HC Deb 16 March 1893 vol 10 cc310-29

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. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

It has been a great gratification to me, Sir, to hear the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War spoke on Saturday of our defensive forces, and of the considerable advance that had been made in the improvement of the defences of the country. It is also very gratifying to notice that he dwelt in particular upon the great improvement that has been affected in regard to the recruiting service. I have more than once pointed out to the House that for a long time the great difficulty we had to contend with was the recruit; but I am glad to say that, owing mainly to the energies of the Inspector General of Recruiting, the aspect of recruiting has been now altogether changed, so that we are able to say not only that we can now get a suitable supply of recruits, but that the Militia has also largely increased in numbers, and that the Reserve is complete. I hope—and the hope is not unreasonable—that we have at length nearly arrived at a time when there may be some solid agreement between the two sides of the House as to the organisation and the general constitution of our Army. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the opinion that oscillations of policy are most mischievous to the Army itself. For my own part, I am thoroughly prepared to cordially endorse, as a whole, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, for I believe that our Army system is gradually being placed on a basis upon which no oscillations of policy of any ordinary character are likely to disturb it. The first question dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman was the question with regard to the equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad. This is a subject to which it has often been my duty to direct the attention of the House of Commons. It would, no doubt, be very desirable, if it were possible, to secure complete equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad. It was one of the foundations of the system laid down by Lord Cardwell; and it has been one of the main difficulties of that system. Lord Cardwell laid down that there should be this equalisation, except in case of emergency. But when, with our great Empire, and with great and various interests in all parts of the world, could we expect to see ourselves altogether free from any case of emergency? The best way, I believe, of carrying out this object is to have added three or four battalions to the strength of the Army. But I would not press this on the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has not done it, and I did not do it when I had the chance, because I shrank from the responsibility of adding to the already great cost of the Army unless in case of absolute necessity. But in the absence of new battalions it is clear that the next best thing to do is what the right hon. Gentleman has done—that is, he has brought some battalions home from abroad. The right hon. Gentleman proposed first to bring home a battalion from Gibraltar. I approved of that step, for there was no foreign station from which we can better withdraw a battalion and where the garrison could be more easily reinforced than Gibraltar. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded the other day to the question of reinforcing the garrison of Sierra Leone. That question was considered by the late Government, and they arrived at the conclusion that they were not justified, taking the climate into consideration, in keeping a larger garrison at Sierra Leone than was absolutely necessary for taking care of the armaments of that station. The right hon. Gentleman further proposed to take a battalion from India. This is a subject that has often been discussed, and I believe that while we should not at all diminish our garrison in India, we might reasonably ask the Indian Government to limit the number of cadres of regiments, so as to allow one or two of them to be brought home. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the additional force in Egypt is going to be provided for, and whether it is intended that the increased cost shall be thrown on the Estimates in this country or on the Government of Egypt? To come to my second point, with regard to the field force of over 20,000 men that the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be always maintained in readiness to be sent abroad, I wish to know whether he means that that field force is in substitution of all other arrangements? At this moment we have two Army Corps—one ready to take the field on the shortest notice, and the other, I believe, able to take the field before the first could have left the country. