SUPPLY — COMMITTEE.—ARMY ESTIMATES, 1894–5.

HC Deb 18 July 1894 vol 27 cc289-330

SUPPLY,—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

1. £257,600, War Office, Salaries, and Miscellaneous Charges.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said, that he desired on this Vote to say a word on behalf of the Second Division clerks in the War Office, in whom, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, he (Mr. Cohen) had long taken a deep interest. He should not detain the Committee more than a very few moments, but he desired to say at the outset that he was not urging these claims in consequence of any pressure put on him by the clerks themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knew from the correspondence in The Times that the subject attracted great attention outside as well as inside this House, and, he would add, in all parts of the House. He deemed it the less necessary to trouble the Committee with any details of the case of the Second Division clerks, because he knew that not only was the right hon. Gentleman very familiar with all the particulars, but he had been good enough to give a personal interview to the clerks, to inquire personally into their grievance, and, if he was not mistaken, to express himself in sympathy with their aspirations, and impressed with the facts they had laid before him. That being so he thought his right hon. Friend would appreciate the Second Division were more than disappointed, and were becoming despairing that so much sympathy and such expectations as they formed, not to say assurances held out to them, remained absolutely barren of result up to this moment. The Committee would perhaps remember that what the Second Division asked was that they should now and again have a share of promotion into the First-Class. These chances were rare enough. Owing to the reduction decided on, only one vacancy arose for every four retirements in the First Division. He believed there were now over 20 young men in the First Division all of whom had been promoted from outside, and his right hon. Friend knew from tables that had been placed before him that in 10 years if the present system was pursued the whole First Division would be manned by young men, junior not only in years but in service to those over whom they were placed. The present system could not be defended on the ground of economy or of efficiency. It could not be economy, because, as had been proved to the Secretary of State, the recognition of the claims of the Second Division would result in a saving of £2,000 a year to the Exchequer; and in this House on the 29th of March last the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that when a Second Division clerk was competent it was just and advantageous that he should be promoted to the First Division, as had been repeatedly advocated in the Reports of Royal Commissions, and notably in the Ridley Commission of 1884. It could not be efficiency, because his right hon. Friend had repeatedly admitted that there were several Second Division clerks fully qualified for the promotion they asked, and on the 6th of February, 1893, in reply to the hon. Member for Donegal, his right hon. Friend stated there were then in the Second Division men qualified for First Division duties. Again, as to promotion to staff posts, on the 11th of March, in reply to himself, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to promise to try and obtain staff posts for the Second Division, but not one single promotion of that nature had yet been made. He well recollected the homily which was preached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's as to the impropriety of pressure being put on candidates and Members by members of the Civil Service. He entirely agreed in that view, and he did not himself take part in that Debate. He was not now, as he had said, rising because of pressure that had been put on him, but simply because of what he believed to be in the interest of the Public Service. On the 29th of March the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said— On behalf of the Treasury and the Government generally, he might say whenever the head of a Department reported that one of those under him in the Second Division had shown qualifications which fitted him for the First Division the man was always promoted. This declaration contrasted ludicrously with the actual facts of the War Office case. It was not denied that there were among the War Office clerks men of exceptional ability; in all good faith, therefore, the Government ought to give them that share of promotion which the Leader of the House said was theirs by right. The Second Division clerks were fully persuaded of the Secretary of State's sympathetic attitude towards them, but he could not expect them to rest satisfied with mere sympathy. He did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant that which he knew was based on merit, and that which was due to justice, and he trusted that he would give some definite assurance that that for which they had so long asked—which, if the right hon. Gentleman would only give the word, would before now have been granted—would no longer be delayed.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,, &c.) Stirling

With regard to this question of my hon. Friend, I have really very little now to say. As far as his observations apply to the general treatment of the Second Division clerks in the public offices, I very much agree with him and with my colleagues who have spoken on the subject, that they ought to have their fair share of promotion to the higher appointments if they are fit to fill them. The War Office is in a very exceptional position, and it has been so ever since I have known it, which I am sorry to say is now nearly 30 years. At present we are in process of reducing the Higher Division Establishment. It has been reduced from 132 to 96, and the normal Establishment is fixed at 60. Of course, any accidental vacancies that occur have to be filled up, and I must say that, while we are ready to acknowledge the claims of gentlemen serving in the office to be promoted if they are fit for it, it is not a very exceptional thing that we should take in young blood—I do not mean to say new and untrained officers, but mean young in years, so that the staff should not be entirely composed of men well advanced in life, and that when their time comes for retirement, which will not be very long deferred, we should be confined entirely to new appointments. I think that that is the view taken by the Treasury, under whose authority we act in this matter, because it was on the faith of those arrangements that they allowed some time ago compulsory retirements with the view of hastening further the reduction of the Establishment. I have done all I could, and will continue to do all I can, to satisfy the claims of the Second Division clerks. We have obtained from the Treasury leave to promote a certain number to a higher grade, and we are considering how best we can make some staff posts which they would be eligible to fill. But here again we have this unfortunate position—that there are a number of supplementary clerks in front of them whose position is very similar to their own, with this difference, that they are of much longer standing, and therefore in point of seniority have a better claim than the Second Division clerks. Let me say this, however: that the Second Division clerks in the War Office have nothing to complain of up to this time. Their position is quite as good as they could expect it to be, and the only question arises as to the future. A short time ago they put forward a scheme of their own for the re-organisation of the office. I could not adopt that scheme, or even submit it to the Treasury, because it contained certain elements which I knew the Treasury would have at once rejected. I sympathise, however, with them in their position, and within the limit of my powers I will do all I can to meet their views.

MR. COHEN

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, he gathered that the Treasury and the War Office were in accord in their views respecting these Second Division clerks, and that there was no difference of opinion as to the future. He was very pleased to hear this.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

asked whether the Secretary for War had considered the possibility of getting more work done in the financial department of the War Office by means of officers brought in from the Army Pay Department? He was aware that there were difficulties in the way of carrying out this proposal, but he thought considerable advantages were to be gained if it could be carried out. If such a course were adopted he thought it might lead to the maintenance of greater touch between the War Office and the districts, and it appeared to him that it would be an economical way of carrying on the War Office to employ more officers who were retired.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

