had never been gazetted back to the Army. However, the short delay that was occasioned by these representations brought a peremptory telegram to him on the 22nd May from the Director General of the Medical Department (Sir W. Mackinnon) who asked him why he had not proceeded to Chester. On May 22 another Gazette came out, but there was no mention of the name of Dr. Briggs. On the 22nd March the right hon. Gentleman made his complete and most satisfactory statement. Before Dr. Briggs was gazetted he was peremptorily ordered to Chester. Then there was another Gazette with no mention of this gentleman's name. He received a peremptory telegram on the 27th May and on the 28th May he joined at Chester. On that very day—Dr. Briggs not having been gazetted, and, therefore, not being in a position if he committed any breach of discipline to demand to be tried by Court Martial— there appeared in The Army and Navy Gazette a letter signed "Veritas." Dr. Briggs had in one of his letters to the Department charged that that letter came from an official in the Department, and that suggestion had never been denied. Dr. Briggs looked upon the letter as a trap deliberately laid for him, the writer knowing his temperament and knowing

  1733
  that he would be likely to reply to it in terms that might not be regarded as the most discreet and temperate. "Veritas" took quite the official view of the case against Dr. Briggs, and said it was not necessary for him to attend at the trial unless he had a subpœna served on him. He (Mr. Lockwood) supposed he ought to have some respect for an official Department, but he had very little respect for a man who suggested that a person should not attend the trial of a petition for divorce in which he had been made a co-respondent unless he got a subpœna. He should not advise any member of the Department who was ever so unfortunate as to be in that position to take such a course. Dr. Briggs sent to The Army and Navy Gazette a reply to "Veritas," in the course of which he said—
  "I trust, therefore, that although this is a very long letter you will insert every word of it as a mere matter of fair play. The Director General Medical Staff, is well aware of my opinion of his action in the whole affair from first to last. It was his privilege to have stood by and seen justice done; and he had the power to prevent a single step adverse to me in any way being taken before the trial, whatever might have been done afterwards; but, as I have myself told him, he was the agent of others who stood behind him in the background, and who were determined upon forcing me out of the country just before the trial, or my ruin. Who cannot form the answer for himself to that question? Why this desperate anxiety to get me out of the way at that trial? I venture to think, if fearless speaking-out on proper occasions was more common, cases of gross injustice and oppression would be less frequent in the Service than they are now."
  That letter was written by Dr. Briggs on the 4th June. On the 11th of June he received this letter:—
  "Horse Guards, War Office, June 11, 1892.
  Sir,—I have the honour, by desire of the Commander-in-Chief, to forward herewith an article which appeared in The Army and Navy Gazette of the 4th inst., headed 'Medical Staff,' and purporting to have been written by Surgeon Major W. H. Briggs, containing remarks regarding the Director General Army Medical Department that are quite contrary to discipline.
  His Royal Highness desires you to inquire of Surgeon Major Briggs whether the article in question is correctly attributed to him, and, in the event of this being found to be the case, to call upon him for an explanation.
  I have, &c.,
  CHAS. M. CLARKE, D.A.G."
  He (Mr. Lockwood) called the attention of the House to the wording of this
  1734
  letter. The only offer made to Dr. Briggs was that he should explain how it came about that the letter to the newspaper was written. If any suggestion had been made to him that he should prove his statements he would have accepted the challenge without a moment's hesitation. What he had always claimed was an opportunity of substantiating his suggestion. He wrote back at once stating that the letter was his, and that he accepted full responsibility for it. On the 18th June he received a letter from the War Office informing him that the reinstatement would not be proceeded with. It was interesting to note that in September an attempt was made by the Department to give Dr. Briggs his full pay and allowances while he was at Chester. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings it appeared that the Department regarded him as a temporarily-employed officer. Such an officer would not be entitled to full pay and allowances. Dr. Briggs had never been gazetted back into the Service, and yet it was held that his letter was a breach of discipline. He was sufficiently under discipline for dismissal, but not for a full inquiry into his conduct by means of a Court Martial. A correspondence took place between Dr. Briggs and the Department, and in October his solicitors wrote a letter on his behalf to the Department. The following reply was received:—
  "Horse Guards, War Office, S.W.
  Oct. 29, 1892.
  Sir,—I have the honour, by desire of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st inst., which, involving as it does a question of discipline, has been placed in the hands of the Adjutant General by the Military Secretary.
  His Royal Highness regrets that you have failed to fully apprehend the facts which governed the decision which has been arrived at in your case, and I have, therefore, to place before you what those facts are:—

  1. A letter from you having appeared in The Army and Navy Gazette of June 4, 1892, in which you made serious allegations against various officers, His Royal Highness ordered that your reinstatement, which was then on the point of appearing in the Gazette, should be suspended until you had explained or proved them.

  2. These allegations you failed, after full time for consideration, to explain, prove or withdraw, and the order for your reinstatement was therefore cancelled.

  His Royal Highness desires me to return the accompanying statement of the Connemara

  1735
  case, which does not relate to the question under immediate consideration.
  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your obedient servant,
  CHAS. M. CLARKE, D.A.G,
  W. H. Briggs, Esq., late Surgeon Major Medical Staff, c.o. Messrs. Holt and Co., 17, Whitehall Place."
  As a matter of fact, Dr. Briggs had never been asked to prove his assertions, and the letter was on a par with a great deal of the treatment which he had received from the Department. His solicitors replied on the 3rd November, stating that he courted an opportunity of proving bis statements and would avail himself of it. The answer received was the usual official one, that "the matter was now closed." No doubt in his published letter Dr. Briggs did speak in terms of disparagement of his superior officer, and no doubt it would not be advantageous to the Service that those in the Service should speak in disparagement of those who were above them. But what was the remedy? It was that those who did so should have the opportunity before a properly-constituted tribunal of proving whether they were justified or not. Dr. Briggs was willing to accept the proposition that he was under discipline at the time he wrote the letter. Would the Department grant that, being under discipline, he was entitled to an inquiry into his conduct? If he was not under discipline he could not, as a man of honour. withdraw his imputations until they had been proved to be true. If he was under discipline he was willing to express his regret for having written the letter, and to withdraw it. Under these circumstances, it was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would reinstate him, and so remove from the Department the discredit of being connected with an act of gross injustice.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I venture to make an appeal to the House, not in my own interest, but in the interest with which the House has been dealing, to allow me to break the Rules of Debate so that I may proceed to answer the observations of my hon. and learned Friend without sacri-
  1736
  ficing my right to discharge the duty which will lie upon me at the end of the whole Debate of answering to the best of my ability the other questions which may be raised in relation to Army matters. I am quite aware that, according to the regular and strict order of Debate, I ought to defer everything I have to say until the end of the discussion, but I feel that the course I propose to take will further the Business of the House, and I accordingly ask its kind indulgence. My hon. and learned Friend has brought forward a question the importance of which I will not under-rate, and one which has attracted a great deal of interest in many quarters. With regard to that question, I myself am in a happy position, because I, personally, as Secretary of State, have no responsibility in dealing with the matter. When I came into Office the matter had been decided, and was closed and concluded, and all that I have had to do has been to decide whether there is any reason for re-opening the case. My hon. and learned Friend has gone at considerable length into the earlier history of the case. He has recited the career of Dr. Briggs and the main facts of what I will speak of as the Connemara case and the subsequent action of the War Department. With the Connemara case I have nothing whatever to do. The War Office has nothing whatever to do with it, and never had anything to do with it. Whether the conduct of the Director General of the Army Medical Department was in all respects judicious and proper and regular is another matter, but, having gone into his conduct in the business with a perfectly impartial mind, I have not discovered the least room for suspicion. I am able to say frankly to the House that I do not believe, so far as my opportunity of judging has gone, that the merits of the Connemara case had anything to do with the action of the Director General of the Army Medical Department. Having come to that conclusion, I feel bound to state it, as I have no responsibility in the matter and no duty laid upon me to take one side or another. The Director General has dealt with Dr. Briggs as he would have done with any other of his officers. He had reason to believe that Dr. Briggs was taking a course by which, in effect, he would escape his proper turn of

  1737
  foreign duty, thereby putting more of that foreign duty upon his colleagues, and he accordingly ordered that officer to proceed to India, and finally placed before him the alternative that my hon. and learned Friend has described. I would point out to the House, in justification of what may appear to be the somewhat strict conduct of the Director General, that it is no unusual thing—and it is only human nature to expect it—on the part of officers, both departmental and others, to urge any pretext they can find to escape a turn of foreign service when it happens to be inconvenient for them to fulfil it. That is only natural; but it is, at all events, the duty of those in charge of the Department to guard against this being done, and there is a Rule, which also applies to the combatant branch, that it is not sufficient for an officer to say, "I am going to be concerned in an action," but he must produce the actual subpoena or actual order, or whatever it may be, of the Court with reference to the action which is brought against him. I understand that to be the ordinary precaution taken to meet the desire in some cases to escape foreign service. That accounts for the apparent rigidity and strictness of the action of the Director General in this case. As I have already said, I am not responsible for that action; but I feel bound, in justice to the Director General, to state that, so far as I have been able to look into the papers and to examine the facts, I do not believe that the Director General acted otherwise than under a strong sense of public duty in the steps he took. My predecessor in the office of Secretary of State stated in the House that Dr. Briggs would be reinstated. That passed a sponge over all that had happened before Dr. Briggs was put back in as good a place as he had previously occupied.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: But he was not gazetted until long afterwards.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. and learned Friend complains of delays and also of certain arrangements of the roster. Well, I am not responsible, and I cannot say what the reasons for those delays have been. Although they may have been very tantalising at the time, I do not think they can now be regarded as very material. In the Spring of last year Dr. Briggs was ordered to
  1738
  Chester on duty, and was at that time subject to Military Law. While in that position, he wrote a letter to a newspaper —certainly under strong provocation— recounting his view of the events which had occurred, and bringing a very injurious imputation against his superior officer. When that letter appeared, the matter passed out of the hands of the Director General of the Medical Staff, and the Adjutant General claimed to be heard on the subject. The Adjutant General is responsible for the discipline of the whole Army, and the view the Adjutant General took and takes of this case —a view with which I entirely concur—is that it is absolutely impossible to allow any officer in the Service to have an injurious imputation made against him in the public Press by his subordinate officer. I do not care, and it matters not one whit, from the point of view of military discipline, whether the imputation is true or not. But no officer has a right—and this is a well-understood fact—to bring an 'accusation of that sort against his superior officer in the public Press. There are ample means of making any grievance known to those in authority; and every complaint would be fully inquired into. Any Adjutant General, and especially the gallant officer who occupies at present the position of Adjutant General, would take very great care that any complaint properly preferred should be thoroughly examined— should be probed to the bottom, and a proper solution arrived at. But to allow an officer to write to the public Press attacking his superior officer is a course which cannot be defended from any point of view; and if the letter of Dr Briggs was allowed to pass unnoticed, we should have no end to the number of letters which would be published in the newspapers; and it would be impossible to maintain the necessary discipline in the Army. I have pointed out that the truth of the accusation is not in question at all. The accusation may be perfectly true, but that is not the way to make it. It was a breach of discipline to make it in that manner, and it was, therefore, incumbent on the Adjutant General to take notice of what had occurred. But this letter and the action which was taken upon it occurred before I became responsible for the administration of the

  1739
  War Office. Dr. Briggs was invited to say whether he was the author of the letter, and to explain himself. He was called upon to say what he meant, and to withdraw—
  MR. LOCKWOOD: Not withdraw.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps not in those terms; but his attention was called to the grave breach of discipline he had committed. Dr. Briggs refused to acknowledge that he had committed a breach of discipline, or to make any apology, or any withdrawal of the imputation. Under these circumstances, there was only one course open to the Military Authorities, and that was to cancel the reinstatement of Dr. Briggs. I am justified in saying that before that step was taken, Dr. Briggs was privately informed by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State that there would be no impediment to his reinstatement if he would withdraw the letter. But he refused to withdraw the letter, which stated that the Director General of the Medical Staff—
  "Was the agent of others who stood behind him in the background, and who were determined to force me (Dr. Briggs) out of the country just before the trial, to my ruin."
  Dr. Briggs did not complain merely of the action of the head of the Army Medical Department; but he said there was a conspiracy for the purpose of effecting his ruin. He was invited to withdraw that letter; and if the letter had been withdrawn, there would have been abundant opportunity to put forward in the regular course any complaint against a superior officer; but Dr. Briggs would not withdraw, and the reinstatement was cancelled. Dr. Briggs made an appeal and a protest. Did we shut the door in his face? Not at all. Now my responsibility begins, for at this period the change of Secretary for War took place. At all events, after I took office the Deputy Adjutant General, on behalf of the Adjutant General, wrote again to him saying that if the letter were withdrawn the door would be opened to him; but again Dr. Briggs slammed the door in our face. I can use no other expression. I will use the mildest words I can apply; but how foolish has been the conduct of Dr. Briggs! He had been reinstated under the late Secretary of State for War. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he was not
  1740
  gazetted—I decline to discuss mere technical terms—but he was re-employed with a view to reinstatement. He was therefore not only in a commanding, but in a victorious position, when he put himself out of court by writing this letter. A more foolish act was never committed, though it was done under strong provocation. A letter had appeared in a newspaper attacking him; and Dr. Briggs, not being discreet in dealing with affairs or in language, was goaded into publishing a reply and making this imputation. That is the reason why we have not once, but twice and thrice offered him the opportunity to withdraw the letter; but he declines to withdraw it, and stands by it. That was the position of events when I came into responsibility in the matter. I have never been adverse, and I do not find that the Military Authorities are at all averse, to reinstating Dr. Briggs on condition that the letter and the imputation are withdrawn; but it is perfectly absurd to suppose that an officer, such as Dr. Briggs, can efficiently conduct his duties while he remains as the author of an unwithdrawn letter bringing this injurious imputation against his superior officer. What would be the relations of Dr. Briggs and the Director General of the Medical Staff if this letter remained containing the imprimatur of the signature of Dr. Briggs, and bringing this dreadful accusation—for it is a dreadful accusation—against his superior officer? Like my Predecessor I have stretched every point to soothe the feelings and to smooth the ruffled feathers of Dr. Briggs. I repeat now what, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lockwood) knows, I have said before. I do not wish to go into the truth of the imputation. I do not wish Dr. Briggs to stand in a white sheet and assert that he had said that which was not true. I merely wish him to express his regret for a breach of discipline. If he will withdraw the letter, and the injurious imputation in the letter, there is still no reason why he should not be reinstated. What more can I do? As far as I can see, Dr. Briggs has formed a conception of the motive of his superior officer which is altogether unjustified; but, in any case, the imputation on his superior officer must be withdrawn before he can be reinstated. That is the attitude taken by the Adjutant General, an attitude which I have adopted and be-

  1741
  come responsible for. It is not only necessary in the interests of the Public Service, but it is a view which will command the approbation and adherence of every impartial man, that a stop must be put to the tendency to write such accusations to the public newspapers, instead of bringing them forward in the regular way, when they can be regularly dealt with. With all the sympathy which everyone must have in many respects for Dr. Briggs, and with all the regret that he has been so foolish as to knock himself down from the commanding position in which he had been set, in the interests of the Army and discipline if this glaring case had been allowed to pass without correction, it would form a precedent for all sorts of letters being published in a similar way, bringing charges against officers. It is my duty to protect officers against such charges; and as there are ample means of making complaints in the regular way, so long as I am Secretary for War I will do so. My hon. and learned Friend will admit that I have been most anxious to arrange this matter, and I believe that there has been and is no other desire on the part of the military authorities—if Dr. Briggs will make such a withdrawal of the letter as will satisfy the conditions I have laid down.
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)said, he regretted that this painful case should be again re-opened and brought before the House once more. He did not intend to go into what he might call the ancient history of "the case, for it had been fully and ably stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for York; but he wished to say that he did not think his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had been quite right in attributing to Dr. Briggs a desire to evade being sent out of the country on foreign service. Holding as he did a high opinion of the Army medical career of Dr. Briggs, he thought that was an imputation that should not have been made. The record of Dr. Briggs showed that he was a man who had served his country well, and the only desire he had had was to remain at home in order to be able to meet certain charges made against the honour of a lady in the only way, as the late Secretary for War had said, in which an
  1742
  officer could meet them. Having gone into the case fully, he could not relieve Dr. Briggs himself of the responsibility of having foolishly disturbed the Status quo that had existed before. He considered, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, that Dr. Briggs would have done much better had he taken the excellent terms offered him by the Secretary for War in the late Government for his reinstatement. He looked upon Dr. Briggs letter as an unfortunate accident only to be excused by the excuse which had been advanced—namely, that he had been overstrained by the long waiting and the rather suspicious delay to his reinstatement; that he had been in a state of great mental anxiety, and that in his cooler moments he would never have written such a letter. But admitting the case of the War Office up to the hilt, the punishment dealt out to Dr. Briggs was far too heavy for the offence. The career of Dr. Briggs had been a very distinguished one, and, as an old Army medical officer himself, he (Dr. Farquharson) could speak with some little authority in the matter, for he had had opportunities of knowing-the value and the distinction of Dr. Briggs' services to the State, and he was sure that if Dr. Briggs were reinstated he would perform services quite as valuable in the future. He was bound to state that the terms of reinstatement suggested by the Secretary of State for War were satisfactory on the whole; but the difficulty was that Dr. Briggs was called on unconditionally and absolutely to withdraw the whole of the letter. The greater part of the letter was made up of a statement of the Connemara case, and if Dr. Briggs withdrew the letter wholly and unreservedly he would imply that his statement of that case was not true as a matter of fact. He would suggest a compromise. Dr. Briggs should be allowed to say that he wrote the letter under a misapprehension, as he did not believe at the time that he was under discipline; that he withdrew the imputations against his superior officer. That being done, the rest of the letter might be allowed to stand. Perhaps the Secretary for War would consider the matter from that point of view; for if Dr. Briggs were punished in the manner proposed, it would mean his ruin, and the services he had rendered to