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement the other day which we cannot, on our side of the House, quite understand—though, of course, owing to the necessities of the case, his statement had to be a very brief one. He said, as I understood him, that for the purposes of foreign expeditions the system of Army Corps was to be given up, but I did not understand him to say as regards home defence that the system is to be given up. I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. I succeeded to the system. The two Army Corps now in existence in this country for foreign service were established in some degree before I came into Office. I spent a good deal of time and money in making every preparation so that the Army Corps might be fit to take the field; and what I want to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman really means that all those preparations are to be thrown away, or whether he simply means that he wants to put the necessities of foreign campaigns upon a system that would be more likely to deal with the difficulties that would arise in the case of small wars abroad, without giving up the power of sending abroad larger forces, if necessary. I do net want to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's answer in the negative. If it were not so it would be difficult to defend the large amount of expenditure in this country on the Army. My desire is that there shall be no diminution whatever in the amount of force available for service abroad, and that there shall be no diminution in the amount of preparation now being made to enable that force to take the field. The right hon. Gentleman has said he thinks it is not very likely that any Army Corps will be sent abroad to take part in operations against great Armies on the Continent. That may be so. I will not discuss that matter now, though if it were worth while to dwell on it there is a good deal to be said with regard to it, but I may at least call attention to other demands that may be made on the Army. We might have to send to India a much larger force than 20,000 men, or we might require a force in excess of that to which the right hon. Gentleman has called our attention; therefore, I am entitled to ask whether the arrangement he proposes will be the best preparation for the necessities of our small wars, whilst enabling us to send abroad as large a force, properly equipped, as we have hitherto been prepared to send to a foreign country. And now I come to my third point—a matter to which attention must be given, if not now, at any rate, at a very early date, and that is the relation of the War Office to the Treasury. The question was referred to the Commission, presided over by Lord Hartington, and of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member; and for my part I attach quite as much importance to that matter as I do to any branch of the inquiry of the Commission. Unfortunately, owing to circumstances into which I need not now enter, the Commission made no inquiry into that matter at all. I am one of those—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is—who think that the present system of Treasury control is eminently unsatisfactory. I believe that it may effect some savings in pence, but that in the expenditure of pounds it has no effect at all. The present system has the greatest possible effect in preventing any adequate decentralisation from headquarters, it destroys the responsibility of military officers for the money they spend in different parts of the country, and prevents the effective application of the money granted by Parliament for the purposes of the Army. I do not limit myself to the Treasury control, but I want to say a word as to the control exercised by the Controller and Auditor General. I hope the Committee will not suppose that I dispute the necessity of an effective audit. On the contrary, I think there can be no doubt that every Department, and most of all the great spending Departments like the War Office, ought to have the most effective audit that can be devised by the House for the purpose of checking expenditure; but I am not sure whether the War Office requires an internal and an external audit, which cost a large sum of money, and in many respects go over the same ground. I think that the Controller and Auditor General is a grievous check upon the administration of the Army. It is all very well to say that the Controller and Auditor General does not interfere with the Administration of the Army. I could give the Committee numerous instances in which, in my opinion, the Controller and Auditor General has grievously interfered. There are many respects in which the Secretary of State is not free to act even with the sanction of the Treasury, and of all his colleagues. He must hold his hand because the Controller and Auditor General steps in and says it cannot be done. That is a system behind the age. Do not interfere with the War Office in the administration of their funds. They know how to administer them, and a person outside the War Office cannot be a judge as to whether this service or that service is a proper one to which to apply funds. I am, therefore, for giving control in these matters to the War Office, although, no doubt, there should be a proper audit to see that funds are not misapplied. I attach importance to both these points, but I do not expect an answer in regard to the Controller and Auditor General from the right hon. Gentleman at this moment. I trust, however, that he will apply his mind to this question and find some method of giving control to the War Office, and of providing an efficient audit which is not open to those objec- tions of which every one in the War Office is sensible. As we have such a limited time for the discussion of this subject, I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer, but I must say I think it rather unusual that, after the Statement of the Minister responsible for the War Office has been made as to the policy of his Department for the coming year, only between half-past 10 and 12 o'clock at night should be given for the discussion of the subject. I do not know how much more time we shall get before the passing of the Appropriation Bill, but I think we have a right to claim that an opportunity will be given in May or June for making what is only fair comment on the military policy of the year.