It has always been urged on behalf of certain very accomplished and very energetic paymasters that it would be a great advantage for them to be brought into the War Office to carry out finance duties there. I do not, however, think that this is possible. The function of the finance department of the War Office is to control and audit the expenditure of the Army, and the members of the department, ought to be permanent officials independent of the Army and unconnected with military departments. I think that is a very strong point, and it has been dealt with both by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments presided over by the right hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir M. W. Ridley), and also by the Royal Commission of which the Duke of Devonshire was chairman. By both those Commissions it was very strongly urged that the financial business should be left in the hands of members of the permanent Civil Service. There is a subordinate contention of some importance—namely, that military officers do not so readily receive the criticism of other military officers of an inferior rank as do civilians who have been trained in the department. I think that on these and other grounds it would be impossible for us to accept the idea of putting Army paymasters in the War Office for the purpose suggested. I have looked into the matter very carefully and have come to that conclusion.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, he was sorry to hear the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived, because he thought the present opportunity would have been a good one for taking this matter into consideration. There happened just now to be a number of senior paymasters and also a number of gentlemen approaching the age of retirement at the head of many of the Departments of the War Office, and, therefore, if anything was to be done in the nature of reconsidering the matter between the two branches, this would have been the time for doing it. The subject went a little deeper than would be gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and he (Mr. Brodrick) could not help feeling that the whole question of the audit of Army accounts was in a condition which required re-consideration. The present position was certainly a most anomalous one. At present there was, first of all, an audit by the Paymaster of the accounts of company officers, and then there was an audit by the War Office of the accounts of the Paymasters, and then there was a possibility of an audit by the Auditor General of the War Office accounts. All these audits could take place with reference to small questions affecting the daily pay of the soldier. He himself had always believed that if the War Office was to be an auditing body it did not require to have a supplementary audit from outside in these cases, whilst if the War Office was to be treated as an accounting body, there ought to be a proper audit by a responsible authority. The weakness of the position was this: that the Army Pay Department stood in a different position from that which it occupied six or seven years ago, and, at the same time, it had not been recognised in some of the new functions that had been put upon it. The change made seven or eight years ago was affected after very careful inquiry by a scheme for which the heads of the Financial Department, notably the Accountant General (Mr. Knox) and the Deputy Accountant General (Mr. Delawarr) were responsible. That scheme made a change in the payment system, and placed the Army Pay Department on a sort of homogenous basis. The Chief Paymaster became an Inspector in his own district, and his inspection was reported to the War Office, and became one of the means of guidance in reference to the promotion of officers who had been inspected by him. The necessary corollary of this charge was that ultimately the Department, as far as promotion was concerned, should be taken away from the control of the Finance Branch, and put under the control of the military side. That was the intention of Mr. Stanhope, and that intention had been carried out ultimately by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who had placed the Department under the control of Sir Evelyn Wood. He ventured to say that this was a movement entirely in the right direction. It must, however, be recollected that this large Department had now been detached from the Finance Branch, and that those who inspected the officers were not those who were responsible for their promotion. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had placed in the War Office an officer to represent the Pay Department under the Quartermaster General, but this officer was only a staff paymaster who, however, was responsible for advising the Paymaster General. This seemed to him to be a very doubtful system, inasmuch as it meant that the Quartermaster General had to direct a large Department through a junior officer. He believed a demand had been made in three memorials, two of which were submitted during Mr. Stanhope's tenure of Office, whilst the last was presented in November, 1892, that the Department should be represented at the War Office by one of its own official heads—that was to say, that the officer who under the Quartermaster General should be responsible for promotions and for all business affecting the personnel of the Department should be himself a senior officer. He thought this was a reasonable proposal, and one which hardly needed the deliberations of a Committee to recommend it to the Secretary of State. He should be sorry to reject any suggestion that they should bring to the assistance of the critical and administrative body such experience as they could get from the executive body, but as to how that was to be done was a question which it remained with those who were responsible for carrying out the business of this country to decide. But he regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he declined to enter further into the matter. He would have pressed upon him the desirability of allowing the Committee to sit, on which the Army Department should itself be represented and on which the departmental element and the finance element should have proper representation, and under any chairman the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to appoint. Or, at all events, that such a scheme as the Pay Department themselves might put forward, for various experiences to be utilised, should be considered by the Committee, and a Report made to the Secretary of State. He did not wish to bring the matter at any great length before the Committee, but representations had been made to him continually on this subject—first, before he went out of Office, and he thought the time had now come—when the intimate link which existed between the Pay Department and the Finance Department had been separated—for taking into consideration the suggestions made. Before sitting down he thought it was not only fair to remind the Secretary of State for War of their own experience in the matter, but to ask him to consider the experience as to the Army accounts in India. There were two high authorities upon this matter at this moment in the country, Lord Roberts and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (General Sir George T. Chesney), who had served on the Indian Council. Lord Roberts, in a recent letter, said the question whether the finances of the Army should be administered by soldiers or civilians was a matter to be decided by the Government, and that Indian experience proved that carefully selected members of the Army were capable of performing the duties which had hitherto been reserved for civilians at home. The hon. Member for Oxford (Sir G. Chesney) said he was entirely in accord with his correspondents on the principle advocated, as it had been largely adopted in India and with great advantage in that country. He (Mr. Brodrick) did not commit himself to that view, as he had no personal experience of the administration of Indian Army finance, but he believed it was universally admitted that the Indian service was conducted with equal efficiency to that of the service at home, and he certainly thought the opinion of those two distinguished officers was worthy of consideration. He would commend it to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not allow, in the course of the autumn, a Committee to assemble at the War Office to consider whether there was anything in the system or anything in the scheme now put forward that would cause him to reconsider the present position of the higher members of the two departments.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, that in connection with the change the right hon. Gentleman had made at the War Office he would ask him whether he had taken into consideration the necessity of making any change in the position of the officers in the districts? It appeared to him that some move in that direction was desirable now that the change was made at the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman's reply on the main question rather dealt with the argument as to placing the whole of the financial department under military control. That was not his intention, and all he asked was that there should be some link between the administration in the district and the administration in the War Office.

MR. THORNTON (Clapham)

asked whether it was a fact that junior clerks in the War Office had only a holiday of 14 days in the year, whereas before 1885 they had 27 days, and that in consequence of the reduction of their salaries from £100 to £70 they were obliged to work overtime and were thus unable to obtain proper relaxation?

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said that, having had a great deal to do with the finances of India with the late General Balfour, he could testify as well as anyone to the remarkable ability with which the great department of Indian finance administration in all its branches was conducted. The fact was, that for this kind of administration India formed the best enlisting field and gave the greatest scope of any portion of the British Empire; it had always been one of the schools—in fact, the best school—existing for military administration. The service of the Government of India was rich and abundant in officers of the highest qualification, men who would retire from that country still in the prime of life and still capable of rendering in London as good service as ever was rendered in Calcutta, Bombay, or Simla, and they would have this immense advantage: that they had equal ability with civilians in financial matters and greatly superior ability in respect of the military duties. He did not say they were personally and intellectually superior to the civilian; but in regard to military matters they had the advantages that no civilian could possibly have, and therefore it would be of immense advantage if these practical capacities were utilised for the service of the War Department. But as a practical man, he felt that in the War Office there was a highly-trained and capable body of men equal to their military brethren in any Army in the world. These men had risen from their early youth in the Service, and might expect as years went on to succeed to the various offices in the higher ranks, and if these were to be filled by officers who had served in India the just expectations of a large body of civilian employés would be disappointed. He could not, therefore, see how the question could be met all at once, and it could only be done by degrees if this excellent change were decided upon.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