  1743
  the State entitled him to a more merciful consideration. He hoped some decision would be arrived at by which the services of such an excellent Army medical officer as Dr. Briggs would be secured to the State.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: I have listened with great pleasure to the satisfactory statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, and I may say on behalf of Dr. Briggs that he is willing to express regret for the letter, and begs leave to withdraw it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am very glad to hear what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I am quite ready to say that if that is done it will be done on the same terms and conditions on which it could have been done in July or August last—namely, the reinstatement of Dr. Briggs.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the case of a man named Jessett, a Warder of Crown Lands at Aldershot. The man was a very poor man, and he was not backed up in the same way as Dr. Briggs; but his case was all the same, worthy of great consideration and commisseration from the House. Jessett had been in the Army for some time; he originally enlisted in the Staffords, and was in that force for 13½ years. He had been through the Crimea, through the Indian Mutiny and other campaigns, receiving three medals for his services; and on his retirement he was engaged by the War Office as Warder of Crown Lands near Aldershot, which post he filled for 28 years, bearing all the time an unsullied character. The man did not retire from that position voluntarily; he retired on the advice of the officer commanding the Royal Engineers under whom he served. At that time Jessett had arrived at the age of 65. In a letter dated December, 1891, the officers commanding the Royal Engineers wrote to Jessett, stating that he should now take the pension that he had earned, and giving him notice that his active employment must cease three months from that date. Jessett did not inquire as to the pension he was entitled to; but on the strength of this letter from his superior officer he retired, and then
  1744
  applied for his pension. The War Office put him off from day to day in the matter of the pension, and on the 25th November, 1892, he received a letter stating that the Secretary for War would inquire into the matter. In January of this year he was again told that his application for superannuation was still under consideration, and on the 20th February this year he was informed by the War Office that they had no power to make him any award under the superannuation grants. It, therefore, came to this: that the man having retired as he had thought on the express understanding given him by his commanding officer that he would receive a pension, he found himself, at the age of 65, adrift on the world unable to take up any other occupation, and with absolutely nothing to live upon. It was a very hard case. This man had served the country for 13½ years in the Staffords, and for 28 years as a warder in the War Department, making a total of 42 years, and yet he was told he was to receive no pension whatever. He (Mr. Jeffreys) found in the Estimates that other warders were receiving pensions. The Secretary for War had said that Jessett was obliged to retire owing to his old age, but his commanding officer in the letter did not say anything about that; and he found in the Army Estimates that there were several other warders similarly situated who have received pensions. He could assure the House that unless this man got some pension from the War Office, to which he held he was entitled, he was absolutely destitute, having no means of livelihood. No doubt the man resigned of his own accord, but he did so on the strength of the letter he received; and having resigned he was now cut off from his livelihood and debarred from the receipt of a pension to which he (Mr. Jeffreys) believed he was entitled. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his consideration. In fact, in answer to a question the other day, the right hon. Gentleman told him he would; but he took this opportunity of raising the matter in the House for the purpose not of prolonging the Debate, but pointing out that this man, who was one of his constituents, had been badly treated and to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to do something for him.

  ARMY RECRUITING—FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE INFANTRY.
  GENERAL SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, he wished to bring under the attention of the House one or two subjects, one of?which had reference to recruiting. He thought young men would be more inclined to enter the Army if it could be shown to them that it was to their advantage to do so, and this could not be done in any better way than by increasing the pay of the junior noncommissioned officers. It was quite true that they gave promotion from the ranks; but those who had earned that honourable distinction had long since left the locality in which they were born, and the fact, therefore, did not come before the eyes of the people of the locality. If they gave 2s. a day to a corporal he thought it would have a great effect in stimulating recruiting, and for this reason: The rank of lance-corporal was attained by a bright young man in a couple of years. He then would go back on leave to his native village with the stripes on his arm and with 2s. a day, and he (Sir F. Fitz-Wygram) believed he would set all the lads of the village on fire to join the Military Service. But he would ask them to go a step further, and increase the pay of the sergeants to 3s. a day, or 21s. a week. If a corporal could go back to his village at the end of two years, a sergeant would be able to go back at the end of four years, and they would find it would have a most remarkable effect. Not only would the young men be on fire, but their mothers and fathers—when they saw that a young man after four years' service was in a better position than the agricultural labourer who was the best paid man on the farm, and who was not likely to get more than 18s. a week after 30 or 40 years' service—would be urging them to join the Army. Other proposals had been made to encourage recruiting which he thought inexpedient and unnecessary. One was to increase the pay of the soldier all round 2d. per day, which would cost the country about £200,000 a year. Another proposal was to give free rations and increase the amount of meat to 1 lb.; but that, it was estimated, would cost £250,000 a year. Another proposal made the other night was to make entirely free the whole of
  1746
  the messing of the Army, which was calculated to cost £650,000 a year. The proposal he made was a comparatively small additional expense, but it would be of immediate effect, as it would place at once before the eyes of recruits the advantages of joining the Army. They might place the bird in the bush before their eyes; but his belief was that the recruit looked more to the bird in the hand than to the two in the bush; his belief was that if they gave these immediate attractions to recruits, they would never want for the best class of men to reinforce the ranks of the Army. Do not let it be supposed he wished to say anything against an increase of pay to the older non-commissioned officers, but that was not the question he was now speaking about; he was only speaking on the question of recruiting. There was also another question concerning the recruiting he wished to call attention to, and that was the advisability of granting to their soldiers some employment during the time they were in the ranks. If they looked to their Reserve and talked to them as he had done, they would find the general complaint was not their treatment whilst in the Army, but that when they got into the Reserves they had no employment, the reason being that they had no trade to fall back upon, having joined the Army before they had learned a trade. He believed that complaint was perfectly true, because he had noticed that almost all the loafers amongst the Reserves came from the Infantry. He belonged to a Cavalry regiment himself, and he found very few Cavalry men loafing about the streets, the reason being that during their service they had not only been kept at work, but had learned a trade; so that they readily got employment about horses and stables, and as carmen; very seldom indeed was a Cavalry man seen loafing about. He did not place any particular virtue in the Cavalry man over the Infantry man, but, as he had said, the one had learned a business, and the other had not. In the same way, he seldom found a Royal Artillery man loafing about, because he had learned a trade; the same with the Royal Engineers, the Commissariat and Transport Service, all of whom, more or less, had learned a trade. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for War to do something to promote

  1747
  industrial employment. He might be told a. man joined the Army because he wished to be idle. He knew there was a good deal in that, but the proposal he had made was one worthy of attention. They had a corps called pioneers in the Infantry regiments; they were supposed to be workmen, but he did not think they had much employment. What he wished to ask the Secretary for War was to extend the pioneers of the regiment and make five pioneers in every company— total, 40, and send them to be trained at Chatham, so that they would be handy at all military trades. This, he believed, would be found to be useful in war as well as at home. For instance, if they sent out a company of Infantry, he doubted if they would have any of the men who knew how to throw up temporary entrenchments to secure themselves; therefore, it would be most advantageous to have five men properly trained who should go out with every company. He might be asked how he was going to employ these men at home. He should like to hand over to the pioneers of the regiment the whole of the barrack repairs as long as the regiment remained in barracks. He would start such a proposal in this way: Having sent the men to Chatham to be trained he would divide them into three classes, paying them 8d., 1s., and 1s. 6d. a day respectively; he would place them under a subaltern officer who was fond of that sort of Work, and give him 2s. a day, and let him take charge of these men, to be employed at such times as they were not wanted for other duties. They might tell him there would be a difficulty in taking them away from parades and other duties. For his part, he did not believe in endless and everlasting drill and marching past in barracks. In the Cavalry and Artillery corps the men gave four or five hours a day to exercising and cleaning the horses, and he maintained that in smartness of appearance, drill, and that sort of thing, the Cavalry would compare not unfavourably with the Infantry; and if the Cavalry could spare five hours a day, surely the Infantry might spare four hours every other day; that was to say, he would set them to work every other day for an eight hours day. Then, as to payment. He would allow squads or gangs to undertake particular work, but
  1748
  he would make this proviso: that the payment for all barrack work should never, under any circumstances, exceed half of what was paid now to civil contractors, and for the reason that they were employed upon military pay, and should not receive as much as those who were not so employed. At Alder-shot they had an immense variety of work going on, and soldiers might well be employed in the rougher sort of work connected with the building that was going on there, an experience that would be most useful in the event of any future war, when the pick and the shovel would be required. They had £5,000,000 of money voted for barrack-work, and some not inconsiderable portion of that might be well earned by their Infantry soldiers with great advantage to the country, to the recruiting, and with great advantage to their efficiency in war. It might be said that under the present system the Infantry soldier could not possibly spare the time for that sort of work. Well, they had short service in the Cavalry and the Artillery, but they found time for something else besides marching about continually. In truth, there was nothing in the objection of want of time, and he would ask the Secretary of State for War to see if it was not possible to give effect to some such scheme as the one be had roughly sketched. He did not ask them to carry out exactly his proposal, but to do something in that direction, and appoint a Committee of Members of this House with power to call before them as witnesses some of the best and most intelligent of their commanding officers, when they would easily be able to form a scheme that would benefit both the Service and the soldier. Another point he wished to bring forward was in connection with their foreign service. He believed the foreign service of the Infantry was both excessive and unnecessary; they kept their garrisons abroad now the same as they did 50 years ago, when there were nothing but sailing vessels in which to send out their troops. His impression was that in the present day it would be a deal better for the troops of the line if they were kept in reserve at home instead of injuring their health and their morals at so many of their foreign stations. There were several of their foreign stations almost within a stone's throw to

  1749
  which they could send out reinforcements in a few days, and in which he believed they might decrease the garrisons with advantage. He did not want to run any risks, therefore the fortresses and harbours should be secured against a coup de main. But take the case of Gibraltar, that was only four days' sail from England, and they had there four regiments. He would propose to reduce that garrison by one regiment, and keep it at home at its full foreign strength. Then they had Malta, only about seven days' sail from home. They had six regiments there, and they might reduce that by two regiments which could be brought home. That would give them three more regiments more than they had at home now. Then he looked further ahead, across to the West Indies. That, he admitted, was further off, but those who knew the West Indies knew well enough they had no force in the West Indies that could be defended against a Naval Power; that whatever Naval Power was the strongest would be the owners of those islands, and he saw no sense or reason in keeping a regiment there, and if required they could be sent out in 10 or 12 days. Then there was the Straits Settlement. That was a long way off, and could not be reinforced from home; but it was an unhealthy climate. There were no natives to give trouble, and the settlement ought to be garrisoned by Indian troops, and reinforced by a British regiment from India if necessary. Then there was an island called Ceylon; what on earth they kept a regiment there for he did not know and could not conceive, because it was so near to India, and they had a large naval station at Trincomalee. He did not wish to go much further. Total, six regiments kept in reserve at home instead of abroad. An hon. Member advised the other day that all our garrisons ought to be kept abroad. He differed from the hon. Member on that point, as he considered it very little good to have a garrison abroad if the men were constantly sick. It was said, and the late Lord Mayo was his authority, that the climate at Peshawur used to ruin the health of two British regiments quartered there every season. Lord Mayo told him that the nvaliding from that station was perfectly
  1750
  horrible, and so it was with regard to some other stations; they ought to be kept on full strength at home. He did not wish to see a single soldier the less, but it would be for the advantage of the soldier and beneficial to the nation if the reserve were at home instead of abroad. The only other point he would refer to was the necessity for better organisation of the Cavalry. In round numbers they had a Cavalry Force at home of 8,500 men, and in that Force he believed they had the best officers, the best non-commissioned officers and men and horses in the world, and there was nothing to prevent its being a most effectiveCavalry Force, except the want of organisation. At present they had not a single Cavalry regiment they could send abroad at once strong enough to maintain itself on a war strain. The cause of that was because they frittered away their 8,500 men in 19 units, none of which were strong enough for purposes of war. They kept six regiments on strength enough to start on a campaign, but they had no reserve and no depot squadron, and therefore could not stand a war strain. Divide the regiments into 12 instead of 19 units, and. the effect would be to have every regiment strong and fit, not only to go abroad, with the depot squadron, but fit to maintain itself whilst abroad. There would be no decrease in the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, or the men, and they would maintain the same proportion as they had now; the only sufferers would be the regimental staff. The cost would be nothing, but the difference would be great. At present they had 19 regiments of which they could not say one was fit for war, and the result of which he proposed would be they would have 12 regiments always fit for war. He held very strongly the opinion that in these days when wars broke out suddenly, and in every part of the world, that every regiment it was worth while to maintain ought to be prepared for war. He could not conceive a system more dangerous than having a regiment in the first line that was not sufficiently strong to stand the campaign. The main objections the Horse Guards had to recommending these alterations was a fear that the lesser number of regiments might afterwards be reduced in strength. Personally he believed there was nothing

  1751
  to justify this distrust of the House of Commons; every proposal for the better treatment of the men was received with respect and attention by the House, and he thought that no antiquated system ought to prevail, and certainly should not be allowed to stand in the way of the efficiency of the Army.

  APPOINTMENT OF SOLDIERS IN CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.): I desire to say but a few words at the present stage, because, I would much prefer to discuss the Army Estimates after the right hon. Gentleman has made his statement, but as the latitude of discussion upon the first Vote in Committee will not be so large as it has hitherto been, as I am very anxious to set myself right to some extent, and also to make some remarks on a subject of importance to recruiting, I propose to do it on the present occasion. I would say that while I entirely agree with the gallant officer who has just spoken (Sir F. FitzWygram) in his very practical remarks upon some of the wants of the Army and the means by which it could be made more efficient, I could not agree with him that it would be prudent, from any point of view, to withdraw the garrisons from our first-class fortresses abroad with the view of replacing them on the unfortunate outbreak of hostilities. With regard to Gibraltar, anyone acquainted with the course of duty in that fortress must know the duties are so exceedingly heavy that it would be difficult to withdraw one battalion stationed there. And, moreover, I should like to remind the House that in modern wars it is not a word and a blow but a blow and a word. A few years ago an interesting Return was made by the Foreign Office to the House, which shows that war actually preceded the declaration of war, and what would be the condition of this country on an outbreak of war if we should have to reinforce many of our fortificatious; if we had to replace the reduced garrisons of important places and send transports in hot haste to every part of the world in order to make up for the reductions that had been made? But, Sir, the point to which I chiefly desire to call the attention of the House is the appointment of
  1752
  soldiers in Civil Departments. Very soon after I went to the Post Office my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) asked me to look into this matter, and endeavour to assist him in the endeavour he was making to find employment for the soldiers of the reserve and those discharged from the Army. After some consideration, I thought the Post Office might do a great deal in furthering my right hon. Friend's intentions, and I made an Order that, subject to any promise or understanding entered into with anyone already in the Post Office Service, all out-door appointments should be offered preferentially to soldiers. Within a few months after the making of such Order I found 2,000 such men already in the employment of the Department, and those best qualified to express their opinion stated with good results to the Service. These men, accustomed as they were to discipline and the punctual performance of duty, were found to discharge the work of the Postal Department with the regularity which might be expected of them, and seeing that only men of good character were taken, there were excellent accounts in respect to their conduct, and I believe now that the best relations are established between the Post Office and the War Office, so that, on the one hand, vacancies are immediately made known to officers in charge of districts; whilst, on the other hand, lists of soldiers available for employment are placed in the hands of officers of the Post Office. Sir, I hope this plan will be carried a great deal further. As has been remarked, my right hon. Friend has induced some of the large employers in the country to do a good deal more than they had done before to employ soldiers in the Service, and I believe other Departments are in the course of being opened. I asked to-day the Secretary for War if he could state what progress had been made by the Committee appointed by the Treasury to consider what posts in all Civil Departments could be given to soldiers, for I hope we shall shortly have information on this subject to show that the matter has been taken up in earnest. It is very well for people to applaud such a field of employment being opened up to soldiers. In the abstract they are always ready to do generous and liberal things, but those