SIR A. HAYTER (Walsall)

said, this was the time for those of them who took great interest in the military policy of the country to offer criticisms upon the statement made the other evening by the Secretary of State for War in his able and comprehensive speech. He would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that the increase in the Estimates of £171,000 was mainly if not entirely due to an increase of the righting forces of the country. Those of them who were interested in the taxpayer would see that they got something for their money when they came to examine these Votes in detail. The fact was that the increase of £171,000 had to be reduced by a falling off in the appropriation in aid of £66,000, but taking the large Vote for men they would find that there was an increase of £83,000 due to the fact of the battalions being full through the large number of recruits that had been obtained. Then there was an increase of £25,000 in the matter of clothing, and above and beyond all this, owing to the system inaugurated by Lord Cardwell, they had now in the country a Reserve of between 76,000 and 80,000 men. The hon. Member opposite had alluded to the increase which had taken place in the number of recruits, and he had hardly attributed that increase to its real cause. It was mainly owing to the long period of agricultural and commercial depression. No doubt industrial difficulty made military opportunity, and they had to recognise that General Fielding and his staff of Recruiting Inspectors had taken full advantage of that opportunity, and had added large numbers of recruits to our fighting strength. He should also like to congratulate the Department that in the official posters the advantages offered by the Service were brought much nearer to the real facts than they were in former days. The recruit was told exactly what he would get, and the promises made to him were carried out. As to the deduction of 7d. a day in the soldier's pay when he went into hospital, he could not but think that the circumstances attending each man's illness should be taken into account. He thought the deduction from pay should be heavier in the case of the man who went into hospital in consequence of disease contracted through his own excesses than in the case of the man suffering from illness that was really not of his own contracting. Another point touched upon was the drilling of the Reserves. This force comprised between 76,000 and 80,000 of the best troops in the country—men in the prime of life and well seasoned, who had been seven or eight years with the colours and were only 25 or 26 years of age, and without whom no battalion could be sent on foreign service. Yet these men were never officially inspected, and no one knew anything about their military efficiency or physical condition. They were instructed in the use of the magazine rifle, but no pains were taken to test their military efficiency. When he was at the War Office two plans were considered. One was submitted by Lord Wolseley, who proposed that these men should go for a certain period with the Militia battalion of their own district, but the difficulty was that if they did so they would stand a very good chance of losing their employment. He (Sir A. Hayter) was of opinion that as these men were entitled to pay during Reserve service they ought to be obliged to join a Volunteer battalion and attend 12 drills every year. The Volunteers were able to attend a few drills in the course of the year without sacrificing their employment, and surely the Reserve men could do the same, and it would be found in the case of the Reserve men that these drills would enable them soon to pick up their military efficiency. Both in Germany and France care was taken to keep the Reserves in touch with their drill, and we could not do a wiser thing in this country. It must not be forgotten that under a military system such as ours a great deal would depend on the Reserves in time of emergency. He was of opinion that lance corporals should receive additional pay for the additional duties they had to discharge. As to the unfortunate circumstances in connection with the 1st Life Guards, while probably no one would desire to discuss them, he thought it high time that a stop was put to the practice of allowing Colonels of the Household Cavalry to dismiss men without trial.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but they do not possess that power.

SIR A. HAYTER

Then under whose power were these men dismissed? As he understood it they were submitted to no trial and no kind of inquiry. However, after the hon. and gallant Member's statement he would withdraw the remark he had made.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

complained that the Secretary for War expected to vote £6,000,000 for the Army after a short discussion of barely an hour and a half. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Army Estimates could be put down on another day the discussion would not be prolonged, whilst hon. Members who wished to make some remarks and could not find an opportunity to-night would be able to express their views. He thought that by that arrangement the right hon. Gentleman would save the time of the House both now and hereafter. He congratulated the Secretary for War upon the able statement he had made the other day, but, with several other Members, was unable to agree with all the remarks he had made. He could not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to purchase officers. The right hon. Gentleman said that some cases had been too persistently advocated, but as a matter of fact in many cases justice had only been obtained through persistency. The late Secretary for War had done a great deal for the Army, and he (General Goldsworthy) hoped that so long as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) occupied his present post he would follow in the lines laid down by his predecessor. He could not admit that the organization of the Army was anything like what it should be. It was only necessary to read the Report of Lord Hartington's Commission to see what had been done and what was wanted. Complaints would be continually coming from civilians who studied this matter from a practical point of view when they saw that the Army and Navy were managed in such an unbusiness-like way—the management of the Army, however, being worse than that of the Navy. As to the quartermasters he thought they had been bady treated. The War Office might, he thought, very fairly arrange to put these men in a better position than they were occupying at present, especially by giving the honorary rank which carried a pension to widows. He had received several communications on this subject, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to it. He hoped, too, the Government were serious in announcing that it was their intention to do away with the stoppages from the soldier's pay. It was altogether unbusiness-like to put before men on joining the Army statements that were not absolutely true. He trusted that that system would be abandoned, and that free rations would be given to the men. He would give the Government notice that on the Government of Ireland Bill he should deem it his duty to call the attention of the House to the position Her Majesty's troops would occupy so as to give the House the opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark)