said, he wished to say a word upon the question of administration on a very narrow subject. In text books text writers should be more careful in laying down dogma than in ordinary cases, and in regard to the text-book relating to military offences he understood that a new edition was being got out, and it was because it was in preparation that he made these observations. In this book a particular offence was laid down as embezzlement, which was distinctly in the teeth of the decision of the English Courts, and that being so he thought it was most desirable that the new edition should be corrected.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that as they were on the question of the clerks of the War Office, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question upon a matter which was strongly resented by the clerks. The opinion was that the clerks of the upper and lower division should be treated upon the same footing. The clerks were called upon to sign an attendance book, and the recommendation of the Committee was that there should be no distinction in this respect between the upper and lower divisions, except in respect of a few of the clerks who were at the top of the tree, and might in consequence be treated differently. The Commission recommended there should be no distinction drawn between the two classes of clerks; that all should be bound to give their time to the State for a given number of hours, and that the attendance and time of leaving should be recorded by both divisions. The manager of Glynn's Bank was a member of the Royal Commission, and he told the Commission that in nearly all the mercantile firms in the country the clerks were required to sign an attendance book upon entering and leaving the premises. This was a very proper thing to adopt in the Government Service; but if adopted it should be carried out all round, and an end should be put to the invidious distinction drawn between the upper and lower divisions. He should like to get an assurance that this invidious distinction either had or would be put an end to. The lower division had to sign their names and put down the times at which they entered and when they left; but the upper division merely signed their names, so that there was no check whatever with regard to them. Considering what a large Department the War Office was, he asked that they would put an end to a system that was so strongly condemned by the Royal Commission. He did not say that the recommendation should apply to every case, but he did ask that in the bulk the clerks of the upper and lower divisions should be put upon the same footing.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, the large question of the proper manning of the Finance Department of the War Office had been brought forward to-day, and no one could speak upon it with higher authority than his hon Friend opposite, who was so long connected with the War Office and knew all the requirements of that Office. He could not accept the view taken by the hon. Member. It must be remembered that the Pay Department, as it now existed, was not concerned with a large part of the duties, important duties that had to be discharged at the War Office. The hon. Member spoke of the officers of the Department as an executive body, but their duties largely consisted of those of cashiers—to see that the accounts were properly computed and kept. He had already said that, in his opinion, it was necessary to have all the higher duties discharged in this country by a civilian Department. Years ago, before the Pay Department was formed, he thought they ought to proceed in the opposite direction—namely, that the members of the Finance Department in the War Office might very well discharge, in proper rotation, the pay duties at the stations, with the regiments, and throughout the districts generally. But that idea became impossible when about 20 years since the Pay Department was formed of ex-combatant officers. The moment that Department was formed it became impossible to amalgamate the two distinct branches of duties. He was not, therefore, much impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) and others, who were in favour of our adopting what was described as the Indian system. He was supported in this by the opinions expressed in the Reports of the Royal Commissions to which he had previously alluded. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Brodrick) seemed to think that there was too much auditing of accounts, but he must know that during the last ten years there had been a good many changes in this part of the work. After all, it should be remembered that in the Service they must have a somewhat more elaborate system than was necessary in the case even of large commercial firms. It was the view of the Treasury that there should be a departmental audit independment of the local or check audit, and the whole subject to a test audit by the Auditor General, and this was the system now pursued at the War Office. The hon. Member had asked him why it was that an officer not of the highest rank in the Pay Department was brought to the War Office to assist the Paymaster General. He did not know why this particular officer was selected, and all he could say was that the course adopted in this case was similar to that which prevailed under like circumstances in the other departments of the Service. It should be remembered that the real head of the Pay Department now was the Quartermaster General himself. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Thornton) asked him a question with regard to the Junior Division clerks and their holidays. He understood it was uniform throughout the Civil Service, and was not peculiar to the War Office. The holidays began with 14 days and increased, with the service of the officer, to 28, but that was not peculiar to the War Office; it was adopted throughout the whole of the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked him as to the upper and lower division clerks, whether any difference was made in the hours and in the stringency of the requirements of their attendance. His answer was, there was none. The rule was that a diary was kept showing the attendance of all the clerks employed except those in staff positions. There was no distinction in this matter between the clerks of the First and the Second Division. He thought that explanation would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. The whole question of the relation of the Pay Department to the Finance Branch of the War Office was most interesting and important. He had stated his views on the general proposition, but the subject would be constantly kept in view, especially, as his hon. Friend had said, now that the time was approaching when some sort of change might conveniently be made. He need hardly say that he would consider all that his hon. Friend had said on the subject. He had stated frankly the views he entertained at present, but he thought there would be greater difficulty in adopting the proposals which found favour with his hon. Friend than he seemed to think.

MR. BRODRICK

said, there was very little difference between him and his right hon. Friend. It was quite clear that the early prepossessions of the right hon. Gentleman were in favour of the course he (Mr. Brodrick) had suggested.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

(interposing) said, that the control in the War Office must be civilian. He believed that was accepted for many reasons, and what he thought would be an economical and efficient arrangement would be that the junior members of the establishment of the War Office should go about and act as paymasters in order to acquire familiarity with the ordinary pay duty locally, and which they might be called upon to criticise.

MR. BRODRICK

was glad that, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him that there was a great advantage in the Finance Branch and Pay Branch being, to some extent, interchangeable, in order that they might acquire a familiarity with the duties they were afterwards called upon to criticise; and, after the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that point he did not despair of the right hon. Gentleman entering deeper into the consideration of the question. He only rose for the purpose of clearing up one or two small points. One was this: the right hon. Gentleman said that these officers who were engaged in pay duties were not the officers best calculated to acquire knowledge as to the large questions of policy which arose at the War Office. But he (Mr. Brodrick) never proposed that persons who had been engaged in discharging duties connected with pay should be asked to perform the duties of Accountants General. His suggestion was that there were branches of the War Office which dealt with the criticism of pay sheets and payments of money, and he thought that possibly some advantage might be gained if they were to proceed on the lines he had indicated. He was very much encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion with regard to audit. Nothing could be sounder than the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion with regard especially to small questions of disallowances and so forth, whether made by the War Office officials or the Exchequer and Audit Department, that reference should be made for final decision to the Secretary of State for War. Nothing could be more anomalous than the present situation, under which the Secretary of State for War was paid £5,000 a year, was given enormous responsibility in every direction, and yet when a question of the payment of 2d. or 6d. was concerned, as to which there had been a disallowance, he was not considered sufficiently competent to arrive at an impartial settlement of a great and engrossing matter. He thought that if this question of audit could be in any way further simplified, and if the re- duplication of the audit in regard to small sums could be done away with, it would be a great advantage. He considered that the Quartermaster General ought not to be merely the nominal, but the actual, head of the Army Pay Department.