  1753
  who have anything to do with this matter will find when they come to put it into practice that all sorts of objections are made to such employment of soldiers; so that the head of a Department is placed in a difficulty. There are gentlemen in every part of the country who have, say, deserving servants who have been a long time in their employment, and for whom they are anxious to find good places in the Public Service. Unless there be a distinct intimation given on the part of this House that it is their desire that these places should be given to those who had already served the State, and whom it was particularly desirable to treat fairly and generously, depend upon it this matter will not go far. The right hon. Gentleman, my successor in the Post Office, said something the other day in this House which makes me fear he has been "got at" in respect to employment of soldiers at the Post Office. I know that my right hon. Friend approves of the matter in the main and in the abstract. But we heard something about the parents of boys not liking to go into the Telegraph Service unless they are to be employed altogether in the Post Office. It has been said, with injustice, that I tried to make a rule that when boys were engaged as telegraph messengers it was on some understanding that they were afterwards to enlist in the Army. Nothing was further from my mind, and I only heard of such proposal absolutely to repudiate it and reject it. A boy who is taken into the Telegraph Service at the age of 13 remains there till he is 17 or 18, and then he must pass into other employment. Those who have been already employed on some understanding as to that advancement will undoubtedly receive it, but there has been no such understanding as that which was alleged to have been made to which I have referred. I do not think that boys would suffer any hardship from serving seven years with the colours in the Army if there was an understanding when they entered the Telegraph Service as messengers that, on enlisting in the Army, they have a preferential claim to employment before any other soldier* leaving the colours; and I do not think they would be any the worse as postmen for having learned the discipline and received the intelligence and the physical improve-
  1754
  ment incidental to the Army Service. My right hon. Friend seemed to think telegraph boys could not be got unless parents could depend on their passing into the regular postal service after four or five years service as messenger. I believe that is a delusion. I believe that the inducements held out to soldiers in the Army now are such that there will be no difficulty in getting boys to come as telegraph messengers and enlist in the Army afterwards. There is no compulsion but every inducement is held out to them. The conditions of the Army Service have been enormously improved, and I do not think there is such a thing now as a soldier being underfed. The rations supplied now are ample and young soldiers improve greatly upon it. Some hon. Members talked about there being no evening meals, but to my knowledge there are battalions at this moment where a good bowl of strong soup is given to all the men who call for it every night. But, Sir, it is to yield to an ignorant and unreasoning objection to say boys cannot be got to enter the Telegraph Service unless there is a promise of permanent, uninterrupted Civil employment. I will suggest to the Postmaster General that he might well turn his attention to those admirable establishments, the Royal Military School at Chelsea and the Royal Hibernian School. I have lately heard that many boys educated at those schools do not enter the Army, and, of course, as boys can only enter as drummers or in some such capacity, there must be a surplus of boys available for other duties, and no more suitable boys could be be found from the Telegraph Service, in which smartness and. punctuality are required, than these boys who receive an admirable education and excellent discipline in those schools. Again, I can fancy no greater encouragement to those schools, or the means of enlarging them, than to get a considerable reinforcement of telegraph boys from them. Having been accustomed to military life in its initial stage they are afterwards more likely to embrace it after a few years' service in the Telegraph Department. This question of civil employment is of very great importance, both as regards the safety of the State and the improvement of the rank and file of the Army. Other nations have recognised it. In Germany, where

  1755
  nearly all the population pass through the Army, there is an enormous number of places in civil life open to soldiers preferentially which are not here, and with the greatest possible advantage. There is still an unreasonable prejudice against the Army service amongst our population. At one time, after hanging or Botany Bay, the most dreadful thing was to go for a soldier. That certainly ought not to be a feeling entertained now; and if even there was any foundation for it, for the greatest pains are taken to train soldiers up respectably, to give them every inducement to good behaviour, and to find useful employment for them after they leave the ranks. The best way to get parents not to object to their sons entering the Army is to give their boys a prospect of service afterwards; and if this be done you will fill your service with well-trained and thoroughly useful men, you will get a higher class of men in the Army, and your soldiers will return to civil life with an improved capacity for usefulness. I commend this matter to the earnest attention of the Government. I am aware there is no matter affecting the good of the Army which the present Secretary for War has not at heart and will do his best to carry out, and I venture to think that neither he nor the House will consider I have exaggerated the importance of the matter to which I have called attention.

  THE 79TH CAMERON HIGHLANDERS.
  MR. CORBETTwished to call attention to a matter which had aroused great interest throughout Scotland—namely, the proposal to transform the 79th Cameron Highlanders into a 3rd Battalion of Guards. When he heard of that proposal he wrote to all the Scotch Members asking them to give him their opinions on it, and the great majority of them—irrespective of Party, for this question did not assume any Party aspect— replied unhesitatingly in favour of maintaining the regiment. There was one exception, however. The hon. Member for Inverness very strongly opposed the continued existence of the 79th Highlanders, and declared it would be rather gratifying than otherwise to the sentiment of the Highlanders if the regiment were done away with. The hon. Mem-
  1756
  ber said there was a strong feeling against joining the Army amongst Highland lads because they might be compelled to join in carrying out eviction proceedings. That seemed to him a very extraordinary argument, especially considering that the police forces of Scotland, who had, in the first instance, to enforce the law in these cases, were mainly composed of these same Highland lads who were said not to be willing to join the Army because the Army might, under some future Government, be employed in carrying out eviction proceedings. The opposition of the Member for Inverness to the maintenance of this regiment only brought out more clearly the strong feeling throughout Scotand in its favour. The Town Council of Inverness had passed a resolution in favour of maintaining the regiment, and they had also passed a further resolution calling the attention of the Member for Inverness to their first resolution, and asking him to do all he could to give effect to it. That was not the only protest in the hon. Member's constituency, for an extreme Radical paper in that Division denounced in the strongest manner the course the hon. Member for Inverness had taken, and strongly supported the plea for the continued existence of the regiment. If the replies he received from the Scotch Members were gratifying, the comments in the Scotch Press were not less satisfactory to the friends of the regiment, for almost all the papers, without distinction of Party, strongly advocated the continued existence of the regiment. One paper, however, belonging to an English gentleman, and a Member of the House, The Dundee Advertiser, did not share in the Scottish sentiment, but maintained that English gentlemen were the best judges of this question, and had the most right to speak upon it, because they were the kith and kin of the men who composed it. It was alleged that the regiment had ceased to be a Highland regiment, and had become in fact an English regiment. Well, that was very far from being the case. No one who had studied the history of the regiment could be under any doubt that it had maintained its old traditions. There had been no difficulty in keeping up the regiment in years gone by, and filling its ranks with the right material of

  1757
  Scotch and Highland recruits. In 1887 the regiment returned from Egypt 1,050 strong. It was then reduced systematically and intentionally to the home strength of 750 men. It had maintained that home strength during the whole time of its residence in Edinburgh till 1891 with the greatest ease. And what was the material of which it then consisted? Out of 750 men there were only from 130 to 140 Englishmen. Of the 600 who were Scotchmen, no fewer than 340 were pure Highlanders, a greater proportion of Highlanders than the regiment had at the time when it so greatly distinguished itself at the Battle of Waterloo. Those who were interested in this regiment were gratified by the assurance of the Secretary for War that the particular proposal to transform this regiment into a battalion of Guards had been abandoned. But what they were anxious for now was that it should be put upon a permanently secure footing by having a second battalion given to it. The position of the regiment, as a single battalion, had constantly been one of uncertainty; constant attacks had been made upon it, and it had had from time to time to be defended by strong expressions of Scottish opinion. What they wanted was that the recommendation of Lord Wantage's Committee should be carried out, and a second battalion given to the regiment. When the question was asked a little time ago in the House by the Member for Deptford as to granting a second battalion to this regiment, the reply of the Secretary for War was that he would be very glad to furnish this regiment with a second battalion if the hon. Member for Deptford would find him the recruits. He wanted to know why the Secretary for War should be so anxious to go to Deptford for recruits for this regiment, and why he should not be willing to give the same generous offer and challenge to the Members for Glasgow? If he would ask the Members for Glasgow to furnish recruits for this regiment—for a second battalion—and would allow the regiment to recruit there, then they would furnish him with a second battalion. Why was it they had not this privilege? It was not alleged that they would not be able to get a second battalion in Glasgow for this regiment. It might be alleged that throw-
  1758
  ing Glasgow open to this regiment would injure the recruiting chances of other less popular and historic regiments which had Glasgow as a supplemental district in which to recruit. If other regiments which were less popular and less historic would suffer by competition with this regiment, that was no reason why the Cameron Highlanders should be destroyed or should cease to exist. He pointed to the splendid services and sacrifices rendered by the Cameron Highlanders. At the battle of Toulouse it entered into the engagement 414 strong, and only 215 men and one-half of its officers returned. At Quatre Bras and Waterloo it lost no fewer than 479 men. In one of his despatches Blucher specially commented upon the way in which these Highlanders over and over again resisted the attacks of the Old Guards of France. In the Crimea no regiment distinguished itself more, and "the thin red line" would never be forgotten as long as Scotchmen cared for the national traditions of military valour. In the time of the Indian Mutiny the regiment received the special commendation of Parliament and the Sovereign for the distinguished way in which it took its part in that great war. At the recent engagement at Tel-el-Kebir it was a member of this regiment, Donald Cameron, who in the storming of the outworks was the first to reach the top and give his life to his country. These were services which he hoped Scotchmen would never forget. He knew they might be told that this was a mere matter of sentiment, but he maintained that civilians like himself could see as well as military men that in military matters sentiment was a practical force. They all remembered the words of Sir Colin Campbell, "There are none but Highland bonnets here." Sir Colin knew that the traditions of the Highland regiments affect all who join their ranks, and the splendid services rendered under his inspiring words showed not only the value of the regiment that was now in jeopardy, but showed the wisdom of the sentimental words by which their heroism was inspired.
  MR. HOZIERcordially agreed with every word of the eloquent speech of his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Hozier) wished to call special attention to a local fact in connection with the 79th Highlanders and the other kilted

  1759
  regiments. The Secretary for War must be aware that recruiting for the kilted regiments was entirely closed in Glasgow and in Hamilton. Glasgow was about the best place possible for recruiting Highlanders; but it was now closed against the kilted regiments, and if a Highlander wished to enlist for one of these regiments he was told he could not do so, and was asked to join some other regiment. He knew there was a form which might be filled up by a Highlander who wanted to serve in a kilted regiment, but this led to delay, and the privilege was only granted to men who obstinately refused to enlist in any regiment except a kilted regiment. It was rather hard it should be thrown in their teeth that this regiment was not composed of Highlanders, or even of Scotchmen, to the extent it ought to be when there was this restriction on recruiting. Again, it was rather hard that when a vacancy occurred in the majority of the regiment an outsider should be put in instead of an officer being promoted.

  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  CAPTAIN BOWLESwished to refer to a matter affecting his constituents. Last year, a great reduction was made in the Government factory at Enfield Lock, the wages bill being reduced from £160,000 to £120,000 a year. He held that the policy of employing private firms for the manufacture of rifles was not one that recommended itself, whether on the ground of economy or of expediency. The first contract that was given to private firms was for 100,000 rifles at £5 10s. per rifle. Rifles were now manufactured at Enfield at a cost of £3 10s. each. He knew that future orders to be given to the trade were to be given at a less price, but he wished to point out that no less a person than Mr. Rigby, the superintendent of the factory at Enfield, in a paper read before the Society of Engineers, summed up the matter in these words, showing that it was necessary to the success of the factory that all hands should be fully employed and the machinery not allowed to lie idle—
  "The success of the whole system depends upon a large output. The staff is necessarily expensive, so great vigilance is required to prevent material from being spoiled, and to prevent labour from feeing wasted on faulty material and for various Other objects. All the costs of staff, adminis-
  1760
  trative and clerical, lighting, heating, and power, maintenance of machinery and buildings, stores and depreciation, besides tools of all sorts, gauges, cost of inspection by the factory viewers, costs of store department, work-takers, police, rates and taxes, subscription to church and schools, &c, are charged to indirect expenditure; and, as such, are added as a percentage to the direct cost of the production of the year. If the output is large, the burden of indirect charges is spread over it and easily borne; with a restricted output it becomes heavy, and the costs of all articles produced are correspondingly high."
  Last year he had to complain of the most unfair advantage which had been given by the Government to the Small Arms Factory at Birmingham, and he was sorry to see this year that the factory at Birmingham was even in a worse position than the factory at Enfield. Therefore, he could not help thinking that it must in some way be due to private trade that these large reductions were taking place in the Government factories. He hoped before long that if the Secretary of State, or those who controlled the War Department, did not see their way to economise by employing the Government factories in preference to private trade, that the Treasury would bring some pressure to bear on them, for he felt, and we have the authority of the Superintendent of the Enfield factory, that there must be a certain output if the work was to be done economically. It was necessary, in the interest of economy, that the Government factories should be given a larger share of work than he thought they were likely to receive during the coming year. With regard to pensions, he could not help thinking that an establishment was a good thing for those who worked for the Government, and for the country at large. He believed the reason the Admiralty paid pensions was that in the time of war they might have a certain hold over employés in the different departments. On the subject of the advantage of pensions, Mr. Rigby said—
  "The system of pensions, to which all men were formerly entitled on completing a full term of service, aided to attach the men to the locality, and many of the men now in the works are of the third generation of employés."
  To such an extent did the men get attached to the district, that knowing that when their years of labour in the factory were over they should remain in the district with their pensions, many of them, out of their savings, had

  1761
  bought plots of land and built freehold cottages. It would be well, therefore, for the Government to see whether there should not be a system by which these men, who had served many years in the Government factory, should get pensions in their old age, and be kept off the rates. Owing to the large reductions that were made in the Government factories during recent years, a number of men who had been a long time in the factories had been discharged, and had in the end become chargeable on the rates of the locality, so that not only had a large number of his constituents lost employment, but the burden of the ratepayers of the district had been increased. He would raise the question more fully on another occasion, but he thought it well to say those few words before the Speaker left the Chair.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the hon. Member for Enfield had stated very truly that in the Estimates for the coming year the Sparkbrook factory would fare worse than the Enfield establishment. This was a question in which he was specially interested, because Sparkbrook was situated in the division of Bordesley, which he had the honour to represent. The present Estimates meant the discharge of something like 500 men, a very serious fact to contemplate. Of course if the demand for rifles was smaller than formerly, there must of necessity be a discharge of men, but he maintained that the reduction should be made fairly all round. The late Government reduced the wages account at Enfield from £200,000 to £160,000, and at Sparkbrook from £75,000 to £60,000. There was thus a reduction of 20 per cent. all round. It was, however, now proposed to reduce Enfield by 25 per cent. and Sparkbrook by between 40 and 50 per cent. That was not fair to Sparkbrook. Sparkbrook did not ask any favour from the present Government. Unfortunately, Birmingham was not specially in favour with the Government. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, he could tell the Government that there was a very widespread feeling in Birmingham that its treatment resulted to a great degree from want of favour. He did not suggest that that consideration weighed with the right hon. Gentleman, but he was telling the right hon. Gentleman that a widespread feeling
  1762
  amongst the artizans of Birmingham was that if Birmingham had returned eight Separatists instead of eight Unionists there would have been a difference made in its favour in the Estimates of the present year. He was also ready to admit that the agitation in Birmingham against the War Office during the time of the late Government was very great. They were charged with favouritism, sweating, and other things. All those charges were absolutely untrue. They were not formulated by the artizans and workmen in Sparkbrook, but by political agitators for political purposes. The leader of those agitators was an adopted candidate of the Gladstonian caucus in Birmingham. That gentleman quoted statistics which were absolutely incorrect, and made charges which had not the least foundation; but he received his reward, for he was now one of our local labour correspondents. He did not charge the President of the Board of Trade with any cognisance of the matter; but he warned the right hon. Gentleman against the adoption of that pernicious American doctrine of the spoils for the victors. The questions which had been asked of the Secretary of State for War during the last two or three days had thrown no light on the subject of the unfair treatment of Sparkbrook. When asked for the reason of the decrease in the Vote for Wages at the Small Arms Factory, the right hon. Gentleman said that if they put the increase on the Bagot Street establishment, which was a small repairing shop, to the Sparkbrook Vote they would find that the reduction was about equal to that at Enfield. The statement was not correct. The reduction was very considerably more than that made at Enfield. For years the normal Vote for Bagot Street had been from £25,000 to £28,000 per annum. Last year the late Government reduced the Vote to £16,000. The present Secretary of State had submitted that £17,000 was to be spent in Bagot Street during the present year, so that the conclusion was that, although £26,000 was put down for Bagot Street, it was a mere paper increase. Bagot Street had nothing at all to do with Sparkbrook. It was merely a repairing shop, and had no connection whatever with the Small Arms Factory. If there happened to be a glass manufactory at Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentle-