was glad to hear that it was proposed largely to increase the amount of money to be devoted to the Crimea and Mutiny pensions. He regretted, however, that the condition of destitution was to be enforced. It was a condition which deeply wounded many of the most deserving and most qualified men under the pension scheme. The men who had fought for us in the last two great struggles that we had been engaged in deserved recognition from the country, not merely on the ground that by hanging about the streets destitute and wretched they brought discredit on the Army, but for the substantial reason that they had performed a great work for the country. Then, as to the Cameron Highlanders—the old 79th—he must say he regretted the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, believing it calculated to give offence to people whom he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no wish to offend. No doubt out of the House a great deal of nonsense was talked about the matter, and no doubt it had vexed the sensible soul of the right hon. Gentleman. But it was a matter of esprit de corps at stake, and that person was a very bad controller of men who disregarded sentiment, and took a course which gave umbrage to people. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Camerons' tartan was a Macdonald tartan. Surely this was the very pedantry of antiquarianism. When the regiment was formed it was felt that the Cameron tartan was too bright for use as a uniform, and therefore the tartan adopted was one invented by the mother of the man who formed the regiment in 1793. That tartan had been through the Peninsula, had been at Waterloo, through the Crimea, through the Mutiny, in Egypt, and up the Nile. If the achievements of the regiment had not sanctified the tartan and made it as genuine a tartan as any in Scotland, he did not know what would be required for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had scoffed at kilts. Most people were aware that kilts were not habitually worn in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but at the same time time Scotchmen had a strong feeling as to the value of kilts as a military uniform. The right hon. Gentleman had congratulated the officers of the regiment upon having taken no part in the agitation which had been going on in Scotland. He (Mr. Smith) had no authority to speak for the officers, but he knew it was not the unanimous opinion that there was no hope of raising a second battalion, and very little hope of being able to maintain the present battalion. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had really taken the opinion on the question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in the year 1891–92, a very large number of recruits had had to be raised in England, and had spoken as if the proceedings of that year were a fair sample of what went on every year. The fact was, that in that year a very sudden increase in the numbers of the regiment was necessary. A number of men who had been enlisted for the Nile Campaign had just left the Service, and the regiment had to be brought up from its home strength to its foreign strength. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had not given a fair example of what happened every year. 364 recruits were raised in Scotland that very year, and a great many of the men raised in England were obviously Scotchmen by birth. It appeared from a memorandum given by Lochiel, the chief of the clan, on behalf of the regiment, that after the influx of the men from England, the composition of the regiment was as follows:—576 Scotchmen and 434 Englishmen. In July, 1891, before the influx of the Englishmen, the regiment consisted of 770 men, of whom 623 had been born in Scotland and fewer than 150 in England. The Government were apparently fond of a suspensory policy. They wanted to suspend the Church of Scotland and the Church of Wales, and apparently the Secretary for War wanted to suspend the Camerons also. The right hon. Gentleman seemed still to have it in his mind to make the Camerons a battalion of the Scots Guards. He (Mr. Smith) was speaking with an old Cameron the other day about this suggestion, and he expressed the utmost indignation that it should even be proposed that the Camerons should be made "a third battalion of anything." If a larger portion of Scotland were thrown open for recruiting, there was no doubt that the Camerons would be able not only to maintain their position, but to support a second battalion also. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the adoption of this proposal meant only the addition of 5 per cent. to the number of regiments who recruited in Scotland. Why should not all the Scottish regiments be recruited in Scotland, and the weakest be left to go to the wall? It was most unfair, as well as most detrimental, to the regiment to leave it with a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over its head by a hair. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman put the regiment into a position to continue under the new circumstances the glorious career it had had for centuries?