MR. HANBURY

, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, desired to say he did not believe there was a more useful officer in the Kingdom than the Auditor and Comptroller General, and when he made complaints as to sixpence here and sixpence there it only showed the care with which this official exercised his functions. No Department so persistently fought the Auditor and Comptroller General as did the War Office. It was a constant battle every year; the War Office fought the Auditor and Comptroller General at every step, and instead of welcoming him as an assistant to see that the audit was properly managed they seemed to take a delight in giving him as much trouble as possible. The Auditor and Comptroller General was placed there to see that the work of the Department as regarded finances was properly done, and it was not sufficient to have merely an inside audit for the War Office. He hoped nothing would be said in the House that would in any way weaken the authority of the Auditor and Comptroller General. He knew that the two Front Benches were the natural enemies of the Comptroller and Auditor General, than whom there was no more deserving official in the whole country, nor one to whom Parliament owed so much.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

asked the Secretary of State for War to order some inquiry into the whole barrack canteen system.

THE CHAIRMAN

observed that this question did not properly arise on the particular Vote at present before the Committee.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he felt bound to call attention to an instance of pluralism. He had endeavoured without success to get a day for a discussion of the Return he had obtained this year respecting pluralists generally, and had he succeeded in doing so he would not have been driven, against his will, to single out the individual case of the Duke of Cambridge, the Commander-in-Chief. The Return showed that there were 439 persons in receipt of more than one allow- ance or payment out of the public funds, and that the total amount these persons received was about £500,000. This was the first occasion on which he had come in the Estimates upon a definite instance of pluralism, and he regretted that he was driven to call attention to the instance. He knew nothing about the Army, his ideas being generally that it consisted of a number of men in red coats marching behind a band that played more or less in tune. He believed, however, that the Duke of Cambridge was an extremely able and competent Commander-in-Chief. He noticed in the Votes an item of £4,500 for the Commander-in-Chief, but the Estimate for 1894–95 was £6,632. There was a note to the item of £4,500 stating "These receipts include all emoluments except pensions for wounds and rewards for distinguished services." Of course, he did not know whether there might not be in another portion of the Estimates a pension to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge for wounds or a reward for distinguished services. No information was given to show why the item of £4,500 was increased to £6,632 for 1894–95, but the Return respecting pluralists supplied the missing information. The sum of £6,632 was made up of £4,500, the salary of the Commander-in-Chief, and an additional sum of £2,131 odd for the honorary colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards. In addition, the Duke of Cambridge as a Royal Prince had an allowance of £12,000, which he should be the last to grudge to His Royal Highness, whilst as Ranger of Richmond Park he received a salary of £109 10s., so that his total receipts were £18,741 4s. 2d. There was no allusion in the Estimates to the fact that the Duke was in receipt of any other income than that which appeared on the Estimates. In allowing the present system to continue the Government were placing so eminent a person as the Duke of Cambridge in an awkward position. If he was to receive these different amounts they ought to be put in a consolidated sum. If it were thought right to continue the honorary colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards, he should have thought it would have been given to some battered old veteran who had spent his days in India, and he said he thought that the Duke of Cambridge would have been delighted to hand over the office to such a man. And so with regard to the miserable sum of £109 10s. for the Rangership of Richmond Park—it ought to be given to some policeman who had hurt himself or been injured, perhaps in some affray with Fenians. He held that a great nation like this should act in a generous manner to every member of its Royal Family, but he thought that a strict rule should be laid down that when a man had a post in the Public Service he was bound to give the whole of his time to the duties of that post and to receive only the pay attached to that post. He did not say that the amount paid to the Commander-in-Chief was excessive, but he did say that it ought to be aggregated, and that the salary of an eminent personage, an able General, and a gallant soldier like the Duke ought not to be made up of various sums, including such a trifling amount as that for the Rangership of Richmond Park.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, that when he remembered the large part the hon. Member who had just sat down had taken in the discussion of military affairs, and recollected the confession he had made at the beginning of his speech respecting the amount of his knowledge of the Army—he said his idea of the Army was a number of men in red coats marching more or less in order to a band playing more or less in tune—he was overwhelmed with gratitude to the hon. Member for having been able with such small material to accomplish so much in the House. The hon. Member had brought forward a tremendous grievance. It appeared that the Duke of Cambridge was receiving £6,632, whereas the fixed salary of his office as Commander-in-Chief was only £4,500. The fact was, that the Duke was appointed to the honorary colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards and to the Commandership-in-Chief before the salary was fixed at £4,500, and therefore he naturally continued to receive the salary at which he was appointed. The old system of paying honorary colonels had been abolished so far as future appointments were concerned; but the Duke of Cambridge, having been appointed under the old conditions, naturally still drew the emoluments attaching to his appointment. There was nothing irregular, strange, or unaccountable in this.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

, interposing, pointed out that general officers who were appointed to the colonelcies of regiments still received £1,000 a year in lieu of the old allowance for clothing, and the Duke of Cambridge in this respect did not differ from other colonels.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, he understood that in future no pay would attach to honorary colonelcies.

MR. BRODRICK

remarked that there were certain officers who had not accepted the new rate, and who had claims to be appointed to these posts, and these officers would receive salaries if they were appointed.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, that that was the case, but under the new system honorary colonels would have no salaries whatever. The hon. Member for King's Lynn alluded to other sources of emolument of the Duke of Cambridge — namely, as a Royal Prince and as Ranger of Richmond Park. He was not sure whether this was voted by Parliament. If it was usual in the Estimates to state in any one place all the emoluments of voted money enjoyed by the officers in question, he would see that in another year they were shown.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that it was laid down in the first page of these Estimates that the emoluments should be stated. The salary in connection with Richmond Park ought to be stated.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, that the salary of the Duke as Ranger of Richmond Park ought to be stated in the Votes, and he would see that this was done in future. The allowance made to his Royal Highness as a Royal Prince, he understood, the hon. Member did not claim to have inserted.

SIR J. FERGUSSON

said, the hon. Member had been in error in referring to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge as though he were the only person receiving this extra pay.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I did not say so.

SIR J. FERGUSSON

said that, as a matter of fact, the Duke of Cambridge, in receiving a certain pay as honorary colonel of the Grenadier Guards, was only in the same position as scores of other general officers. There was a sum of £23,000 taken for general officers, honorary colonels of regiments of the cavalry, £13,000 for general officers, colonels commandant of Artillery; and sums were also taken for colonels of Engineers, of Infantry, and of colonial corps. The Duke of Cambridge occupied no special position in this respect, and it would be wrong and unjust to point to him as one who was receiving exceptional treatment. As one who had served in the field in the Duke of Cambridge's division, and having a lively recollection of and pride in the fact, he might be allowed to say that he was glad His Royal Highness received the honours which were his due. There was not a soldier in the Army who was not glad to see the Duke at the head of it, and he was sure the country did not grudge any honour to so devoted a soldier, who was alike admired and respected by the Army.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated what he himself had intended to say, that the Duke occupied no exceptional position. His Royal Highness was appointed under the old system. Officers who had purchase rights had the option either to go forward with a prospect of retiring on the new and larger allowance or to continue on the old scale with the chance of being appointed to the command of a regiment. Therefore, for some time to come these honorary colonelcies would continue on the Army List. There were, however, many officers who received no money at all for them, but held these positions in order to perpetuate old and valuable service.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, he was sorry the hon. Member for King's Lynn in his attack on pluralities had selected this Vote for criticism.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I am forced to do it.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, he supposed the hon. Member was forced to do it because this was the first Vote on the list. The hon. Member did not object to the salary of the Duke of Cambridge, which was not a large one for a person in his responsible position as compared even with that of the Secretary for War himself. Moreover, these few prizes to general officers did not call for interference, and would soon come to an end; therefore, economists need feel no alarm in regard to them.