  1763
  man increased the Vote for it, he might just as well have said:—" We have reduced the Votes for the making of guns, but we have given a larger Vote for glass bottles." Then it was asked if the works at Bagot Street were to be removed to Sparkbrook, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "Not for another year." That meant that in a short time the repairing works were to be removed from Bagot Street to Sparkbrook, and that Sparkbrook was to be discontinued as a manufacturing place. The hon. Member for Enfield, quoting Mr. Rigby, stated truly that the success of a manufactory depended upon the output, because the fixed charges were so large. Sparkbrook was equal to the turning out of from 700 to 1,000 rifles a week, but when the reduction contemplated by the Government took place it would turn out about 200 rifles a week. It would, therefore, be seen that when they put all the fixed charges of a great manufactory on 200 instead of 700 rifles, it would make the cost of the rifles correspondingly greater. Next year, if this Government were in power—for the sake of the working classes in Birmingham he trusted they would not be, and if one might judge from present appearances they were not likely to be—what would happen? The right hon. Gentleman would say, "Oh! the rifles at Birmingham cost £4, whereas at Enfield they cost £3," the difference being the result of the restriction of output as a consequence of the policy of the Government. In reply to another question the right hon. Gentleman said the cost of rifles at Enfield and Birmingham was about £3 15s. He asserted that rifles were produced at Birmingham 2s. 6d. cheaper than at Enfield, and as 92,000 rifles were produced at Sparkbrook in 1892, there was thus a saving of between £11,000 and £12,000. Sparkbrook was the most perfectly-equipped small arms factory in the world. When it was sold to the Government, owing to having been starved through the lack of orders, for £55,000, having cost £150,000, there was a distinct understanding that it should be kept up as a small arms manufactory. He had a letter proving that point, but he would not trouble the House by reading it. [Ministerial cries of "Read!"] He was challenged to read the letter by some new Members, who seemed to think
  1764
  that the turning of 500 artizans and their families out of employment was of little consequence. The letter was dated October 9, 1883, when the question of the purchase of the manufactory was under consideration, and was written by the Chairman of the Committee of Liquidators. The letter stated that the proposed transfer of the factory to the Government might be advocated on the grounds of economy, and pointed out the advantages of Birmingham as a manufactory for arms on the grounds of its local safety and its central position for the rapid and cheap distribution of arms over the Kingdom. As a further argument, when the Government took over that there were £30,000 at least spent on new machinery on the understanding that the work would be proceeded with. Even the great steam hammers were taken up and reset, clearly showing that then the factory was intended for something more than repairing locks and browning gun barrels. There was every means provided for turning out 1,000 rifles a week. But soon steps were taken to dismantle the factory and transfer the work to Enfield. The late Secretary for War then received a deputation on the subject, and he listened to the arguments in favour of retaining the factory, the arguments and representations placed before him being general, and none of them local. The defects in our military system were pointed out, and the advantages of a factory at Birmingham clearly shown. The late Secretary for War yielded to the arguments, and in consequence the wages item in the Estimates for 1889–90 rose from £35,000 to £65,000, and the increase was sustained until 1892, when there was a 20 per cent. reduction. The reduction was a fair one, because there was a similar reduction at Enfield. The present reduction, however, everyone must see, meant the starving of the place as a manufacturing centre, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would frankly say whether it was the intention of the Department to do that. The right hon. Gentleman might repeat the statement that it was never intended that this place should be more than a repairing shop; but 12 mouths ago there was a great crusade against this factory on political grounds—a crusade carried on by a certain newspaper—a paper published in

  1765
  London by the friends, or rather masters, of the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War. The late Government were accused of corruption for doing that which, in the public interest, was really a good thing. The newspaper paragraph contained this significant sentence—
  "Now we ask the Liberal Leaders what are they going to do? Will Mr. Campbell-Banner-man, who, probably, before long, will have this matter under his control, allow this latest War Office job to pass without inquiry or protest?"
  The desire of the writer of that paragraph had been fulfilled and the grant for Birmingham had been cut down to starvation point, with a view to ultimate suppression. He did not wish to say a word against Enfield, but he would remind the House that Enfield had other work, and had a much larger percentage of work. According to the Ordnance Report for 1892, work to the extent of £448,000 had been given to Enfield, whereas Birmingham had only received £113,000. In regard to the magazine rifle the cost of labour in proportion to the total cost of production was 49 per cent., whilst it was only 43 per cent. at Birmingham. In regard to the ordinary rifle this proportion was 43 per cent. at Enfield and 36 per cent. at Birmingham. Enfield was much more expensive, while Birmingham was the natural centre of skilled artisans. Enfield was a bottomless pit of expense to taxpayers. Created 40 years ago as an experiment, it had been an official pet ever since. Even inventions of Birmingham gunmakers were appropriated without acknowledgment. The "protector" for the new rifles was invented by a Birmingham maker 20 years ago, patented, and offered to Government, but now the patent being out the Department appropriated it without any acknowledgment. What he asked for was an inquiry into the whole matter. He did not know whether it was too late, but he asked, now that the right hon. Gentleman knew the injustice that was being done—if he did not know it before —would he remedy it and provide the means by which Sparkbrook might be put in the same position as Enfield? The right hon. Gentleman might rely upon it that they would not allow the matter to sleep. An injustice was being done to his (Mr. Collings') constituents without reason. They would not submit to
  1766
  this injustice. They would, if necessary, press the demand for inquiry by some other means until this great manufactory at Sparkbrook was treated with the same consideration as other factories.

  THE VOLUNTEER SERVICE.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELDsaid he had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To call attention to the Volunteer Force; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the dearth of combatant officers in the Volunteer Service is a matter requiring the immediate consideration of the military authorities."
  He was afraid that this subject was not quite so popular and attractive as some of those which bad engaged the attention of the House that afternoon, but, at the same time, the subject of the Volunteer Service was one which possessed very deep interest for an increasingly large number of people in this country, and, he was glad to think, was regarded with more interest also by the military authorities and those who had control of the military policy of the country. In the first place, it was necessary to ask the House to realise what the dimensions of the Volunteer Force were. The numbers had varied slightly since the Force came into being. They had sometimes been larger than now, and sometimes, on the other hand, considerably less; but a sort of average which seemed to be maintained was the very respectable one of considerably over 200,000 efficient men. The composition of the Force was a matter of great interest to military students at the present time. Besides a small handful of Cavalry—almost too insignificant to be included in the calculation—they had a Force of no less than 12,500 Volunteer Engineers, 40,000 Artillery Volunteers, and an Infantry Force of 163,000. In addition to this, it was fair to remember the enormous informal Reserve of. those men which must be existing throughout the country—men who had served for a short time in the Force, and would be willing to resume their connection with the Service in any national emergency. On this subject of the Reserve he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to give his consideration to a very interesting proposal now on foot for formally establishing a body o Volunteers as a Reserve Force. That

  1767
  matter was well worth consideration. As to the organisation of this very large Force, it was, of course, the case now that they were mobilised—at least on paper. The Infantry were divided into brigades under brigadiers. They were all assigned their allotted tasks in the case of invasion, and he thought it fair to observe that they showed an amount of efficiency and zeal and intelligence which was highly to their credit. But the question he more immediately felt himself confronted with was: What was this large force for? What were its definite duties? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had been at pains on more than one occasion to impress on Parliament and the country that the Army was never to take part again in a foreign expedition, and that Great Britain was to be content with regard to military matters to accept the position of a second or third-rate Power. But whether the right hon. Gentleman was correct in his calculations or not— matters of this sort were entirely beyond the control or the speculations of statesmen, however eminent—it was, of course, admitted that the danger of this country being invaded was a definite danger, which must be systematically provided against. As to the part which this large force took in the calculations of the military authorities, he might be permitted to quote the words of Lord Wolseley—an officer whom he had often thought that he had found to be wrong only afterwards to discover that he was right. Lord Wolseley said that the Volunteer Force was a most important factor in the defence of the country; that if we had no Volunteer Force we should have to treble the Army or leave the country exposed to the most appalling risks. Having regard to this opinion of Lord Wolseley, he (Colonel Brookfield) thought that the condition of this Force was not a matter of sentiment but of business, and that it ought to be approached in that spirit by the military authorities, and by that House which criticised the action of the authorities. In dealing with this subject he would relieve the mind of the right hon. Gentleman on one point. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, in the habit of thinking when he received communications from Volunteer officers or questions affect-
  1768
  ing the Force were raised in that House, that the end of all would be a request for increased grants of money. He (Colonel Brookfield) did not intend to ask for any money for the Force on that occasion. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do was to improve, or to initiate an improvement, in the status of the Volunteers as part of the available Force of the country; to make some small minor improvements in the internal discipline of the Service, and to turn his attention to a matter of growing importance — a matter that amounted almost to the dimensions of a national emergency, the great dearth of officers for the Volunteer Service. These were three practical proposals, and he hoped not to have to occupy much of the time of the House in examining them. It was a maxim in this commercial country that if they wanted a good article they should pay for it. But what he complained of was that in this branch of the Services they paid for a good article and got a very medium one in exchange. In saying this he should not like to be misunderstood. So far as the Volunteers could give any return in the way of personal sacrifice of time and money—as, for example, in attending manœuvres—they always showed their willingness to do so. It was one of the most encouraging signs of the times, the great zeal with which the Volunteers entered into their duties. But the point for which he contended was that the country did not get proper value for the grants made to the Service—they did not demand of the Volunteers all that they had a right to demand. The chief weakness at present lay in the very anomalous position the Volunteers occupied—in the artificial basis on which the whole organisation rested, and the constant attempt of the authorities to graft something in the nature of a new military system upon the old organisation of 1859—an organisation which he thought had very little relation to the present condition of the Service. They could speak of the old organisation of 1859 with a certain amount of enthusiasm. The Force of 1859 was the best thing which they were capable of producing at the time. But the conditions of the Service, the basis in these days, was not well adapted to the nation's needs, and to present notions of mobilisation in

  1769
  emergencies. The first important respect, therefore, in which he would point out the urgent need of reform in the status of the Volunteer Service was with regard to the power lying in the hands of the authorities for availing themselves of the Volunteer Service. It was almost incredible—he very much questioned whether the country or the House realized that at this moment neither the Government nor the military authorities had power to call out a single volunteer—even in time of war. A French writer—Max O'Rell—had satirized the system, and pointed out that insurance offices did not make any extra charge for the policies which they issued on the lives of Volunteer officers. The satire was justifiable when they considered that no power existed to call the Force out in time of war. When no such power existed what was the use of spending money in educating Volunteers, in mobilising them into brigades, and in encouraging the military spirit—of the growth of which they had encouraging signs? He had quoted just now the opinion of Lord Wolseley as to the potential value of the Force. But if no power existed to call out the Force at the proper moment it would be more logical to disband the Force at once, and spend the money to secure the services of men under different conditions of discipline. The only occasion on which the State had the right under present conditions to call for the services of the Volunteers was in the case of actual or apprehended invasion. In that event the Queen could proclaim that the services of the Volunteers were required, and deserters would be punished as such. He would suggest an improvement in that matter—as to the time when the Government should avail themselves of the services of the Volunteers. Instead of only calling them out when there was actual or apprehended invasion, there should be power to call them out, or a portion of them, whenever an order for the embodiment of the Militia was in force. That would, in the nature of things, be a time of emergency. In these days a struggle between this country and some other might, if it arose at all, arise suddenly and be perhaps decided in a few months or less. It would be highly important for the authorities to be able to put their hands
  1770
  on every available factor. The right hon. Gentleman would notice that this suggestion was one that was insisted upon very strongly in 1888, in the Debate which took place on the National Defence Act, and he believed that the proposal at that time as regarded the Volunteers was only defeated by a sort of jealousy of the Force which seemed to be felt in a certain quarter of the House. All Volunteer commanding officers had had confidential instructions as to what should take place in the case of mobilization, and knew where they were to go to. That was a great step in advance. But it would greatly improve the morale of the force if the men knew that they were for the future not only to perform the duties which they chose for themselves, but that the State had a right to call on their services in a less serious emergency than that of invasion or apprehended invasion. To proceed, an impression existed that Volunteer officers themselves were always asking for money. So they were, and it was one unfortunate condition of their existence that they had to ask for money in an eleemosynary way in their different localities. Still, he did not think that the rest of the population should greatly complain of that. It was simply a sort of insurance fee that they paid, and most of them were too lazy to do any work of the kind themselves. Other people thought that what Volunteer officers were always seeking was the enjoyment of military rank and decoration. Of course everyone had met with that sort of officer. He had not the smallest sympathy with him. Better than money rank or decoration would be an increased reality in their rank as soldiers. But let the House go to his next point. He would make a few observations on the condition of the Service in ordinary times of peace as at the present time. One of the most disheartening features in connection with the Volunteer Service was the attendance at drill or rifle practice—the dropping in on one occasion of two or three men, and perhaps two or three hundred on another. He recognised that that was one of the inevitable consequences of the conditions of the service, and he did not propose to make any radical change to remedy that part of the evil. It was one of the inevitable consequences of Volunteers having other avocations to

  1771
  attend to. But what he wished to point to was that some employers were so selfish and unpatriotic as to throw difficulties in the way of the men attending drill or camp, and that some means should be found to discourage their taking that course. The employer of labour who actually dismissed a man from his service because he was a Volunteer and for no other reason, should be subject to the full penalties of the law as to wrongful dismissal whatever they might be; On the other hand, the employer who showed patriotic self-sacrifice, desiring to help the Service, should have encouragement. He was happy to say that there was an increasing number of employers who did take a proper and liberal view of their duty in this respect. With regard to the matter of attendance at drill and in camp so far as the Volunteers were concerned, although compulsory attendance was out of the question and was foreign to the conditions of Volunteer service, there might be some qualification of the existing system. At the present moment the Militia were called out for a month every year. But to get to a closer parallel, the Yeomanry were brought up for their training for six days, or a week's permanent duty. He could see no reason why three days out of the 365 should not be devoted to continuous drill, and why the State should not then have the right to demand and enforce the attendance of Volunteers to this duty. These three days might be arranged for without interfering with the other duties of the men. To the Volunteers belonging to Metropolitan corps very likely the three days following Good Friday would be found most convenient, and in the case of corps in agricultural districts probably it would be well to choose the three last days of the annual encampment, including the inspection day. He believed that that would have a most beneficial effect, and that it would not be followed by prejudicial consequences so far as recruiting for the Volunteer Service was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War need have no fear of this being regarded as an unconstitutional infringement of the liberties of the British subject. But there was another respect in which he thought great improvement was needed. He had said just now that much of our notions as to
  1772
  the Volunteer Force at the present time had been grafted on to the old ideas conceived in 1859. Well, the condition of the Force in 1859 was such that it was thought proper and compatible with discipline for the rank and file to be taken into the confidence of the officers (whom they usually elected themselves), in regard to all the details of the management of the corps. The result of this was that to make any change in the "rules" of the corps, as they were called —and are still called—it was necessary that a meeting of the corps should take place. He had frequently brought this matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors and they had invariably expressed some sort of sympathy with him, and had acknowledged the fact that meetings of all ranks of the corps were incompatible with discipline. The right hon. Gentleman was so accustomed to saying in public that everything that was for the best that he had never found himself able to take any public opportunity of remedying this state of things. The Secretary for War would surely acknowledge that it was a most disorderly provision of the law that, in order to pass the rules or the accounts of a Volunteer corps, it should be necessary to have a sort of parade, with possibly every private Volunteer present, and all enjoying the full right to move amendments. Of course, they behaved very much better than to do so. He had, however, heard of a case in which an adjutant of a corps came into collision with one of the old-fashioned sergeants on one of these occasions. The sergeant said he had an amendment to move, and the adjutant told him if he did not hold his tongue he would put him under arrest. He (Colonel Brookfield) often wished that in some of the deliberations of the House of Commons such a summary course were possible. Another point on which he desired to lay some little stress was that of the position of commanding officers in reference to the orders they received from the authorities. The battalion staff of every Volunteer regiment included, of course, an adjutant, with a sergeant-major and instructor to each company, all of whom were serving under the Mutiny Act. The only person on the battalion staff of a Volunteer corps who was not under the Mutiny Act was the command-

  1773
  ing officer himself, who, it might fairly be assumed, was the last person who would be guilty of mutiny. The result was that that unfortunate officer constantly received communications from the authorities asking him whether "he would like this," or "that he could manage that." Inquiries of that sort were the most irritating kind of communications commanding officers ever received. They liked to get definite orders, and if they were placed under the Mutiny Act he believed it would greatly conduce to the discipline of the Service. There was only one person who held a more anomalous position than the commanding officer, and that was the new brigadier, who was such an utterly nondescript and absurd personage that his position must attract attention sooner or later. In most cases he was a retired Army colonel who had most likely seen war-service, and was known to be a good handler of men. He was dressed in the uniform of a General Officer, and had his staff; yet, when he went into the field in presence of the colonel commanding the regimental district, he had to be hidden away somewhere so that no question of precedence should be raised. If the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries at head-quarters respecting this matter, there was not the slightest doubt that he would find that grave complications had arisen, and that it was really time to have the precedence of brigadiers of Volunteers definitely decided. A few observations upon the present dearth of Volunteer officers would not be out of place. The Volunteer Returns did not show how matters stood in this respect, and he would suggest that in future Volunteer Returns one column should be used for showing the number of officers in each corps. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had stated, in answer to a question, that the number of vacancies in commissions at the present time was 1,677, and what was more serious was that 1,417 of these vacancies were in the junior ranks. It was almost impossible to describe the demoralisation that came over a small company or battery when they had no commissioned officer to look after them. When the commanding officer or inspecting officer visited them, and found they did not turn out properly, the Instructor shrugged his shoulders, and when some
  1774
  explanation was insisted upon he had to say, "How can the men be expected to attend to their duties, when they do not get a good example from those they are accustomed to look to for guidance! "The one redeeming point was that the noncommissioned officers, whom he had always been accustomed to regard as the real back-bone of the Volunteer Force, were not only an exceptionally fine body of men, but exceptionally useful, and exceptionally patient under great difficulties. But for their services he did not know what would happen. He had glanced at the Army List, and selected two or three typical cases from different parts of the United Kingdom, to show how matters stood with regard to the dearth of officers. He found that the 3rd Volunteer Battalion of the King's Own Borderers—a regiment which he came upon haphazard—had 10 captains on the establishment, and 10 serving, 15 subalterns on the establishment, and only six serving. Turning to Wales, he found that the 1st Volunteer Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers had 12 subalterns on the establishment and only six serving. Coming to England, he found that the 1st Volunteer Battalion of the Manchester Regiment had 13 captains on the establishment, and 12 serving, whilst of 20 subalterns on the establishment, only six were serving. He would undertake to point out to the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary for War a plan by which he could remove the deficiency of officers as if by magic, without spending any money. It was evident that the class from which the Volunteers expected to obtain officers did not provide them. There appeared to be three ways of getting over the difficulty. One was to offer that class some powerful inducement to change the attitude they had taken up with regard to the Volunteers; the second was to go to a different class for the supply; and the third was to adopt a judicious blend of the first two methods. It had been quite erroneously pointed out, in the Press and elsewhere, that the reason for the dearth of Volunteer officers was to be found in the expenses to which they were subjected. He believed that the expenses of the Volunteer officer at the present time need be very small indeed. If he liked to spend money he could find plenty of ways of doing so;