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, a great deal of satisfaction had been expressed by the Secretary for War with regard to the recruiting of the past year, but the reason why the recruits had come up in such numbers was no doubt to be found in the great depression of the agricultural and other industries. As a Member who represented more soldiers than did anyone else in the House, he frequently heard complaints as to the stoppages that were made in the men's pay. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that Lord Wantage's Committee recommended that the private soldier of the Infantry should receive 1s. a day free from compulsory stoppages, not due to his own negligence or to misconduct. That recommendation had never been acted upon. The Committee also recommended that the private soldier should have a messing allowance of 3d. a day to be expended regimentally en extra messing. He recognised that a great improvement had taken place through the introduction of better cooking in the Army, and had never heard any complaints of the actual dinners. Soldiers, however, did complain that they did not get the allowances which they thought they ought to receive, so that they might be saved from the necessity of having to buy food out of their own small pay. It would be an immense advantage to the soldiers, and an immense advantage to recruiting, if these complaints were put an end to. Another complaint frequently made was that soldiers who were sent to Gibraltar for five years were only allowed one furlough during the whole of that period, and he would suggest that they should be permitted to return to England at their own expense twice during the five years. Gibraltar was nothing but a barren rock, and the men were not allowed to cross over to Africa as their officers did, or even to go into Spain.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

No one regrets more than I do the very short amount of time allowed us to-night for the continuation of this discussion. As I agree with those who think that such time can hardly be looked upon as sufficient, I will gladly accept the offer which I understand is made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Votes which are necessary shall be allowed to be taken to-night on the understanding that at a later period of the Session—say in the month of June—an opportunity will be afforded, perhaps on the Provision Vote, of renewing the discussion and raising any points which may have been omitted to-night.