MR. HANBURY

said, he did not understand that the hon. Member for King's Lynn raised objection to the amount of the salary of the Duke of Cambridge. His objection was with regard to confusion in the financial accounts. The hon. Member thought the House should know the amount they were paying to everybody and for what. That, he submitted, was the proper way of framing the Estimates. He was very glad that this question had been raised, for it brought out the fact that the salary of the Commander-in-Chief was to be only £4,500, which was not even the salary of a Puisne Judge, and only half that of the Attorney General. Economist as he was, he did not think that this was adequate for the head of the Army, in view of his great responsibilities. It was monstrous that the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army should be dependent upon an honorary colonelcy or anything of the sort for the augmentation of his income.

Vote agreed to.

2. £1,516,400, Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, &c.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

wished to refer to the compensation received by the wives and widows of men injured from time to time in the explosions which had occurred at Waltham Abbey.

THE CHAIRMAN

This Vote is for officers.

MR. HANBURY

said, he wished on this Vote to call attention to the dismissal of Colonel M'Clintock from Waltham. He took it that Colonel M'Clintock came under the Vote.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

rose to Order. He submitted that on this Vote they could only discuss the conditions of retired pay and half-pay. He did not think it was open to discuss the policy of the Government in putting a certain officer on half-pay.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he was quite certain that the Secretary of State was right. The hon. Member was not in Order.

MR. HANBURY

urged that the Committee was now about to vote half-pay to Colonel M'Clintock, and as a Member of Parliament he had a right to object to do so. Surely, he was to be allowed to go into that, because the Half-Pay Vote had been increased by the fact that Colonel M'Clintock had been dismissed from Waltham Abbey. He would, if neces- sary, move to reduce the Vote by £100. Three weeks or a month ago he had put a question to the Secretary of State, and had asked whether it was a fact—as he (Mr. Hanbury) was informed it was—that Colonel M'Clintock had been dismissed from his appointment as Superintendent of the Waltham Factory because he objected to the new buildings as dangerous that were being erected on the old site; the right hon. Gentleman replied that Colonel M'Clintock had been dismissed, and gave the curious explanation that when the plan had been shown to him in the first instance Colonel M'Clintock had raised no objection. He had since been informed by Colonel M'Clintock that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect, but that two days after the explosion Mr. Anderson, the Director General at Woolwich, and Colonel Sale, R.E., consulted him. The three took counsel together as to the particular shape and traverses, and internal arrangements of the buildings, but not a single word was said as to their being rebuilt on the old site. It was not, therefore, in acccordance with the facts that Colonel M'Clintock had given it as his opinion that the old site was a safe one. As a matter of fact, as soon as he knew that the present buildings were to be erected on the same ground as the factory before occupied, and in dangerous proximity to one another, he at once wrote to Mr. Anderson, and then to the War Office, saying that in his important position as head of the factory, and as such responsible for the safety of his workmen—he the expert on the spot—

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

No, no.

MR. HANBURY

Then who was the expert on the spot? Who was there in any way connected with the factory who had as much knowledge of what was dangerous as Colonel M'Clintock? It would not be maintained that it was Mr. Anderson or Colonel Sale, who was only an engineer, having to do with the buildings. This officer, responsible to the War Office for the factory, wrote to Mr. Anderson, saying that experts had been over the factory, and confirmed his opinion as to the dangerous character of the old site, and asking that another expert should be sent down to report on the matter. Mr. Anderson in his reply did not say that it was unne- cessary to have an expert, but objected to the expert that had been named in his letter on the ground that he was a foreigner. Colonel M'Clintock repeated his suggestion, and asked Mr. Anderson to send down whatever expert he liked, But this Mr. Anderson refused to do. Shortly afterwards Colonel M'Clintock received a letter from the War Office saying that if he could not work under Mr. Anderson he had better resign his appointment. He submitted that Colonel M'Clintock's opinion was of great weight in such a matter. He was not like an Artillery officer sent down to a factory for five years to pick up what knowledge he could, and then sent back to his regiment. He had had 20 years' experience in that particular branch of the Service, and the Government by refusing to give his views proper consideration were running a great risk. It was true that cordite was a new explosive, but Colonel M'Clintock had had as much experience of its manufacture as anyone else. There should have been very strong reasons for disregarding his opinion. No doubt the War Office might have really good reasons for thinking it advisable to remove Colonel M'Clintock from his post as head of the factory, but that in no way altered the fact that the reason they had first given was not the actual reason for his dismissal. No doubt the real reason was that they were dissatisfied with his work. If they considered that he was an incompetent man for the post no one could have complained. He said that frankly; but Colonel M'Clintock ought to have been informed of such conclusion directly the Report of the Committee which had sat to inquire into the explosions at Waltham was out. Colonel M'Clintock ought to have been dismissed if it was thought that blame attached to him. The Government ought not to have waited until, in the interest of the safety of the workmen, Colonel M'Clintock protested against buildings being erected on the old site. So far as he could gather, after the consultation between Mr. Anderson, Colonel Sale, and Colonel M'Clintock, no other person was consulted as to the buildings to be erected. The War Office said that Colonel M'Clintock had made himself responsible for the new buildings on the old site, but it turned out that such was not the case. He (Mr. Hanbury) could prove that, in the first place, Colonel M'Clintock had not approved of the buildings, and that in reality he was dismissed before he was considered incompetent. He submitted that the War Office should have taken direct steps to remove an incompetent person, and not have waited until some chance accident gave them the opportunity to get rid of him on apparently other grounds. He thought, therefore, that the House of Commons, considering the somewhat inconsistent reasons that had been given, had a right to ask what the real reason was that led to Colonel M'Clintock's dismissal.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, that although he believed the dis-discussion on the subject raised by his hon. Friend was irregular, he was willing to take his part in it. The hon. Member brought up this case at the instance of Colonel M'Clintock.

MR. HANBURY

Not at his instance.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Well, on information supplied by him. Having that information, the hon. Member immediately assumed a lofty attitude. He assumed the absolute truth of everything that had been told him, and that the evidence supplied to the War Office had completely broken down. As the matter had again been brought forward, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was obliged to speak even more plainly than he did last time. The facts of the case were perfectly clear, and he failed to see how the explanations he had given on former occasions were conflicting. When Colonel M'Clintock was given the appointment at Waltham Abbey there was a difference of opinion as to whether or no he was a fit person to be placed in that responsible position. It was true that he had held a similar position in one or two factories before he went to Waltham, one of which was a rifle arms factory; but they did not require at those places the same kind of knowledge as was imperative for a man to possess who was the head of such a factory as Waltham Abbey, where the work throughout was of the most delicate nature and required the utmost technical skill. The explosion at the gunpowder factory occurred, and it was fully inquired into by a competent Committee. On the evidence taken by that Committee the hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) himself, standing in his usual familiar attitude, propounded to him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) a series of most puzzling questions how this and that carelessness and laxity could have been allowed in the very house where the explosion occurred. If there was carelessness and laxity, who was responsible for it but Colonel M'Clintock, who was now the protegé of the hon. Member?