  1775
  but with the grant for equipment, the allowances for great coats, travelling allowances, camp allowances, and local subscriptions, the expenses of officers were almost entirely confined to their uniforms and mess bills—in other words, to personal expenses. He believed that the real difficulty in the class from which the supply of officers was expected to come was to be traced to causes which were not always recognised in Debates in the House of Commons. He believed that the idleness and selfishness of young men who might join, and would be all the better for joining, had more to do with it than anything else. Generally, when a young man was asked to join be said he had not time. His (Colonel Brook-field's) experience was that in every department of life the idlest of all men were those who never had the time to do anything, and that those who were very much overworked thought very little of undertaking a little extra work. As to the plea respecting the expenses to which Volunteer officers were put, the young men to whom he referred very likely, if their own appetites were concerned, spent in a day or an hour as much as they would have to spend on the Volunteers in a year. He believed the first inducement that could be held out to such young men was one which had been tentatively mentioned several times by former War Ministers, although when they had been asked whether there was any chance of carrying it out they had always answered that the matter was "receiving their careful consideration." It was not surprising, under these circumstances, that nothing had been done. The inducement he referred to was that of occasionally offering Volunteers a commission in the Line. He thought he could offer what almost amounted to a proof that the adoption of such a course would be effectual. Some 23 years back he served for two or three years in the Militia. When he joined there was almost as great a dearth of subalterns in the Militia as there was in the Volunteers at the present moment. A year or two afterwards every vacancy was filled up, the simple explanation being that the new men were scrambling for a commission in the Regular Army. The commanding officers of Militia battalions complained at first that these young men were only making a convenience of the
  1776
  Militia; but he hoped they soon became patriotic enough to see that the system was a good one, and that it benefited the whole Service. He urged the Secretary for War to apply a similar system to the Volunteers. He had also to make a proposal—one of a more fanciful character— of his own. The class which included young men who ought to serve in the Volunteers, but would not, also included several hundreds of young men who had been up for examinations for the Line or the Militia and had failed. He could not see why, when candidates went up for these examinations, they should not be asked to answer one interrogation in addition to those to which they were now subjected. He did not see why they should not be asked whether, in the event of passing and having to wait for admission, they would be willing for a certain period to serve Her Majesty in a regimental district, and if so, in what district they could serve. Then they should be given credit for this, and he believed if this was done they would have a large number of young men ready and willing to fi'l vacant commissions in the Volunteer Force. The key to the situation lay in still further strengthening the good feeling which had happily begun to grow up between the Volunteers and the rest of the Service; and by joining those bonds still more closely together by letting the officer commanding the regimental district from time to time recommend some one from his battalion for a commission in the Line. The other alternative was to go to a different class for the officers, and that was the retired regular Army officers. The necessary personal expenses of an officer were too great to allow non-commissioned officers to take commissions. There were a large number of officers on half pay or who had joined the Reserve who had not half enough to do, and would be very glad to give their service in this direction. It might be remembered that experience had shown that these officers did not always make good commanders of Volunteers. They were too military, and sometimes lacked that tact and exceptional treatment which was necessary in dealing with Volunteers. He did not, therefore, propose to fill up all the vacancies by retired Army officers, but he suggested that they should report themselves to the officer commanding the

  1777
  Regimental District, who would then have a list of officers available when any Volunteer Battalion or Brigade of Artillery was exceptionally denuded of officers. They could serve either as company officers or assistant adjutants. The objection was that such services would have to be paid for. By either of these plans, or by a judicious combination of the two, the main difficulties he had described would be surmounted. The Volunteer system was based on the assumption that voluntary services would be forthcoming. Great credit was due to the tradesmen and working classes of this country for the loyalty they displayed in joining the ranks of the Volunteers, but it was a standing reproach that the other classes to whom they looked for officers were too indolent to serve, and too wanting in public spirit to recognise the duty which they ought to discharge. He thought that something should be done to stimulate them and make them all take a reasonable share in securing the military defence of the country.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. B. L. COHEN (Islington, E.)said, he thought he would not need to detain the House more than a short time in bringing under its notice the case of the Second Division Clerks, whose work in his opinion contributed as much to the efficiency of the Army as did that of the most distinguished of Her Majesty's subjects who wore her uniform. He had ventured to intrude on the House because the case he had to submit constituted an injustice to a very meritorious class of public servants and conduced neither to the efficiency nor to the economy of the great Department of State over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. He was told that he could not move the Resolution which stood in his name, but he hoped that before he sat down he would have made out a case which would justify the right hon. Gentleman in giving assurances that the legitimate expectations of the class whose cause he was advocating should no longer be disregarded. Now the 118th paragraph of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Service Establishments was as follows:—
  "The essence of our proposals is to assign a greatly increased share of the work to the
  1778
  Second Division, and in connection with this object to improve their scale of pay, and to attach to their class certain specified staff appointments for which their experience especially qualifies them. We are disposed to hope that if our proposals are adopted means may be found to apply the whole of them to the existing Second Division Clerks pari passu with a corresponding and simultaneous diminution as opportunity offers of the First Division."
  That Report was submitted to Parliament in 1888, but the principles of the recommendation had been recognised by the Lords of the Treasury in a letter dated as far back as 1884, in which My Lords wrote—
  "Although the number of Second Division Clerks promoted to the First Division must always bear a small proportion to the number not so promoted, it is not necessary that they should be an insignificant proportion of the First Division. On the contrary, My Lords look forward to that division being largely replenished in certain Departments from the best members of the Second Division. It will probably also be necessary to reserve a power of direct appointment to the First Division. But there are many Departments in which this power need not—so far as My Lords can foresee—be exercised habitually or even frequently. Promotion from the Second to the First Division may therefore fairly be considered as a legitimate aspiration for the superior members of the former."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government stated in this House on the 28th March, 1890, that
  "Promotion to the First Division was one of the methods provided under the present scheme for rewarding meritorious Second Division Clerks, and many such promotions have been made in other offices."
  The House would thus see that the principle of the Resolution he had desired to bring forward had the authority of the Royal Commission presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division, of the Lords of the Treasury, and of the Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government. He desired especially to impress upon the House that weight of authority, because he was aware that in proposals such as he was submitting private Members did not frequently get much support from right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches. The present, however, was a case which he thought would appeal to the sympathy, at any rate, of private Members on both sides. He had not brought forward the matter with any desire to delay business, nor had his action any suspicion or shred of Party

  1779
  interest in it, as at a public meeting in connection with the question, held last November, and presided over by the hon. Member for South Islington, there were present Members of the House belonging to all Parties. This question was one which excited a large amount of interest in the House itself, and many hon. Members held there were just grounds of discontent at the legitimate expectations of this deserving class of public servants remaining unsatisfied, to the serious injury of the service. He put a question on this subject, and in reply to it on the 6th of February last the right hon. Gentleman paid a very handsome tribute to the merits of the Second Division Clerks, who were, he said, qualified for any work in the office; but he added that it was necessary to promote men from the outside in order to preserve the necessary gradation of age. But he would like to point out that the age of the Second Division Clerks eligible for promotion ranged from 25 to 30, and as they continued in the service until they attained the age of 65 years, those who would be most likely to be promoted would still have an official future before them of from 30 to 40 years, whilst their whole official career would cover a period of from 40 to 50 years—not a short qualification. Moreover, there was no necessity to promote the elder members of the Second Division, seeing that the Ridley Commission itself strongly enforced the principle of promotion by merit rather than by seniority, so that the gradation of age on which the right hon. Gentleman insisted would not only be in no way prejudiced, but would be promoted by the concession now asked at his hands. The right hon. Gentleman next urged, in his reply to the question of the 6th February, the necessity of reducing the number of clerks in the First Division to 60. This decision, which he believed was promulgated in 1891, naturally caused bitter disappointment to the clerks of the Second Division. How was it to be effected? It was to be done by filling up only one in every four vacancies that occurred. At least, that one might have been given to the Second Division, the clerks in which had a right from what had been promised to expect it. But nothing of that kind was to be done. The House would remember from the answer of the Secretary to the
  1780
  Treasury to a question put by the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division, that out of a total of 109 promotions given to the Second Division since September, 1888, only one had been so given in the War Office. And in this connection he would like to add that in the same period the Admiralty, with 229 Second Division clerks, had 17 promotions; the Board of Trade, with 75, had three; the Inland Revenue, with 212, had 50; the Local Government Board, with 66, had five; and the War Office, with 235, a larger number than any other Government Office, had only one. It was not, however, on justice and good faith alone that he based his claim to consideration. The present system, besides being not more— perhaps less—efficient, was also far more costly, as he would prove by illustration. A vacancy occurred in the First Division. A Second Division clerk, drawing £160 a year, might be promoted, and his salary would be increased at once to £200, while his place would be taken by a Second Division clerk at £70. The two posts, therefore, cost the country £270. But if the system were continued of importing outsiders straight into the First Division the new arrival at once entered into an income of £200, whilst the old Second Division clerk retained his £160, and there was a total cost of £360 against one of £270. This was not all, because before many years elapsed —say six—a young man coming into the First Division from outside would, after a period from 18 months to two years, become eligible for a senior clerkship, beginning at £450. That such a promotion should be given to a young man of, say, 27 years of age, while numerous Second Division clerks, deserving and admitted by the right hon. Gentleman to be qualified, were expected to remain on a dead-level scale, and while the conditions under which they entered the Office were being flagrantly violated, could not be described otherwise than as a gross injustice. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his sympathy with the Second Division clerks in the interview he had given to a deputation which waited upon him some time ago, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman and the House would appreciate the feelings of those clerks when they saw young men imported from outside, and who had not worked as they had done, almost

  1781
  immediately placed in a position to draw salaries far in excess of what their services justly entitled them to expect. This did not exhaust all the privileges which these young First Division clerks, of whom there were already 15 in the Office, and more of whom were expected to come in, enjoyed. They received all the private secretaryships, the actuary-ships, and the president clerkships, all being posts carrying at least £150 a year, besides salary. They had on the average not more than about eight years' service, and three of them had already been made senior clerks—one at £450, another at £500, and the third at £630. He wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman he had not brought this case under his notice in any spirit of insubordination on the part of the clerks in the Second Division, who were already convinced of his sympathy. He told the deputation which waited on him that the decision to bring in young men from outside had been come to by the high permanent officials without his knowledge. He was aware it was absolutely necessary that a good deal of the direction of Government Departments should be left to the permanent officials, than whom there did not exist a more capable and more devoted body of public servants. But at the same time the fact existed that just expectations had been disappointed, and promises were unfulfilled, and he put it to him whether, when he heard of decisions being taken by the permanent officials which were contrary to expediency and involved grave injustice to a worthy body of public servants, he did not think the time had arrived for the responsible Minister to interfere. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him an assurance that the expectations of the Second Division clerks would no longer be disregarded, and that something more than sympathy would be extended to them. They desired to have something tangible and concrete. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that in some public offices compensation was given where promotion was deferred. The Second Class Clerks did not ask, at any rate at present, for compensation; all they wanted was that their case should be favourably considered, and that they should have something more than that deferred hope which made the heart sick.

  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  SIR J. GORST: I desire to call the attention of the House to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Enfield Division of Middlesex, and which was spoken to by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham—a question touching the interests of those who are employed in Government establishments. After what took place on the subject of wages in Government establishments on Monday night on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, I should not have ventured to intervene in the Debate on the Army Estimates, if it had not been for events which have happened in succeeding Debates, and which seem to me to be of a somewhat sinister character, and which apparently point to a transformation of the views given expression to on that night. Nothing could have been more satisfactory than the apparent intentions of the Government as expressed in the Debate last Monday night. On their recommendation a Resolution was accepted by the House of Commons and entered upon the Journals of the House which it is true referred only in terms to workmen who are employed in the naval establishments of the country, but in the course of the Debate upon that Resolution the Secretary for War rose,and, speaking on behalf and in the name of the Government, recognised that the Resolution, although in terms confined to persons employed in naval establishments, really embraced in its principle workmen employed in all Departments of State, and amongst others those employed by the War Office. So far as it went that declaration of the right hon. Gentleman and that Resolution were regarded and accepted as eminently satisfactory. It was understood that the Government had recognised their obligations as employers of labour, for they had admitted that there were in the public services some persons employed for inadequate wages, and that where the wages of any particular class of skilled labour in the ordinary trade of the country were higher than the wages paid in Government establishments those latter wages would be reconsidered, and that a satisfactory alteration would take place in them. But since that eminently satisfactory conclusion of the discussion on Monday

  1783
  night, it has been elicited by a question across the Table by the hon. and gallant Member for the Enfield Division that the Naval Estimates contain no provision whatever for any increase in the pay of the dockyard workmen and others. I presume I may conclude that a similar answer would be given to a question addressed to the Secretary for War as regarded the workmen employed in the arsenals and ordnance factories of the country. When the Government were asked whether any provision had been made in the Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of giving practical effect to the hopes which they had held out to the workmen in the Government Establishments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in the curtest manner— a manner calculated to alarm everybody who was favourable to the idea of a revision of the scales of pay— that no Supplementary Estimate would be introduced for the purpose. In these circumstances I feel that I am justified in asking the Secretary of State for War to explain what the intentions of the Government really are. Is the Resolution passed on Monday night all moonshine? and was the declaration which the Secretary of State for War then made merely a plausible statement intended to pacify those who were interested in the matter? I cannot believe it; but in justice to himself the right hon. Gentleman ought now to tell the House clearly what his attentions are. Another point upon which we should have information is that of one of the most prominent subjects dealt with in the Debate on Monday night—the subject of provision for old age. I understand that in the Department over which the right hon. Gentlemen presides there is to be no provision for old age.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, no.
  SIR J. GORST: I certainly understood him to say so in reply to a question put to him; and I am glad to have elicited that intimation from the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to hear what is to be the provision for the old age of those employed by the Department. According to the Resolution agreed to on Monday the Government were to set a model to employers throughout the country. Another subject in respect to which the right hon. Gentleman,
  1784
  if he is still in the same benevolent and philanthropic state of mind as he was in on Monday, ought to give an explanation is this: It appears that the War Office is engaged in discharging workmen from the small arms factories. I have seen myself what misery and distress are caused by such discharges, and I cannot admit that any employer of labour can be a model employer who so arranges matters in his factories as to expose his workmen to sudden and wholesale dismissal. When it is necessary to defend the low rate of pay which is given in Government establishments the stock argument is always adduced that there is a substantial set off to the low wages in the permanency and regularity of the work. That argument can no longer be relied on, having regard to the wholesale discharges of men from Enfield and Sparkbrook. In the case of Sparkbrook the Government have laid themselves open to special condemnation. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman opposite from the charge of having been animated by any political motive in his action, but so clumsy have been the arrangements of the Department that the people who have been discharged from Sparkbrook have every possible ground for believing that political motive had something to do with their dismissal. The newspapers by which the Party of the right hon. Gentleman is so ably supported, cried out for the discharge of men from Sparkbrook before any discharge took place, and it is the fact that a greater number of men have been discharged from Sparkbrook than from Enfield. I do not doubt that the men at Sparkbrook who have been discharged imagine they have lost their situations because they gave their political support to a Dissentient Liberal. As I have said, I do not impute political motives to the Secretary of State for War.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOKTH,): You have imputed it.
  SIR J. GORST: I do not impute it. I must again repeat what I have said twice already, that I do not impute to the Secretary of State for War, nor to the Secretary to the Admiralty, nor to the President of the Board of Trade, the intention of acting from Party motives. What I do affirm is that the arrangements