An hon. MEMBER: Can any subject be discussed on that Vote?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The course I suggest has been frequently taken with the consent of the House, and has been found a convenient way of getting over a difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) asked me whether the Field Force is to be in substitution of the two Army Corps, of which mention has been made in previous years. That is not my intention. What is intended is that there shall still be the two Army Corps maintained in the same condition of readiness as at present; but that a force of 20,000 men, with their equipments, should be ready for immediate embarkation. It is believed that this will be a more handy body of men for the purposes for which any expeditionary force might be required, and it will not interfere in reality with the First Army Corps, prepared for the defence of this country. The right hon. Gentleman asked me as to the payment of the augmented force at present in Egypt. That is a question I cannot yet answer. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to a question of great importance on which I entirely agree with him, respecting the relations between the War Office and the Treasury. He complained that this important point was not dealt with by the Commission known as Lord Harrington's Commission. I was myself a member of that Commission. We made a Report as to the Army and Navy, but I suppose we had by that time become so tired of the subject that we did not prosecute our inquiries further. I do not know whose fault it was, and I do not think we were consulted individually in the matter, but I join in the regret the right hon. Gentleman has expressed—that the subject was not dealt with. I give every credit to the Treasury, and recognise the great ability with which the officials of the Treasury conduct their duties, but I agree that it is undoubtedly the case that They sometimes leave unchecked large expenditure while they fasten upon some small item with a tenacity that the importance of the subject does not really justify. I do not think the present system conduces to economy, and I should be glad if any wise and judicious mode could be discovered of altering the relations between the two Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir A. Hayter) brought forward the question of the drill of the Reserve. We are all anxious that the Reserve men should be drilled if any system can be adopted which does not interfere with their employment in civil life, nor act as a deterrent against their obtaining employment, but that is, of course, the difficulty. My hon. Friend suggests that they should drill with the Volunteers. I do not know whether that would satisfy military requirements, and a very high military authority, who shares the desire that the Reserve should be trained if possible, has recently written on this subject— In the event of invasion, I presume we should have the Reserve in the ranks for at least a fortnight before we had to go into action; and he adds— I believe a period such as that will be sufficient, in the case of men who have served for seven or more years in the ranks, to bring them up to their old standard of efficient training. As to the recent events in the 1st Life Guards, that would be a large topic on which to enter at this time of night, and I am not disposed to do so. I would simply say that the non-commissioned officers who were discharged for having failed to do their duty were discharged not under the special power which the hon. Gentleman has referred to, but under the general powers given to the Military Authorities by the Royal Warrant. The men were found to have failed in their duty in that they either did not know the state of things in the regiment or did not communicate their knowledge to their officers. On that ground it was considered desirable that for the benefit of the Public Service they should be discharged. My hon. Friend the Member for the Partick Division (Mr. Parker Smith) has brought up again the question of the Cameron Highlanders. I never expected to convince him on that question, but I wish to disabuse his mind of one idea. My hon. Friend suggests that I yielded to sentiment in not prosecuting the proposal that the Camerons should be merged in the Scots Guards. I did not. There was a proposal on foot that the Brigade of Guards should be increased by two battalions, and I thought that the Camerons might be disposed of in a dignified manner by constituting them one of those battalions. But the idea of having two additional bat- talions of the Guards having been abandoned, that particular destination of the Cameron Highlanders necessarily dropped. The future is, therefore, left open for later consideration, and I shall be glad to receive any suggestions on the subject. The hon. Member for Basingstoke said the recommendation of Lord Wantage's Committee respecting stoppages from soldiers' pay had not been acted upon. I am not prepared to carry out that recommendation of the Committee, as the expense of doing so would be very great indeed. I quite agree, however, that a net rate of pay would be more convenient in every way, and that no statement should be made to the recruit which at all conceals from him the fact that at present the stoppage is made. As to the suggestion that soldiers stationed at Gibraltar should have an additional furlough, I find that my military advisers have a very strong objection to the relaxation of the Rules of the Service on the subject, and of course in such a matter as that I am bound to act on their advice. I venture to appeal to the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken on the understanding that the Debate may be resumed at a later period of the Session.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had a little misapprehended what had been said upon the Opposition side of the House with reference to postponing further discussion. His right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) had contended that it was impossible for the Vote to be taken without a discussion. He had no desire to throw difficulties in the way of taking the Vote, but it was obvious that there were considerable objections to taking a Vote of such magnitude after such a brief discussion as had just taken place. There were a very large number of subjects which had been put forward, and to which no reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. The objection he had to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches was that, although they were couched in the most agreeable language, they conveyed no answer to the questions put to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the question of the two Army Corps, the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he had prepared a force of some- thing like 20,000 men, and had asked whether anyone would think of sending an Army Corps to the Continent to engage in a Continental war. Well, that was a very serious subject. The right hon. Gentleman's statement had been received on his own side with loud cheers; but he (Mr. Brodrick) ventured to say that they were inconsiderate cheers. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether in the last 10 years there had been no occasion when the sending of one or two Army Corps to the Continent was in the minds of those who were responsible for the position now held by the right hon. Gentleman? A great deal of satisfaction had been expressed at the successful way in which recruiting had gone on during the past year. No doubt the Army was full; but it was well that the Committee should realise how it was full. It was full because there had been Be many "special enlistment," or enlistments of men who were under height and of insufficient chest measurement. Whereas in 1890 there were 6,000 such enlistments, in 1891 there were 10,000, and in 1893 there were 13,000, or one-third of the whole. As the Army was full, might the Committee hope that special enlistments had come to an end? Having attended the Chelsea Hospital Board regularly for several years, he had noticed that there were a large number of cases of old soldiers who fell out of the ranks from illness or some other disability. There was a great deal of information which it was desirable the House should have on these subjects, and he trusted that it would be given before the Vote was taken. If they parted with it now until June or July they parted with it for a year with the necessary securities. They could only judge by results, and with the results which they had before them he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to deal with the question and inform them how far he considered that the special enlistment had been satisfactory? With regard to the Army Reserve, of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had made a strong point, they had received very little information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the steps taken to secure employment for the men. The late Government had done all in their power to obtain employment for the Reserves—in the Post Office and in the Metropolitan Police. What steps had the right hon. Gentleman taken to further this object? Had he also endeavoured to strengthen the sympathies of the Railway Companies in the matter, and, if so, with what success? They had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Railway Companies had been able to carry out the engagements they had entered into. It must be obvious to the House it would be impossible to ask companies and private manufacturers to do for the Government what the Government was unwilling to do for itself. When his right hon. Friend lately at the head of the Post Office undertook to deal with the question, a great step was made in advance, and they were anxious to see a still further advance made. He made bold to say that the appointment of valets and butlers to places which should be given to Army Reserve men was still going on. People were being hired from outside as servants—not, perhaps, in the Naval or Military Departments, but in other Departments of the State—and he was convinced that without an Order in Council or pressure from this House these posts would not be reserved for the soldiers of the Army Reserve. He would, therefore, like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some stronger expression of an intention to pursue the course followed by the late Secretary for War than had as yet been given. One word as to economy. The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment on going into Committee of Supply laid great stress upon the necessity of economy. There was not much heard about the subject in the House. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington called special attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not assisted him in that respect. He was himself rather astonished, after the strong speeches which had been delivered on the question, not to have heard a reply on the subject. I had expected that, at any rate, reference would have been made to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Sir G. Chesney). It was to be regretted that no answer had been returned to the hon. and gallant Member's recommendation, based on his long experience in India, that there should be a reduction in the large number of Staff officers employed at home. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken four times in the Debate, but never on one occasion had he alluded to the possibility of his adopting the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. It was obvious that these questions demanded his attention. Then, again, they had had a very insufficient reply from the right hon. Gentleman to the speech of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings). The right hon. Gentleman had altogether missed the point as to the difficulty with regard to Enfield and Sparkbrook. It was easy to put it to the Committee that £100,000 would be saved in the manufacture of the magazine rifles, but what would be the extra cost per rifle under the new arrangement? Would 10s. per rifle cover it? He did not think it would. He believed that in order to bring about an apparent reduction the right hon. Gentleman was going to incur an additional expenditure of £20,000. These were important points, and he apologised for bringing them forward at this late hour; but believing, as many hon. Members did, that the Government at this moment were pursuing a penny wise and pound foolish policy, obviously they could discuss that policy with greater advantage now than they would be able to discuss it in June or July. There were many other points he should have brought before the Committee if time had allowed. He could not now even develop properly the points on which it seemed to him necessary that the Secretary for War should make replies; but he had said as much as he could, in the hope that the Committee would see that it was not possible for them to take the Vote this evening. The Vote was for nearly £6,000,000, and they had only had an hour and twenty-five minutes to discuss it. He should have no sympathy with any attempt to retard the War Office Estimates, but he certainly thought that the advantage they had derived from such speeches as those of the Member for Edinburgh, the right hon. Baronet opposite, and the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, had been marred by the fact that the Secretary for War had been compelled to confine his reply to the narrowest limits and had appealed to the Committee to postpone discussion for three or four months. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had cut short the observations he wished to make—[Cries of "Divide!"]—but he ventured to hope that the Secretary for War would not persist in his endeavour to get the Vote through that night.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I have heard with extreme surprise the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. They are in absolute contradiction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for War, who suggested that the Vote should be taken to-night, on conditions they were accepted by us. [Cries of "No!"] Well, I may say the conditions which we imagined were assented in the early part of the evening to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Everybody knows that the consequences of our not taking this Vote to-night will be that Supply will be driven into next week—a circumstance which, as I say, will cause surprise and astonishment to everybody after what took place in the early part of the evening, and if Supply is driven into next week it will be with almost the certainty that the law will be broken. I attribute the whole responsibility for that to the conduct of the Opposition in not carrying out the understanding that was come to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have heard with profound astonishment the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman at an early stage of the evening pressed upon us the necessity of our finishing Supply by to-morrow night for various reasons, the chief amongst which appeared to be the convenience of the Government. I pointed out to him the extreme difficulty, and almost impossibility, of concluding Supply by that time, but said that if it must be done he must make some definite statement with regard to the conduct of Public Business so as to meet the convenience of the House. No concession whatever has been made to the Opposition—no attempt to meet their convenience in the slightest degree. In these circumstances, it appeared to me, and it still appears to me, that it is our duty to see that the law is not broken, and that no Debate of a prolonged or an obstructive character shall occur. I put it to you, Sir, that, considering the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was made at the end of a Saturday Sitting and not finished until half-past 8 o'clock, and that we have only had from half-past 10—or, in other words, an hour and a-half—to-night in which to discuss the main statement with regard to the Army for the whole year, we have not in any way exceeded the fair limit of Debate. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are, in my opinion, not only wholly unfounded as regards the good faith of the Opposition, but they are without any justification as regards the general conduct of Business.

SIR E. TEMPLE rose—

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.