MR. HANBURY

said he would correct the right hon. Gentleman. He had said that if Colonel M'Clintock had been dismissed originally for carelessness, he (Mr. Hanbury) should have been the last to object. What he contended now, however, was that it was unjust to allege as the cause of his dismissal that which he denied. The charge brought against him was not one of carelessness, but that he had not given his sanction to the new buildings being erected on the old site.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, it was of the first explosion and of the circumstances disclosed at the inquiry that he had been speaking. After the second—the nitro-glycerine—explosion it was absolutely necessary for the War Office to take action in the matter by rebuilding. The matter had then become of the extremest urgency in order that the War Office might be able to provide the necessary supplies of ammunition for the Army. They, therefore, set about taking immediate steps, took the best advice they could obtain, and appointed a Committee of Investigation. The Committee investigated the matter, and the War Office had the advantage of the advice of Sir F. Abel, Colonel Majendie, Dr. Anderson, and Colonel Sale. Sir F. Abel, at all events, had an interest in the success of cordite, which would make him exceedingly careful in the advice he gave. They saw Colonel M'Clintock and discussed with him the plan and character of the buildings to be erected on the site of those destroyed. No question was raised as to locality or as to the policy of building on the same site. Colonel M'Clintock and everybody else knew where the remains of the old buildings were and that they were to be re-erected on that site. That was an understood thing by everybody, and the expediency of doing so under the circumstances was confirmed by all the competent authorities. The hon. Member had said that a better and more authoritative Report had been sent in. Colonel M'Clintock had no special knowledge of nitro - glycerine; he had only had experience for a year and a-half at the gunpowder factory, and had been for a much shorter time at the cordite factory; he did not profess to be an expert adviser, and was not recognised as such; whereas, on the other hand, there were few men who knew more about the subject than Dr. Anderson, Sir F. Abel, and Colonel Majendie, upon whose experience the War Office were quite content to rely. To their astonishment Colonel M'Clintock some days after the consultation wrote to say he would not be responsible for the re-erection of the buildings on the same site. That change indicated a certain amount of vacillation or weakness of opinion. If he had been the best possible superintendent or manager for the factory, and if he had had a technical knowledge of nitro-glycerine, he might have been sent for and questioned as to why he differed from the high authorities named; but as he had not these qualities, and as the matter was urgent, it was impossible to proceed with the erection of the buildings with him as superintendent on the spot after he had declared his disagreement with the plan, and that he dissented from the work proposed to be done. He was, for those reasons, on his own responsibility, obliged to dismiss Colonel M'Clintock; and he was quite ready to take the whole blame for having done so, if any blame attached. Colonel M'Clintock was an excellent man and had endeavoured to do his duty; but he was not a disciplinarian, and in other respects he did not appear to be the man required at the Waltham Factory. Finding that he exhibited this vacillation of opinion on a most urgent matter, and his dissent from the plan of re-erection making it undesirable he should continue superintending the re-erection of the buildings, it was thought better to tell him that his services were no longer required. No hostility was felt towards Colonel M'Clintock; but as Secretary for War he had an immense responsibility in the matter, and the moment he came to that conclusion he thought it his duty to act upon it. The hon. Member asked why this officer was not dismissed before, but the War Office would not have been warranted in taking any steps until they had received the Reports upon the explosions.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, the inconvenience of discussing this subject a second and third time without the Report became more and more apparent. Though the Report had been sent in some time ago no opportunity had been afforded the House of seeing it. The Report was of the greatest importance to hon. Members who desired to bring the matter forward. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, being under enormous responsibility in this matter, he had not chosen to go against the advice of men on whom he could rely and who were more conversant with the dangers of nitro-glycerine manufacture than was Colonel M'Clintock, who had apparently been dismissed on account of an absolute difference of opinion between him and the responsible advisers of the War Office as to the re-erection of these buildings on the same site.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it was not so much the difference of opinion as the impossibility of retaining his services under the circumstances.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

urged that, as Colonel M'Clintock had been at the Waltham Factory 18 months since the nitro-glycerine manufacture had been going on there, he had surely some means of forming an opinion as to the buildings that were required to be erected; it was disquieting to know that there were grave differences of opinion about them. Colonel M'Clintock must have had grave reason for believing in the danger, when he knew that any objection on his part would ensure his absolute dismissal by the War Office. Was the House now to understand that these buildings were to be erected on exactly the same spot and of exactly the same dimensions? At the time he brought forward the question of the Report, he suggested the propriety of the ground round these buildings being extended.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, although they were being erected on the old site they were not in the same form as the old buildings; and there were to be other changes. The contents were not to reach anything like the volume they did formerly; and the cordite was to be gradually removed to the lower island. Fully competent authorities said there would now be no danger.

MR. HANBURY

inquired whether the correspondence relating to the case was to be laid on the Table?

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, that he would ascertain whether the letters could be laid on the Table of the House. He thought, however, that the hon. Member had seen them.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's statement was a revelation to him that Colonel M'Clintock was an officer as to whose fitness for the post doubts were expressed at the time when the appointment was made. His recollection of the matter was that Colonel M'Clintock was brought to the notice of the late Mr. E. Stanhope, when Secretary of State, as an officer who had done excellent service at Sparkbrook, particularly in the matter of discipline. It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State, not having determined to dismiss Colonel M'Clintock after the explosion, found it necessary to make up his mind in a hurry and to dismiss him merely because he was at variance with other authorities on the question of the site for the re-erected buildings.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

pointed out that Colonel M'Clintock's own opinion on that question at the time of his dismissal was practically contrary to the opinion which he had expressed a few days previously.

MR. BRODRICK

considered that it would have been more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman's action had been founded on the ground of Colonel M'Clintock's fitness or unfitness for the position which he held at the factory, and if it had not been influenced by the differences of opinion upon the question of the site for the new buildings. He desired to guard Mr. Stanhope's memory against the imputation that he selected Colonel M'Clintock for the post on any other ground than that of fitness for the appointment.