  1785
  have been so clumsy that these poor people at Sparkbrook, if they thought that they were discharged on Party grounds, were perfectly justified informing that opinion. When the journals that support the right hon. Gentleman opposite called for the abolition of the establishment at Sparkbrook, and when the person who represents the Government in Birmingham as the labour correspondent of the Board of Trade is an active political partisan, the workman at Sparkbrook cannot be very greatly blamed if they think that political considerations account to some extent for their discharge. I merely rose to ask the right hon. Gentlemen to give some assurance that this Government mean business and do not mean to stop at promises, and I hope, too, they will be able to show that the discharges of these workmen were due to causes other than those of Party motive.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): I am not, Sir, disposed to grudge the time that has been spent, and willingly spent, in the service of the country, in listening to the later speeches; but they have had unfortunately the effect of interrupting the Debate on the question raised by the right hon. Member for Bordesley. That right hon. Member said truly that the workpeople at Sparkbrook, and at some other gun factories in Birmingham, were his constituents, and perhaps they helped to make up the majority of 4,000 by which my right hon. Friend was returned. In my own constituency there is not a single gunmaker, but I am just as much interested as my right hon. Friend in the prosperity of Birmingham. I do not know to what extent reduction has been made in the contracts given to private manufacturers, but if the demand for small arms is falling off the orders to private manufacturers must in turn be reduced. It may be that at present they are working under contracts, and that until those contracts are exhausted no reductions can be made. I shall not, therefore, attempt to set up any comparison between a private factory and a Government factory; but there is one point on which I would address a word of warning to the Secretary for War. The way in which private factories have been dealt with has been most extravagant and absurd. The cost of small arms from private factories is greater
  1786
  than their cost at Government factories. It is difficult to tell what is the cost at Government factories; but the policy pursued by successive Governments in dealing with private factories accounts for the greater cost of the rifles they produce. Nothing could be more fatal than to allow the country to depend solely on Government factories. They have been cut down to starvation point, and then, when their services are called for, they are obliged to make the first order pay for all the new machinery that is required, because we cannot trust the Government for anything like a moderate average of work. It has been settled by the vote of the House that private factories should be maintained. But if they are to be kept in existence, the Government ought so to arrange its work as to keep up a steady moderate stream of orders, sufficient to enable them to hold together. But this the Government has not done. The factory at Sparkbrook once belonged to a prosperous private company which was treated badly by the Government. The company could not afford to provide even caretakers for the machinery, and it got out of order. Finally, the factory had to be either broken up or sold to the Government for an old song. Other private manufacturers have learnt a lesson, and they take care that when they have a contract it shall pay them fully for the expenses they have to incur in carrying it out. There is one matter upon which I will venture to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Although I will not accuse the Secretary for War of penalising Birmingham for its political sins, I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to penalise Sparkbrook, because in 1888 he declared his desire to retain it only as a repairing factory, and he appears to be starving it with the view of carrying out that intention.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is not an accurate representation of what I said.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that was the ground of the understanding with the House. I have always been against this policy, and when I find a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I must come to the conclusion that he is opposed to a manufacturing department at Sparkbrook. When the vote has been reduced by 40 per cent. the output will be reduced by 60 per cent. The factory

  1787
  is now turning out 500 rifles a week; the vote will reduce the output to 200 a week, and 200 will cost a vast deal more per rifle than 500. It will then be easy to show that Sparkbrook is the most expensive rifle establishment in the world, and that, therefore, it ought to be discontinued. If this be not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, will he say what his intention is in cutting down Sparkbrook 40 per cent., when he has only cut down Enfield Factory by 25 per cent? The right hon. Gentleman says he was only cutting down Birmingham the same as Enfield, because he coupled with Sparkbrook the Bagot Street repairing shop, which employed another set of workmen, and for which the vote was increased. But Bagot Street has not spent the money voted for it, and it has returned more than the sum now to be added, so that the addition is a mere paper excuse for cutting down Sparkbrook by a purely illusory excess vote for Bagot Street. Even including Bagot Street, the vote for Birmingham is reduced by 31 per cent., which is 6 per cent more than Enfield has been reduced. This is unfair treatment, but it is probably due rather to want of information than to any desire to do injustice as between one factory and another. Still it is believed the right hon. Gentleman wishes to turn Sparkbrook into a repairing factory, and it is desired that this should not be done without the approval of the House. A policy of the kind would involve the sacrifice of valuable machinery which in time of emergency would produce 1,000 rifles a week. It would also deprive the country of the advantage of having a small arms factory in the centre of England. The situation of the Enfield Factory is an extremely bad one. In case of invasion Enfield would be much more liable to be taken by the enemy than a factory in the centre of England. Besides that there is no coalfield near Enfield, and there is one near Sparkbrook. If Sparkbrook were permitted to work on equal terms with Enfield I am sure it could produce rifles at a lower price. Even with the fact that the War Department has favoured Enfield at every turn, Birmingham is enabled, by the Estimates of the Government, to turn out rifles at 2s. 6d. a piece less than the cost at Enfield. I said I should make an appeal to my right hon. Friend. I do
  1788
  not think it is too late. Certainly this matter will not rest here. We cannot allow this policy of destroying what we believe to be a very valuable addition to the military resources of the country to proceed without the opinion of the House of Commons being expressed on the subject. I am not able to take a vote on it to-night, but I appeal to my right hon. Friend—not asking him for a specific answer now—to take the matter into consideration, and to say, if he finds the facts laid before him bear investigation, that he will raise the amount to be voted for wages at Sparkbrook Factory, and that he will withdraw the orders for the turning away of a very considerable number of workpeople, if necessary, providing for the additional expenditure by means of a further Supplementary Estimate. There is only one other point I would like to bring before my right hon. Friend. If he has the slightest doubt as to the matters to which I have ventured to call his attention, then I would ask him to give us what I have asked for over and over again—a small Committee to inquire into the comparative advantages of the Enfield and Sparkbrook factories. We have been told that Enfield can make more cheaply than Birmingham. We dispute the figures altogether, and we say that if there is any idea of the kind in the minds of the officials of the War Department, it is in the public interest that it should be inquired into. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to give us such an inquiry.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The fact has again occurred to-day which has occurred on former occasions. The moment we come for a Vote for munitions of war involving in any respect the interests of Birmingham, my, right hon. Friend who has just sat down and those near him at once enter the field. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley immediately lays his coat upon the floor, and invites me to tread upon the tail of it. I have no intention now, nor have I ever had any intention, of taking that course; but an appeal has been made so directly to me to state what the figures in the Estimates mean on this subject that I do not hesitate at once to say what the policy as represented by these figures is First of all, let me say something as to the reduction which we have found neces-

  1789
  sary in the amount of wages to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University, launched a very strong denunciation, and a perfectly proper denunciation, against wholesale discharges, or against any policy which meant the taking on of a large number of workmen and then discharging them afterwards, and he asked me to carry out, as far as I could, continuity of employment, which I referred to the other night as one of the advantages of the Public Service. By continuity of employment was meant employment in all seasons and weather while work lasts, because I was careful to guard myself against implying more than this, knowing that emergencies would sometimes arise in this as in all other businesses. What is the position we are in with regard to the manufacture of small arms, as to which we are told we are pursuing an unfortunate course in reducing the amount of wages? Why, there has been, as the House knows, a most abnormal activity in the production of small arms within the last two or three years. My right hon. Friend, my Predecessor, with great energy, and after the most careful inquiry into the question as to the best form of rifle, determined to furnish Her Majesty's Forces as rapidly as possible with the magazine rifle, superseding that which they now have in their hands. Having determined this, he very properly resolved that no time should be lost in making the substitution, and therefore there has been, as I say, a most unusual pressure and activity not only in these Government employments, but in trade orders. Now we find that so rapid has been the production of rifles that we have come, I will not say within measurable distance, but at any rate within sight of the period when the demand will be fulfilled. That is the weak point or difficulty with regard to such a factory as the Spark-brook, which deals with small arms. The country is not always wanting a very large supply of small arms. When the arming of the Forces with the magazine rifle has taken place we may look forward with something like certainty to an interval during which the requirements will be limited to the filling up of the waste. It is quite impossible to avoid that spasmodic activity, and the subsequent slackness which the right hon. Gentleman said properly was so in-
  1790
  jurious. What does the House think? Do they think it would be better for the public, and for the constituencies which are interested, if we took a little more money for this year in order to keep up high pressure this year, and then have a total collapse? No, Sir, we thought it was much better to look ahead, to recognise that there must be a time when this demand would practically cease, and that, therefore, it is necessary that diminution in wages and employment should be as gradually introduced as possible. This is the policy we have had in view, and I submit it with the greatest confidence to the House for their approval; and I hold that I should have been very ill-advised indeed if I had kept up the work at Enfield, or Birmingham, or elsewhere, and the orders to the trade at the old level with the prospect before me of a sudden collapse at no distant period. So much as to the cruelty of taking away or diminishing the wages available for the maintenance of these workmen. But my right hon. Friend who has just sat down complained that in making this diminution we had been unfair to Birmingham. I am glad my right hon. Friend acquitted me of any design against the interests of Birmingham. That has been attributed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley on previous occasions, and I believe that it has been attributed to me in some newspapers of perhaps not very wide circulation which I have not seen. I disregard such an imputation; of course I am absolutely and entirely free from it, and I know that my right hon. Friend does not believe that I have any such desire or such mean political jealousy with regard to institutions such as those two establishments at Birmingham. But have we done injustice to Birmingham? Let me say something in regard to words of mine, which my right hon. Friend quoted, as to Sparkbrook being a repairing factory.; When Sparkbrook was purchased by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was a Member, that was done for the sole purpose of it being used as a repairing factory. The observations the right hon. Gentleman has quoted of mine were directed simply against the multiplication of Government factories, without special reference to Birmingham at all. But after Sparkbrook had been some time in use, there came an epoch.

  1791
  when there was a demand for a new weapon, and then this factory, which was purchased, as the House of Commons was informed, simply as a repairing factory, was used as a manufacturing factory for the new rifle. The object of the original purchase explains why I have spoken of it as a repairing factory; but I assure my right hon. Friend that I am aware how good a factory Sparkbrook is, and how well-equipped it is. I agree with a great deal of what he stated, that as we have it now, and as it is so well-equipped, it is an essential thing that it should be maintained in our possession to strengthen our resources in case of necessity. But when he says we have done something to injure Birmingham, let me quote the figures. There is also the Bagot Street factory. The right hon. Gentleman says we are giving too much in wages to Enfield, and too little to Birmingham. What are we giving? Last year we gave to Sparkbrook £60,000; to Bagot Street, £16,000; total, £76,000. This year Sparkbrook has £35,000; and Bagot Street, £22,000; total £57,000. That is, roughly speaking, a reduction of £19,000 between the two. Enfield had last year £160,000, this year £120,000; it therefore loses £40,000, which is almost exactly the same proportion as Birmingham. I say there is no evidence here that a larger number of men in proportion would be deprived of work in Birmingham than would be deprived at Enfield. I have no desire, as I have said, to deal in any way unfairly with Birmingham. I am told that some newspaper had said that I was intending to starve Birmingham. I am not responsible for paragraphs in newspapers, and it is not from that source my opinions must be gathered. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University asked me some questions on the general subject of labour. He was not, I think, very kind in the imputations which he disclaimed making. The very disclaimer in itself was almost as injurious as the imputation. He absolves me of having deliberately intended to deceive the House, but he says that we should have brought forward an estimate. How could we put an estimate on the Table when we do not know yet what the sum might be? We have not the slightest idea, and I told him so the other night. We prefer to proceed upon
  1792
  established and well-known facts, and until we know those facts it is quite impossible to estimate what sum will be required in any one of the Government departments for this purpose. When the inquiry is completed, when we have come to a decision upon it, if we have not enough money in the Estimates, a Supplementary Estimate will naturally be required. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me why I was opposed to a provision being made for old age. I am very willing that some provision should be made for old-age workmen on a large scale, but what I said was that my opinion is strongly against the principle of establishment of workmen. Defenders and advocates of establishment in Government employment find their great argument in this, that it gives them a hold upon the workmen; but they fail to see that it gives the workmen also a hold upon them. I say that it is very much better both for workman and employer that the matter should be left to free bargain between them, just as in other employments. The hon. Member for Islington brought forward the case of second division clerks. Well, I have great sympathy with the second division clerks generally, and above all with the second division clerks in the War Office, because I believe they have been very unfortunate in the office which they have chosen to go into. The War Office has had for the last 20 or 30 years a plethora of clerks. We have been engaged for years in trying to bring the numbers down. The reason why the second division clerks cannot expect to have promotions into the first division is this, that the reductions made by the retirements given by the Treasury were given on the express stipulation that certain vacancies should be absorbed, and that such as were not absorbed should be filled up by younger men from the outside. I cannot hold out any hope of promotion to the first division at present, but I hope to obtain some promotion for the first grade in the second division, and probably some staff appointments below the upper division. The hon. Member for Sussex spoke on the question of the Volunteers, and made a number of suggestions, for which I am much obliged to him, and which I promise him shall receive careful consideration. He made some suggestions which I think deserve special notice. He proposed that. we

  1793
  should induce officers to serve in the Volunteers by a special arrangement. I egret the dearth of officers in the Volunteers, and I should be glad to jump at any proposal made which is calculated to improve matters in that respect. But the hon. Member suggests that we should give commissions in the Line. I am afraid I must ask what are these among so many? An occasional commission such as could be given in the Line would be very small inducement considering the hundreds of Volunteer officers. I find very great difficulty in contemplating the idea of multiplying those outside accessions to commissions in the Army. When you consider the elaborate system we have of competitive examination, and the great expense to which parents are put in preparing their sons for those competitive examinations, I think it would be a great hardship upon them if the number of commissions given in that way were greatly reduced, and if commissions were given to young men simply because they had held a commission in the Volunteers. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the brigadier and his anomalous position. I assure the hon. Member that I am fully alive to that fact. One of the first inquiries I made when I came to the War Office was with the view of endeavouring to make out what this amphibious officer exactly has to do and what his powers are. I am still prosecuting that inquiry. As to what the hon. Member said regarding commanding officers not being under the Mutiny Act, and the meetings of cops and enforced attendance, all those thngs I will consider. They have a good deal in them to commend them. I am not, however, prepared to give an opinion upon them, nor am I quite sure that public opinion would bear us out if we attempted to alter the law as to the obligations of service of Volunteers. It is a delicate thing to make any alteration in that respect. Now I come to a more lively subject, upon which perhaps the House will allow me to make a statement that will satisfy very natural curiosity. The hon. Member for Tradeston brought forward the vexed question of the Cameron Highlanders, and in my double capacity as a Scotchman and Secretary of State for War I am exceedingly interested in that question. As much has been said on the subject I think it is right that the plain
  1794
  facts regarding it should be told. Now the first plain fact is that we have far too many Scotch regiments, that there are more regiments in Scotland—and, unfortunately, nearly all of them historic regiments, that we do not wish to meddle with if we can avoid doing so—than Scotland can support. And if that is true of Scotland at large, it is till more true of the nominally Highland regiments, because for various reasons they are exceedingly difficult to keep in full efficiency. We have nine kilted battalions. It was known in 1881, when this matter was being settled, that there would be this difficulty, and the proposal originally made, which I deeply regret was not adopted, was that in face of the difficulty of maintaining those kilted regiments a Highland brigade should be formed, comprising four or six battalions—I believe myself that four would have been sufficient—and that these should be clothed in a tartan selected by the Queen herself, so as to give no offence to anyone, and that brigade would have combined all the traditions and preserved the distinctive glories of the Highland regiments. That would have been a workable, intelligible, and efficient solution of the difficulty. But then there was an outcry created to the effect that we must not interfere with any tartan, not a kilt must be lost, not a tartan meddled with. I will not go so far as a distinguished and gallant General, who, when speaking on the subject ten years ago in this House—himself a Scotchman and a member of a great clan—said that he had never yet seen in Scotland a Scotchman wearing a kilt unless he was paid to do so by an Englishman. I do not go so far as that, and I admit at once the picturesqueness and the military effectiveness of the Highland dress; but when we are told that not a tartan is to be meddled with we naturally ask what these tartans are, and we find that it is difficult to determine. I will state one fact which will show the House what I mean. The Cameron Highlanders themselves, the very regiment we hear so much of, wear a spurious Macdonald tartan, and not a Cameron tartan at all. My experience is that the enthusiasm on this subject—what I should call spurious enthusiasm—in favour of the tartans and kilts, although very vivid and active in the large towns and in Piccadilly and

  1795
  the Strand, does not exist to the same extent among the glens and islands of the Highlands themselves. It is small among the crofters and farmers of the Highlands, but large among the shooting tenants and gillies and that class of people. What was the consequence of this outcry in 1881—an outcry created and carried on, let me say, by the very people who have been at the head of the present outcry? The scheme which I have indicated was upset and the regiments were linked. Some that had not been in kilts at all were put into kilts, and in the end the unfortunate Cameron High landers regiment was stranded by itself without any affiliated battalion at all, with a special district assigned to it. It is rather an odd thing that the very same people to whose outcry it is due that the Cameron Highlanders are in this precarious position, are now calling out that on no account must the regiment be meddled with or destroyed. I have said that Scotland cannot maintain so many regiments as it has; and what are the facts about recruiting? I happened the other day to see a statement of the number of recruits obtained for a very distinguished regiment that has for its district the whole of Ross-shire, Sutherland, and Caithness, and the north of Scotland, namely, the Seaforth High landers. In the last four years the numbers of recruits that regiment obtained in the district were 72, 73, 90, and 56.Those were all the recruits obtained for tho two battalions of this regiment. One hon. Member has asked, why not open Glasgow to the Cameron Highlanders? Open Glasgow, it is said,? and we shall see what we shall see. Well, what are the facts regarding recruiting in Glasgow? Glasgow is supposed to be an inexhaustible cistern out of which any amount of recruits, especially Highland recruits, can be drawn. Glasgow is presently recruiting for the following corps: 1st Life Guards, the Royal Horse Guards, the Royal Artillery, the Engineers, the 5th Dragoon Guards— (and here let me say, I should be sorry indeed that these great branches of the Service had no Scotchmen among them, and native Scotchmen)—the 18th Hussars, the Scots Guards, the Royal Scots Fusiliers (a most distinguished regiment), the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Scottish Rifles (Camero-
  1796
  nians) and some other regiments—all these are recruited in Glasgow.
  MR. HOZIER: The Scottish Rifles are only open to Militiamen.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is so, the Scottish Rifles recruit only from their own Militia. The other Highland Regiments at this moment do not require recruits, but when they do Glasgow is the first place open to them. Whenever the Cameron Highlanders want any number of men Glasgow is at once open to them, and, notwithstanding what the hon. Member (Mr. Hozier) has said, any man on joining the Army, who expresses a desire to go into a certain regiment is always allowed to go into that regiment if there is room in the regiment for him. Let us see what the result of recruiting was as to Scotland generally. The number of recruits required for the Scotch regiments is 2,689 per year. In 1891 the total number of Infantry recruits obtained was 2,159, and last year— a year of exceptional recruiting— 2,682, just seven short of the whole number required. Last year was, as I have said, an exceptional year for recruiting, and Glasgow is considered to be an inexhaustible reservoir for recruiting. Of the total number of recruits only 751 came from Glasgow for all the corps I have named. I think that is a sufficient answer to the proposal that Glasgow should be opened with a view to saving the Cameron Highlanders. As to the Cameron Highlanders themselves, between 1st August, 1891, and 26th November, 1892, no less than 936 recruits had to be raised. It was going abroad, and therefore a large depot had to be raised on purpose. Nine hundred and thirty-six recruits were required. Every effort was made to obtain them in its district, but there only 20 recruits were obtained out of the 936. From Glasgow 57 were obtained; head-quarters recruits (one regiment happened then to be in Edinburgh) 137; other parts of Scotland 152; total Scotch recruits, 366 out of 936. The remaining 570 were obtained in England, a large portion of them coming from the East of London. These are facts which I commend to those who say that Glasgow should be opened, so that a second battalion could be raised for the Cameron Highlanders. There is not the material to keep your first battalion in proper

  1797
  efficiency. I have not a word to say in derogation of the Cameron Highlanders. On the contrary, as to its present condition, I believe it to be an excellent battalion, in excellent order, and I cannot pay too high a tribute to the way in which the colonel and officers have behaved in this very trying period. I know, as a matter of fact, they have done their best to put down the outcry which has been made, and to check those who, from very foolish ideas of what were their interests, were endeavouring to create an agitation on the subject. They are a most excellent battalion. I believe also they themselves have no hope of being able to raise a second battalion, and very little hope of being able to maintain themselves. What position are they in? This is a single battalion; and the result is that when it is at home it is no use to us in furnishing drafts for India, and again, when it is abroad we have to raise a special costly depot to maintain it in existence. It is the most expensive thing we could have, and the only justification we could have for contemplating maintaining it as it is would be the fact that there was a strong local attachment and strong national feeling in favour of it. I do not see evidence of any feeling to that extent. I share that feeling myself, and I would do anything I could to maintain and even improve the position of this illustrious regiment with its great traditions. But I must say that in its present position —which is due to the outcry ten years ago of which I have spoken — it is impossible to justify its existence, and therefore it was I did think, if it was absorbed in the Scots Guards, this would be a dignified conclusion to a great career, and I am ready to maintain that opinion. I am sorry to say I come now to a very lame conclusion, because what I am going to do with regard to this regiment is precisely the very worst thing, and the very thing of all others I should like to avoid, that is to leave it alone for the present, in its precarious and forlorn position; with the positive certainty of meeting, sooner or later, that destiny of absorption which cannot be indefinitely postponed. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir James Fergusson), the Member for Manchester, has urged upon me the employment of soldiers in Civil Departments, and he could not find anyone more likely to give a cordial response to that itation. I entirely agree with him
  1798
  that we must not be too sanguine or have too large ideas. We cannot imitate foreign countries in promising employment for every retired soldier, because we have not got State employment to offer. Where they have all the railways, and a great many other enterprises, in the hands of the State, they can find an infinite number of posts in which soldiers can serve. But we can only do two things. First of all, we have to see that they are employed in our Public Departments, so far as there is room for their employment; and, in the second place, we have to endeavour to induce and persuade private employers all through the country to give them employment. With regard to Public Departments, I was astonished, and a little indignant,' to hear the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer) the other night, talking of the employment of soldiers, say that we could not expect very great things as long as valets and butlers were appointed to messengerships in Public Offices. The noble Lord, I think, ought not to have said that if he did not know that it was the case. All I can say is that, so far as the Admiralty and the War Office are concerned, I will let him have the Returns for the last 10 years of the men who have been appointed to these positions, and he will not find a valet or butler among them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham made a number of useful suggestions, as he always does, and there is no one from whom I would take suggestions more readily. I can assure him that everything he has said shall be remembered. And now, lastly, I come to one comparatively small point. The hon. Member for Basingstoke brought forward a case of a warder, which, I think, I may dispose of in one sentence. The man has had a most unfortunate career. He was not long enough in a military capacity to earn a pension, and the civil office which he thereupon held did not carry a pension with it. It is quite true his commanding officer, or superior officer, appears to have said something to him about retiring on a pension—that is, any pension he was entitled to. Apparently, the officer did not know the man was entitled to no pension. As the hon. Member knows, we are bound in these matters by strict regulations, and it is quite impossible for us, however benevo-

  1799
  lently inclined we may be, to give a pension where, under the Rules, a pension does not exist. However, I will say that if any loophole can be discovered whereby this man can be benefited, I shall be only too glad to make use of it. I think I have answered most of the points raised, and I trust now, Sir, there will be no objection to your leaving the Chair.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need not say that I am not going to make a speech on the subject, nor can I complain of the excellent and full statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I would, in the very exceptional circumstances under which the House has met, make an appeal to the Prime Minister to give some statement with regard to the course of business this evening which might relieve our minds. As he is aware, there are very grave objections, into which I will not go at the present time, both to the right hon. Gentleman making his statement at this time of night, and to asking us to discuss that statement after it is made; and I am convinced that it would very greatly conduce to the smooth working of Public Business if the right hon. Gentleman would now assure the House that he would be content with the Speaker leaving the Chair, deferring to a more convenient opportunity the discussion upon the statement which is to follow.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will not enter into any dispute with the right hon. Gentleman as to the statement he has made. At the same time, I do not wish to make any extravagant demand upon the patience of the House, which has been taxed to an extreme degree during the present week. I do not agree that we should be content with the Speaker leaving the Chair; but if, after my right hon. Friend has made his statement, hon. Gentlemen are not disposed to allow discussion to go forward, we should not then, I think, offer resistance.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.

  DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
  Vote for 154,442 of all ranks.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Sir, in moving this Vote, I would
  1800
  ask the indulgence of the Committee while I make a statement, which I hope will not be a very long one, as to the present condition of the Army, and as to the measures which have either been adopted, or are in contemplation regarding it. I have long had, as the House knows, some familiarity with these military affairs. I have often concerned myself in Military Debates in this House during the last 17 years, but so many great changes have been introduced of late years, that I feel almost obliged to ask for that plea of indulgence which the House is accustomed to give to one undertaking novel duties on a novel subject. I will say at once that I have no great changes to lay before the Committee. My wish has been rather to do the best I could with the materials at my disposal than to introduce reforms other than those which appeared to be absolutely necessary. Of late years much has been done. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, my Predecessor, has laboured with assiduity and with enlightened ability; he has been surrounded and assisted by officers of unusual distinction and ability; and his work has not been fruitless. Immense advance has been made within the last two or three years, if not perfection attained, which we can hardly ever hope to attain. In the great questions of Imperial defence, the fortification of our shores, in the protection of our foreign possessions, in the housing of our troops, and in the supply of armaments and munitions of war, both large and small, great progress has been made under the right hon. Gentleman of late years. He has also introduced great changes in the administration of the Army, as to which opinions differ, and as to which, in my view, we are not yet quite able to judge. But as to the Army, its general principles and its organization remain unaltered. The systems introduced more than 20 years ago—short service, localization, and the combination of battalions—have stood the test of time, as is shown by the recent Report of the Wantage Committee, which, while suggesting many changes and improvements, practically approved of those three great systems as being those best adapted to our needs, which are varied beyond the experience of any other Army in the world. We have, in the first place, to garrison India, we have to defend the Colonies, we have to make our own shores safe, and we must be

  1801
  ready for small wars if they arise; and it appears that the present terms of service and the organization answer well in the main for these purposes. What we want in this country, in the terms of service and in our organization especially, is elasticity and adaptability, and I believe we obtain this to the necessary degree by the present arrangement. I am quite aware that theorists object to our organization, and particularly to the terms of service; but, after all, there is nothing so easy as to theorize in these matters. I could easily be a theorist, and could invent an Army which would answer most of our purposes possibly even better and be cheaper than the Army which we have; but we cannot set aside in this country ancient traditions, prepossessions, prejudices, associations, and vested interests, and if these are taken into account I question very much whether any theory, in fact I can say positively that no theory I have ever seen, could, if applied to those circumstances, have obtained the results we have obtained. Every alternative I have ever seen proposed, however ingenious it might be, has upon examination been either more costly or less suitable to our wants. If that is so, what ought we to do in the present position of matters in this country? In my opinion, the best policy of a Minister for War is to give fair play to our system, and, having done that, to leave it alone; distinctly I say to leave it alone—that is, the organisation of the Infantry especially, which is the main matter. I have said it was 20 years since the present system was inaugurated, and I cannot but go back, not only with respect and gratitude, but with some degree of surprise, to that time when almost every great branch of our present system was inaugurated by one man—namely, by Lord Cardwell. In the course of three or four years Lord Cardwell consolidated the administration of the Army at home, abolished purchase, introduced short service and the Reserve, localised the Army, united the control of the Regular Forces and of the Auxiliary Forces, and organised the Infantry. In order to carry those great reforms, he faced immense, honourable but very stubborn, prejudice and a great deal of obloquy, which perhaps still remains in some minds; but I think the catalogue I have named of achievements in Army reform is such as no Army
  1802
  reformer, in this country at all events, has ever produced, or is ever likely to produce again. Many things have fought against the development of that system. There is nothing so pernicious to the Army as perpetual change, perpetual oscillation both of theory and of practice. I say give fair play to our present organisation, and the one thing essential for that purpose seems to be the equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad. The system introduced 20 years ago has never had fair play, because the battalions have never been equalised. If you have some regiments with both battalions abroad, not only have you an immense cost, and a great pressure for drafts which would otherwise be avoided, but you fail to realise what is a very considerable advantage of the system, according to which the battalion going abroad would leave behind all its men who were either too young or too near the end of their service, or on other grounds unfit, and on arriving in India or the Colony would find the men who, having some time yet to serve, had been left behind by the sister battalion. This would facilitate relief and reduce cost. If equalisation of battalions were effected, I should be prepared to leave things very much alone. Frequent changes may be beneficial, but, even when beneficial, they often have an unfortunate and an injurious effect upon the Army generally, and I hold that it is desirable to avoid them. I am quite aware that view will be distasteful both to reformers and to reactionaries—to those who wish to go forward and to those who wish to go back—but I consider it certainly the best for the Service in the circumstances of the case. Now, Sir, how is this equalisation of battalions to be effected? At the present time there are 11 more battalions abroad than at home, and this difference has existed, with the exception of a few years, to a greater or lesser degree, ever since the system was introduced. There are three alternatives before you. You can add to the number of battalions at home; you may substitute, for certain battalions on foreign service, battalions outside of the linked Infantry organisation; or you may bring home a sufficient number of battalions. The first suggestion—namely, to add to the number of home battalions, is open to the serious objection of the great expense it would involve. The cost of

  1803
  an Infantry battalion may be put, roughly, at £40,000, and until it is proved that we are deficient in the numbers of the Army, or that we require more battalions, I am not disposed to recommend any plan which would involve the mere addition to battalions at home, at a cost of £40,000 each. The second method is to substitute, for the ordinary linked Infantry battalion, a battalion of the Guards, and that is an alternative which may well be adopted to some extent, so far as it can be properly used. But, after all, the easiest and readiest way is to bring battalions home from abroad. I am quite aware that, in the case of India, there is much objection, and I would not propose, under any circumstances, to reduce the number of troops there by a single man; but it is a matter for consideration whether we might not ask the Indian Government to dispense with some battalions, giving, as an equivalent, an additional strength to the battalions that are left. This third method of bringing battalions home is that which I shall partially adopt. We propose to bring home a battalion from Gibraltar. Our original intention was to bring home one battalion from Egypt and to substitute for another battalion in Egypt a battalion of the Guards. And we also intend to bring home one battalion from India. That would reduce the number to one pair of battalions abroad which could, for the present, be treated as temporarily employed abroad. Practical equality would thus be restored as far as working is concerned. Recent events in Egypt, however, leading to the increase of the number of troops in that country, have prevented the realisation of our plans in that direction. But in ordinary times, and when any temporary necessity is over and past, it is a thing which can be done. I certainly do believe that, of all the changes that can be made at the present moment—of all the recommendations of the Wantage Committee, as to which we have heard so much—there is nothing which can be done which will so greatly increase the efficiency of the Army as this equalisation of battalions. I have little to say with regard to another branch of the Service—the Cavalry. There is room for some reorganization, and I have listened to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for the Fareham Division. But the only step which I have taken is this, to allow recruits to be enlisted, not
  1804
  for individual regiments, but for special branches of the Cavalry. They will be enlisted in future for Lancers, Hussars, or Dragoons, as the case may be. Those men will be interchangeable between the different regiments. When regiments have to go abroad it will not be necessary to call for volunteers. That, it seems to me, is a sensible step towards the better organisation of the Cavalry, and will have the advantage of giving greater facilities for sending regiments abroad.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.): What about foreign service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will give all the details at my disposal. The other night we heard a good deal said about Army Corps, with regard to the maintenance at home of two Army Corps in readiness for foreign service. As a matter of fact, we have quite recently resolved to give up, for purposes of foreign service, the Army Corps system. The force which is held in readiness for immediate embarkation is no longer the First Army Corps and line of communication troops, but a specially constituted force, which may be roughly described as an Infantry Division, a Cavalry Brigade, a Mounted Infantry Battalion, two Batteries of Horse Artillery, three Batteries of Field Artillery, and a large number of special troops, such as bridging and telegraph troops, balloon section, bakery column, and so forth. The force has been constituted with a special view to the probable requirements of one of our small wars, and its strength is, roughly, 20,000 men and 8,700 horses. With the exception of some small details, the stores for this force—so far as we can decide upon them while the country in which it is to operate is unknown—are ready in their assigned places. Assuming that the Reservists were called out and the registered horses called up, this Field Force, as it is termed, would be ready to embark as soon as—in fact, sooner than —the ships would be ready to receive it. This is, of course, subject to any exceptional preparations which might be required in view of the nature of the country to which it has to go. With regard to one phrase I have just used, let me say this, one want in our system —a decided weakness in our system—is the provision required for small wars. That is to say, some facility will be required for filling up and strengthening

  1805
  the battalions required for a small war by utilising, in some way or other, the Reserve. But a small war is not a great national emergency. I have continued the examination which the right hon. Gentleman commenced, and I hope soon we shall have the power of using, for the purpose I have indicated, a small number of the Reserve. When that is done, I hope we shall have accomplished a great object in the way of efficiency. The most conspicuous feature in the military position at this time is the great success which has attended recruiting during the past year, and which appears likely to continue. A full account of this is given in the Report of the Inspector General. The recruits for the year numbered 41,659. Undoubtedly the circumstances have been favourable, and General Feilding has availed himself of the good opportunity thus afforded to him. He has displayed the greatest energy, and has personally visited a large number of recruiting districts. The large number of recruits is due to his zeal and activity, and we are much indebted to him for the flourishing condition of the Services. We have been able gradually to impose checks on special enlistments, and finally, in last month, to dispense with them altogether both in Cavalry and Infantry. The standard of the Guards has been raised to 5ft. 9in.; that of Artillery gunners to 5ft. 6½ in.; and that of Artillery drivers from 5ft. 3in. to 5ft. 4in. While speaking of recruiting, let me just notice, in passing, a statement which was made by the hon. Member for Belfast with regard to the condition of St. George's Barracks recruiting station. He said it was in a lamentable condition. I do not think he was quite candid in his remarks. He referred to an official whom he saw at the War Office, whom he found ignorant of the facts, and who went to inspect the station. It was rather to be inferred from the hon. Member's remarks that he was referring to some military officer with a direct responsibility in the matter; whereas the official in question was Sir Ralph Thompson, the Under Secretary of State for War, no part of whose duty it was to visit any recruiting station. But he did go; and he says that he did not find things so bad as reported. I wish to say this: The building is not in a very satisfactory condition—not such a condition as we should like to see it in —but we are always in expectation tha
  1806
  the National Gallery will take from us some of the ground. While we are in this position of uncertainty, it would not be good policy on our part to spend money in making any large improvements. But, the National Gallery having an intention of encroaching upon us, we are negotiating for ground elsewhere in London. With regard to the special recruits, let me state to the Committee only one or two figures. Of special recruits enlisted during the first half of 1892, who were under the proper standard either in height, chest measurement, or weight, or a combination of these, 2,362 were in Infantry battalions, and on January 1, 1893, there were only 848 out of that number who were still suffering from those deficiencies. This shows that, although much is said against those special enlistments—and we are trying to avoid them where we can—yet, if those recruits are likely young men, they may, under the influence of good food and a steady life, be improved in points in which they were originally deficient. Now, as I have said, elasticity is one of the objects that we seek to attain, and I have myself always been most strongly impressed with the necessity, in regard to the terms of enlistment, that a young man should not have the feeling of being kept a prisoner, as it were, in an occupation which he has come to dislike. If he is under strong temptation to leave the Service, if he is a well-conducted man, I see no reason why he should not be allowed, within reasonable limits, to do so; and, accordingly, we have not only allowed, but encouraged men to pass to the Reserve if they were sufficiently trained men and of good character, when they have been able to show that their parents were in want of their assistance at home, and that they had some certain prospect of employment when they got there. I can conceive nothing more unfortunate for the Army than that a man in that condition should be held to his bargain when his interest and his duty to his own family strongly pull in the other direction. Another feature which cannot fail to have great effect on the attractiveness of the Army consists in the great improvements made of late years, and which are still going on, in the comforts and food of the soldier. Nothing, I believe, has been more important than the greater skill in cooking