MR. HANBURY

urged that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War ought either to withdraw his charges against Colonel M'Clintock or to substantiate them. It was a very serious thing for a Secretary of State to make vague charges of this kind against an officer who could point to 15 years' good service in various military departments. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had acted on certain authority, but it was not just to Colonel M'Clintock that vague charges should be made against him in that way without further information being afforded.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

protested against the remark that vague charges had been made. He had not brought any charge against Colonel M'Clintock. On the contrary, he had endeavoured to treat him with the greatest respect. All he had said was that, in the opinion of people who knew him, Colonel M'Clintock did not possess the disciplinary qualities which were required in the head of the Department at Waltham. The hon. Member for Preston had now, by his action, helped to publish the fact that Colonel M'Clintock was not thought to possess those qualities. That officer had done excellent service in the positions which he had previously filled, and for appointments elsewhere than at Waltham he would be, no doubt, admirably qualified.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the House had this fact, at all events, to go upon: that Colonel M'Clintock was the one man who had had practical experience in the manufacture of cordite under Government. After the explosion occurred, he, with his practical experience, gave certain advice to the Government with regard to the re-erection of the buildings. That advice was thrown over, and should another explosion unfortunately occur it would be said to have resulted from the disregard of that advice. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had assumed a very serious and really awful responsibility by dismissing Colonel M'Clintock, who, as he had said, was the only man under the Government who had had any practical experience in connnection with the manufacture of cordite.

Vote agreed to.

3. £1,355,200, Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)

asked for information respecting Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman must be only too well aware that the question with regard to Chelsea Hospital was full of complications. There were at least 100,000 men who believed they had a vested interest in these two hospitals, and who contended that they did not belong to the Crown, having, as they said, been founded with moneys contributed by the soldiers themselves in past generations. Their contention was that the two hospitals did not belong to the Crown or to the Nation, because they were not founded by public or national funds, but that they belonged to the soldiers themselves, having been founded by money deducted from their pay in past generations. The movement now started and ripening was that, except for very infirm men, the institutions should be done away with, and that the other pensioners should receive increased pensions. Of course, the question as to what was to be done with the hospitals and their sites should not be lost sight of in the consideration of the matter by the Secretary for War or by Parliament; and on that subject the representatives of the pensioners laid down no definite scheme. But they asserted that the property was theirs and not the nation's, and that a different adjustment and administration of the fund would give far larger pensions than were paid at present to a greater number of men who were approaching old age, and who were the real owners of the fund. He asked the Secretary of State to explain the attitude of the War Office in regard to this question, and to say whether any action was contemplated by the Department.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he had referred the subject to a Committee to investigate the value and origin of the funds, including the Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; to report whether the funds could be better employed than at present; and to state whether any alteration was desirable in the disposition of the funds. That Committee had sat several times and had taken evidence; and would take the evidence—if they had not already done so — of the leaders of the movement amongst the pensioners to which the noble Lord had referred. He hoped to have the Report of the Committee in a very short time, and trusted it would afford sufficient information to enable the Department and the House of Commons to deal with the subject.

COLONEL MURRAY (Bath)

rose to call attention to the pensions paid to Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans. Last year the Secretary of State for War said he hoped to make arrangements for a large increase in the fund available for those pensions, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what had been done in that direction. The conditions necessary to obtain the pensions were that a man must have served for 10 years in the Army and that be must be destitute. Those conditions hit the men very hardly. Some of them earned 6s. or 7s. a week, and therefore, as they were not absolute paupers and could not produce a certificate of destitution, they received no allowance from this fund. Some old soldiers with very small pensions of 6d a day had been compelled to leave the Service in consequence of wounds, or effects of climate, or other causes connected with that Service, and these causes also precluded them from being able to obtain employment after leaving the Army, or if they got employment it was of a character that brought them in only a few shillings a week. The modern soldier had a much better education than these old soldiers, and, moreover, the soldier of the present day was far more thought of in the way of having employment procured for him when he left the Army than the old soldier of past generations. He asked the Secretary of State for War whether he could not see his way to remove or modify the present restrictions which were placed upon applicants for pensions, and particularly that the condition of destitution should be done away with altogether.

MR. BRODRICK

asked for figures as to the exact number of pensions for services before 1860; the number of men waiting for pensions; and the number of men finally refused pensions.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

thought that the system on which these pensions were granted was absolutely wrong. The requirement of practical destitution encouraged the very worst qualities in these old soldiers. Surely, the War Department did not want these old soldiers to become destitute, and yet it told them that unless they were qualified by destitution they would have little chance of getting any assistance from this fund. It was something like the present Poor Law system. Every encouragement was given by that system to a man to prove that he was destitute in order to get the benefit of out-door relief. He thought the fact that those old men had got light employment and were earning a few shillings per week, should be no bar to their getting those pensions in return for the services they had rendered the country. With regard to the condition of 10 years' service, he knew the Minister for War was strictly within his right in insisting on that period of service as a qualification for the pension; but was it not a most serious thing for the Army that men who had served their country in the great battles of the Crimea and the Indian Mutiny should be pointed at all over the country as, in many cases, practically dependent on the Poor Law? He had spoken to one of those old soldiers, who told him that none of his sons would enter the Army because of the way he had been treated in the matter of a pension. That was not the spirit by which the Army was benefited; and such a state of things had undoubtedly a very bad effect on recruiting. The Department ought to take a more generous view of the matter, and there should be some fund to provide that every old soldier who had served his country well in the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, and who was now in a state of want, should have some small allowance. He would also like to call attention to the present system of paying pensions. He asked a question on this subject some time ago, at the request of some of the pensioners, and he was afraid he received a very severe smile from the right hon. Gentleman in consequence. What he suggested was that it would be better to pay those pensions at shorter intervals than three months in advance. The right hon. Gentleman then charged him with trying to injure the pensions by asking for such an alteration in the present system, but had since received communications from a great number of persons who concurred with him in thinking that the pensions should be paid at shorter intervals. He had a personal interest in this matter because he was in the habit of seeing a large number of the pensioners who received their pensions near an institution with which he was connected—namely, the Penny Bank. Frequently, a half dozen or so of the pensioners would go into the bank in the morning and lodge half of their pensions; and return in the evening in a drunken state, with a view to taking the other half out again, and were very much indignant if they did not get it. The truth was, that those old men when they got hold of their pensions every three months they stood treat all round, and before the day was over a good deal or most of the money was spent. He thought that a most pernicious system, and one that ought to be altered. In every village and town there were clergymen and other kind-hearted people who would be glad to receive the pensions and dribble them out to the old soldiers in monthly or weekly allowances. It must be remembered that these men were not accustomed to handle considerable sums of money, and under the system of receiving their pensions four times a year they got rid of money in a way not to their advantage, and it would be infinitely kinder and better if they received smaller sums in monthly or weekly allowances.