  1807
  which has been introduced into all the establishments of the Army. The work carried on by Colonel Burnett, under the energetic stimulus of Sir E. Wood, at Aldershot has spread all over the country; and if any hon. Member will visit, as I have done, a somewhat remote depôt, and see the stock-pot and the other novel culinary implements, and the nature of the food produced, he will get some idea of the great step forward we have taken in this respect. I was told the other day that, so excellent is our system of cooking at Aldershot, that, although hon. Members will hardly believe it, actually the French Army have sent over one or two of their experienced men, in order—I will not say to learn cooking from us, but, at all events, to inspect the new system which has been adopted. It is not enough, however, to obtain recruits; we want to know how they behave, and I am glad to say that, on the whole, the Returns regarding their conduct are satisfactory. I find that the proportion of Courts Martial per 1,000, which was 91 in 1881, had fallen to 53 in 1891. The proportion of minor punishments had fallen from 1,240 to 1,038; the total number of trials for drunkenness on and off duty from 4,808 to 2,078; the total number of trials for desertion and absence without leave from 4,890 to 3,402. These are the Returns for 1891, more recent figures not being yet available, but I believe the improvement is still going on. Generally speaking, as regards the military prisons, one-third of the accommodation is unoccupied, and, owing to the decrease in the required occupation during the last few years, it has been possible to reduce the accommodation at Brixton Prison from 493 to 150. That, I think, is most satisfactory. Then I come to another not less important point, and that is the health of the Army. During 1892 the health of the troops in the United Kingdom has been generally satisfactory. The approximate ratio of admissions into hospital — 772·8 — is practically the same as the previous year. The death-rate—4·30 per 1,000—shows a slight decrease. There were no special outbreaks of disease. The health of the troops abroad has been generally good. There are some exceptions; for instance, there has been a good deal of disease, owing to a particular circumstance, at Alexandria, but, on the whole,
  1808
  there has been a general decrease in the death-rate. That being the condition of things, a question with which I might now be expected to deal is this—whether anything more must be done on a large scale for our soldiers. I had the opportunity the other day of making a few observations on the various improvements recommended by the Wantage Committee, and I do not know that I need go over the same ground again. One thing we have been able to do is to alter the pay of lance-corporals. Up to the present time the number of lance-corporals who have received extra pay, in addition to that of private, has been somewhat less than half the total who held the lance rank. Strong representations were made to Lord Wantage's Committee that this increased very much the difficulty of finding suitable men to accept the promotion. Arrangements are being made to redistribute the pay, and, in the case of the Infantry, to increase it, and in future, practically all the lance-corporals in the Artillery, Engineers, and Cavalry will receive pay, but at a reduced rate; in the Infantry nearly all will receive the full rate of pay as lance-corporal. The rates of lance pay throughout the Army will thus be more uniform, and in almost every case the men will receive pay. Another recommendation which my predecessor had accepted before I came into office, but left over for my consideration, is that with reference to clothing. Throughout the Army the date of issue of clothing will cease to be April 1. A soldier will receive his outfit on enlistment, and his annual refit as nearly as possible on the anniversary of his enlistment. The clothing will cease to be the property of the State in the sense that a man will be allowed to dispose of it when worn for the due time on his discharge to a comrade. He will also receive compensation for any garments he may not require when the anniversary of issues recurs; but he will still remain liable to provide any clothing which his commanding officer may order to be renewed between the regular dates of issue. Those are the main principles, and I cannot but believe they will lead greatly to the comfort and contentment of the soldier, although it throws a certain amount of expense upon the Public Exchequer. So much for the soldier. Is there anything to be done for the

  1809
  officers? Sometimes in this House, speaking from the other side, I have perhaps been a little hard on what are called the grievances of the purchase officers. Still, I have a great sympathy for anyone who thinks he has a grievance. The grievances of the purchase officers have been examined by my predecessor, and I can hold out no hope of any revision of his decisions. But there is one matter which is a grievance, not so much to the officer, as to the interest of the Service, which is perhaps more important. When a colonel completes the command of a regiment he has two courses before him. He may retire, receiving a handsome retiring allowance, or he may go upon a sort of suspensory list—a purgatorial list, if I may use the phrase—in the expectation of possible employment; and while on that list the penalty of his purgatory is increased by the fact that he only receives £200 a year. There are, however, many officers not very rich in this world's goods who cannot undertake to hang on with £200 a year, waiting for the chance of appointment. They may be the very best men for the Service; but just at a time of life when many expenses come upon them, the choice presented to them is a very difficult one. We have thought it desirable to make some addition to the pay of those officers in their period of suspended animation, and that, I think, will be a very great assistance to the authorities, because it will give them a greater choice for subsequent promotion. Let me say one word in all sincerity on the conduct of the officers of the Army, who, I sometimes think, do not receive all the credit they deserve. We all know "what changes have come upon them, how enormously increased their duties have been since that period of new reform to which I alluded in the beginning of my remarks. I believe they are more zealous, better instructed, more hardworking and devoted to their duty than at any previous period in the history of the Army, while at the same time they have lost not one whit of the old and simpler military virtues of courage, endurance and discipline, which have always given the British officer, when tried by emergency, the power that belongs to a leader of men. I am not done with the Army yet, because I have to say something of the Reserve. The Reserve is also in a flourishing condition.
  1810
  There are over 77,000 men, to be increased next year to 80,000. I remember in 1872 and 1873 that 80,000 was the staple figure always quoted in the House, and received with sneers and derision by the opponents of short service. Eighty thousand was the figure always spoken of as the greatest height dreamt of by Army reformers; but here we have attained that figure, and it marks an epoch. We have so many men that we have stopped enrolling in the Supplementary Reserve, for the reason that the Supplementary Reserve was originally instituted to fill an emergency, to fill any deficiency caused by an accidental falling-off in the number of the Reserve; and it seems to me unnecessary to continue enrolling men in the Supplementary Reserve when we have a prospect of 80,000 men, which is really a full Reserve. Turning to the Auxiliary Forces, I find they are in a very similar condition. Taking them in the order of precedence, I am sure that the Committee will be gratified to observe that the recruiting for the Militia was much more satisfactory in 1892–93 than in 1891–92. The number in 1892 was no less than 8,991 in excess of the men who joined in the previous year, the Militia total being 108,288 as against 102,032 in the previous year. Thirteen battalions have been brigaded in camp at Aldershot, of which 10 were brigaded for the first time, a course of training calculated greatly to improve their efficiency. Steps have been taken to train the Militia Artillery at the works which they would man on mobilisation. With regard to the Yeomanry, for a considerable period I have looked upon this Force as not in a very defensible or satisfactory condition. There has been a reduction of establishment of 2,093 officers, non-commissioned officers, and men for 1893. But the changes advised in the Report of the Yeomanry Committee have been embodied in an Army Order, and I have every reason to believe will work well, and will greatly increase the efficiency of the Force. The most important change is the alteration from the troop to the squadron system and the brigading of regiments, thus making a reduction in the number of adjutants and in the permanent Staff, the saving thus effected going back to the regiment in an increased grant. I stand here in a somewhat peculiar position, because I

  1811
  have always persistently and without any hesitation voted against the Yeomanry Vote on every occasion when anyone moved a reduction of it; and I voted against it because I regarded the force as so weakly organised that it really could not be any great increase to the defensive strength of the country. Now we have done something to give it, as it were, a last chance. I hope it may not be the last one; at all events, we give it a chance of greater efficiency and of becoming less an amusement and more a real business occupation to those engaged in it. Let us hope that the effect will be satisfactory, and that, when I am free again to vote as I please, I shall not have any occasion to repeat those votes of the past. Now I come to the Volunteers. The Returns received regarding the Volunteer Force are highly satisfactory. The following increases are reported during 1892:—Establishment, 775; efficients (higher grade), 3,161; total enrolled, 3,377; present at inspection, 4,892; proficients (sergeants), 119. There has been a decrease of efficients (lower grade) 56; proficient officers, 46. A large increase of corps attending brigade camps is shown, no fewer than 96 battalions attending. In August a Force of 15,900 Volunteers was mobilised at Aldershot, and the Reports of the general officer commanding on the conduct and soldier-like bearing of the Force were highly complimentary. The Volunteer Artillery are well reported on. There are now 90 batteries of position, equal to 362 guns, in the hands of Volunteer Artillery. Fifteen corps are wholly position artillery and 26 are mixed corps—that is, batteries of position and garrison batteries. We propose to increase these batteries to 99. Any additional batteries will be armed with 40–pounder guns; the other guns are 16- and 20-pounders. The importance of training our Volunteers at the guns and fortresses they are told off to on mobilisation is very great, and last year 6,000 Volunteers were drilled at works of defence. The dearth of officers is almost the only unsatisfactory feature I have to report. I have spoken a word or two on the subject to-night already. It is hoped that (he inducements we are offering may have some effect. It is hoped that the issue of the Volunteer officers' decoration and the more intimate relations in
  1812
  which the Force has been brought with the Army by the success of brigade camps may do something to obtain officers. The giving of the Volunteer decoration which was, in the first place, a recognition of good service, was expected to offer some inducement to officers to continue in the Service in order to earn it. I may say with regard to this, that although it has been so recently given— though I do not mean to suggest any new departure, yet the question of giving some sort of decoration to the non-commissioned officers has been brought before me. Without committing myself to any course at present, I frankly say that it commends itself to me, as far as I see, as a desirable thing, because everyone who knows the Volunteers is aware that the non-commissioned officers really do a great deal of the hardest work in keeping the corps efficient. One little concession I have been induced to make, or am anxious to make, affects what is known as the united drill allowance. This allowance was given to meet travelling expenses of corps with scattered companies to enable them to attend battalion drills, inspection, &c.; but it was not given when a camp was held, as it was supposed a camp afforded the opportunity for battalion drill. The allowance was 5s. a head. In 1889 the allowance was thus modified: —For one attendance at battalion drill 2d. per mile per man for the journey to and fro; for one attendance at inspection the same. But there was an embargo on it as to camp. This embargo has been found detrimental to the promotion of brigade camps in many parts of the country, as it is financially better for a corps to draw the travelling allowance and to forego the camp allowances (with the camp expenses). I now hope to be able to arrange that travelling allowances shall be given to corps which have attended brigade camps. Now, I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. I have said all I need say as to personnel, and I now come to materiel, both works and munitions of war. In both of these Departments great progress has been made. Let me first speak of the present position and progress of the two great undertakings outside the Estimates that were initiated by my predecessor for Imperial defence and for the housing of our soldiers respectively. As regards the Imperial Defence Loan, the defence works of the

  1813
  military ports at home and abroad are now very near completion. The works at the coaling stations are practically complete at all but four stations; at three of which they are very nearly complete. There have been difficulties in respect of the fourth (Esquimault), with regard to which we have heard something in this House already, as to the apportionment of charge between the Imperial Government and the Dominion Government. These difficulties are now, it is believed, surmounted, and the works will shortly be proceeded with. I am glad to say that the Canadian Government have made a most reasonable offer recently to bear a very fair share of this work. Their offer has been accepted, and the matter is now in course of settlement, and I hope that no further unnecessary delay will occur. As to the BarrackLoan,I may say that of the £4,100,000 included in it £1,680,000 has been authorised for expenditure and about £1,000,000 has been actually expended up to date. At Aldershot, the station which involves the largest expenditure, the greater part of the reconstruction of the camp, so far as accommodation for officers and men is concerned, is completed, and good progress has been made with the accessory buildings. At Shorncliffe a large proportion of the reconstruction has been finished. At the Curragh the first large contract for the two cavalry barracks has been taken, and other works are in progress. At Colchester a large number of married soldiers' quarters are in course of construction, the new military hospital will shortly be begun, and the plans for reconstruction of part of the camp are being made. At London the works are well advanced, and in Dublin the new cavalry barracks have been completed; the reconstruction of the Royal Barracks is nearly finished, and the work is being pushed on at those other barracks at which expenditure under the loan is contemplated. As stated in the brief Memorandum, issued with the Estimates, the first instalment of terminable annuity in payment of the Barrack Loan is charged on the Votes of this year at £32,000; and in view of this large expenditure, the Committee will approve of a rather careful, or even close-fisted, policy being pursued with regard to ordinary works. We have, therefore, endeavoured to confine to the strictest limit the undertaking
  1814
  of new works. We have gone on reasonably with those in hand, and we have given—and this, I think, is important— an increased sum for maintenance. Undoubtedly there is a tendency with all of us on many occasions to spend more upon new works, whether in progress or not, for which there is considerable pressure, and to reduce and starve maintenance and up-keep of old buildings. Though I have often been a party to it myself, I do not think that this is good policy. As to munitions of war, I shall only refer to the most recent and most interesting of our arms—the magazine rifle—which will soon be complete in its issue. Three hundred and forty-six thousand rifles have been manufactured— 56,000 are in the hands of troops, and 70,000 are in India. That is the position of affairs now. The manufacture of the new Cavalry carbine is progressing, and it will shortly be issued. No fewer than 86 batteries (53 at home and 33 in India) are armed with a 12-pounder gun. I hope the hon. Member for West Belfast is not here, for he would urge that we should proceed much faster, and I wish we could. A lighter field gun is being considered, but we have not arrived at any decision on the matter yet. As to the Non-Effective Vote, I have only one point to refer to. It is the question of those known as veterans—men who have a medal for a campaign before 1860, and who have rendered a substantial service of at least 10 years, but who are now in destitute or impecunious circumstances. I would remind the Committee that these men have no title whatever to claim pensions, as they have none of them served to the pensionable age, and they were well aware of that when they left the Service, so that really they have no grievance to complain of. The late Government proposed to give 100 of these pensions a year, and they supplemented that by a round sum of £5,000, which was to be kept filled up as vacancies occurred. That enabled about 850 pensions to be given; but there still remain, as the Committee will well understand, a large number of men who have not received them, and who are every whit as much entitled to the pension as those to whom it has been granted. There is no distinction drawn in the granting of the pensions, and the work is done by the Chelsea Commissioners, who are an exceedingly careful and able Body. The

  1815
  pensions have been granted on the ground, I presume, of necessity and urgency. I hope the Committee will remember, as I have said, that the men have no claim to these pensions as a matter of right, nor would I say they are granted as a mere matter of pity. It is not because a man may have been present in the Crimea or in the Indian Mutiny that they have a claim. That is not the ground on which they are given. They are given in the interests of the Army, because it is injurious to the Service, and especially to the work of recruiting, that men who have served in the Army should be found loafing about the streets in a destitute condition, really bringing disgrace upon the Service. We make destitution—I should be glad if a better word could be found—we make very reduced circumstances, amounting almost to destitution, the condition on which the pensions are given. It may be asked, "Why do you keep the pensions from the more thrifty men who are striving to maintain their families, and give them to the improvident who have reduced themselves to this state of destitution?" My answer to that is to be found in what I have just said, that the pensions are granted in the interests of the Army. It does disservice to the Army that men in a destitute state, perhaps wearing a medal and being able to say that they had taken part in these great campaigns, should be found about the streets in a state of want. Confining the matter to this ground, as we are obliged to do, I hope to be able to make arrangements for a very large increase of the money voted for this purpose during the coming year, which I trust will enable us to take up the greater part of the claims already sent in to the Chelsea Commissioners. This will be met in the Vote, because the natural decrease of the long-service pensions, which are dying out, will give margin enough to enable us to return this money to the soldier. I have made a pretty long statement, but I hope not an unbusinesslike one. I thank the Committee for the patience with which they have listened to me. Any details can, of course, be dealt with on individual Votes. I am happily circumstanced in this: that while I can tell of no new departure and no great fresh reforms, I honestly believe, whatever may be said of our having no Army and having got so little for our
  1816
  money, that no Secretary of State for War has ever been able to give a better report than I am able to give to-night of the condition of the defensive force of this country. Blemishes and weaknesses there are, not always avoidable. The new plant of modern improvement, grafted upon the old, withered, gnarled stem of military tradition, may not produce so symmetrical and shapely a tree as might be developed from a vigorous sapling freshly planted in the soil; but I believe that in real strength, in adaptation to our purposes, and in hold upon public confidence, we perhaps do not lose even by some of the very anomalies which it is so easy to point out. And I am not afraid to ask from the House of Commons even the increased sum which I deem necessary for next year, in order to maintain in efficiency an Army whose present zeal in your service is worthy of its ancient renown.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 154,442, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad. excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I rise simply to express my sense of the clear, businesslike, and interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman; all the more because it has been made under circumstances which, as we all understand, are very exceptional. We ourselves should be under great difficulty in making any comments now; therefore, in accordance with the understanding that has been arrived at, I move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Resolution of 10th March, adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Bight o'clock till Monday next.