MR. HANBURY

wished to back up what his hon. Friend the Member for Islington had said in regard to the payment of pensions at shorter intervals on another ground. Under the present system of paying pensions every three months, the pensioners in many cases pledged their identity or life certificates with pawnbrokers at usurious rates of interest, so that when quarter-day came round the pensioners found that very little money came into their pockets. He thought that if the old soldiers were paid their pensions more frequently that evil would be met to some extent. He knew that a great deal had already been done to put a stop to the practice of pledging the certificates. A law had been passed which made the unauthorised possession of the certificates illegal. The certificates were even marked with the broad arrow to show that they were Government property, and that no unauthorised person should have possession of them. But nevertheless, the practice of pledging the certificates continued, for the pawnbrokers for the sake of the very high rate of interest were willing to run the risk of prosecution. He was informed that this system prevailed to an enormous extent in Manchester, and that very little was done by the War Office authorities to put a stop to it. He was also assured that nothing would put an end to this pernicious practice but the frequent prosecution of offending pawnbrokers and the imposition of large fines. With regard to the Crimean and Indian Mutiny soldiers, he thought the condition of ten years' service before a pension was given, a good condition; but the additional requirement that a man should also be destitute before his claim to a pension was considered was very hard indeed. Such a condition did not tend to encourage thrift amongst those men. He had received many touching letters from the men complaining of this condition. One of them wrote, "We have all hearts above being paupers, and I trust I will say good-bye to this world before I am reduced to such a state." Again, he understood that as there were only a limited number of those pensions they were distributed on the principle of "first come, first served." The soldiers who first heard of those pensions when they were established in 1891 were the first to get on the list; but there were a great number of men, in every way qualified for the pensions, who had not got them because they did not hear of the matter until it was too late. He understood that there were 1,000 men who had served ten years, and who would be qualified for pensions only for the condition as to destitution. It was really a scandal that men who had served their country in those famous wars could get no reward for their services unless they proved themselves paupers. Why could not the Secretary of State make a clean sweep and give all these deserving men a pension?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he should be only too glad if he had funds to provide for all the necessitous cases among old campaign soldiers, and it was possible, now that hon. Members opposite had allowed the Death Duties Budget to escape from them, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have funds at his disposal next year and would be prepared to give them all they asked for.

MR. BRODRICK

I asked a question on that very point. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether we would have anything for the Army out of the Death Duties, and the right hon. Gentleman merely shook his head.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that was a question between his hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the actual position of those pensions was this—each year there were 100 new pensions given, and according as vacancies were created in the list by death they were filled up by other appointments; and besides that there was a sum of money now amounting to £10,000 voted to create additional pensions. The result was, that a couple of months ago there were 1,138 pensions in force. He did not know exactly how many there were on the list who had applied for pensions, and had not got them, but he thought they numbered 500 or 600. Of course, it would be a pleasant thing to admit every one of those old soldiers to the pensions, whether they were destitute or not; but the Committee should remember the origin of these compassionate pensions. It was not that the old soldiers had any right to pension; it was that the existence of destitute men in the country who had served in great campaigns was felt to be more or less of a scandal, and also was a serious hindrance to recruiting. There was something to be said for the view that it was almost a premium on destitution to offer a pension on the terms stated, and that an old soldier who worked hard to support himself and his family got nothing from his country, while the destitute ones got a pension. But they could not, however, for the present, at all events, forget the object with which the pensions were instituted. It was, as he had stated, to meet the case of those men who were in destitution, who were doing no good to the Army, and who were an eyesore to all right-thinking citizens. There was some need, he thought, of clearing their minds somewhat on this subject of pensions. The men enlisted under terms which enabled them to serve on for pension, but for various reasons they preferred to leave the Army and seek employment in civil life. Was the country, simply because a man had served a few years in the Army, let them say even for 10 years, and because he had in early life gone through a campaign, perhaps with no very great hardship, to give that man a pension before he reached old age? An old-age pension was a different matter. Many years ago, when there was no provision of the sort for old soldiers, a warrant was issued which permitted pensions to be granted to them, but all the men by that time had reached the age of 70. But a man who served in the Indian Mutiny might now be in the prime of life, and such a man could hardly be held to be in the position that the Government should regard him as a subject for charity. The hon. Member for Preston had implied that the principle acted upon in the granting of these pensions was that of first come first served, but the fact was that the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital had a list of all the men who applied. Every case was carefully noted and inquired into, and the Commissioners endeavoured to select those men who had the strongest claims. He only wished he had the money, without stinting other demands, to give pensions to all the men on the list, but that of course was beyond his power. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Islington, of paying pensions at shorter intervals, he would point out that, the pensions being now paid in advance, such a change would result in a distinct loss to the men. The hon. Member had drawn the usual picture of the pensioner squandering his money at the public-house; but he wished the Committee distinctly to understand that the vast majority of the pensioners were not men of that sort, but sober and well-conducted men, and, as far as he had been able to gather from the information at the disposal of the War Office, all these men preferred the present system of payment. Moreover, the change suggested would cost a considerable sum of money extra, and on the whole he thought it was better to go on with the present system until, at least, better evidence was furnished of a desire on the part of the pensioners that a change should be made. The hon. Member for Preston had referred to the fact of pawnbrokers getting hold of pensioners' certificates. The law passed on that subject had been rigidly enforced, and there had been a number of successful prosecutions. He could assure the hon. Member that no effort would be spared by the War Office to prevent the abuse.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

asked whether arrangements could not be made by which pensioners might be able to draw their pensions at the small post offices in the country, instead of being compelled to go to the central offices in the towns, which might be at some distance, and entail upon them great inconvenience?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the understanding was that the pensioner could obtain his pension at any Money Order office.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, he might point out many of the country offices were not Money Order offices, and asked whether they could not be made so for this special purpose?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, this was a matter for the Post Office Authorities to consider, but he thought it unlikely that such a special arrangement could be made.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would gladly give pensions to all the old veterans on the list if he had the money to do so. Well, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman where he could easily get the money. He could obtain it from the interest On the Imperial Defence Loan—£75,000, which had been voted. It had been stated that if the Finance Bill passed, this money would not be wanted. The Bill had passed; the right hon. Gentleman would not want the money; he could not use it for the purpose for which it was granted, and all he had to do was to make an arrangement with the Treasury and obtain a Vote from that House, which would be readily given.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, he could not use this money for any Army purpose whatever.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he could assure his hon. Friends that with these pensions it was not a question of first come first served. All the Crimean veterans were not on the same basis. Men had the medal who had never seen a shot fired. Many of the troops ill the Crimea at the end of the war only arrived after hostilities had ceased. The difficulty in the way of paying the pensions monthly instead of quarterly was that some pensioners merely emerged from the workhouse to draw their pensions, which they immediately spent in the public-houses, and then returned to the workhouse. If the pensions were paid monthly, these incidents would occur 12 times a year instead of four times a year.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

But the amount of liquor drunk would be smaller.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he thought that some arrangement should be made whereby any pensioner, whether of the Army or the Navy, might obtain his pension at the nearest post office. At present the office must be a Money Order office, and sometimes the men had to walk many miles to draw their pensions. The results were often mischievous.

MR. HANBURY

said, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Islington was a practical one. The House was unanimous that if the funds could be found in the current Revenue of the year it would be only right to give the few additional thousands necessary to put all these men on the pension list. There were only some 500 or 600 of them. To a large extent the pensions had been granted on the principle of first come first served. It was well within the power of the Treasury, when money had been voted by Parliament for one purpose of the Army, to transfer a saving on that item to a deficiency in another item in the same Votes, provided that urgent public necessity could be shown.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the Treasury had that power in ordinary circumstances, but the Government had been obliged to give a pledge of the most solemn kind that this money which had been referred to should not be spent for any purpose.

MR. ROUND

supported the suggestion that pensions should be distributed at the local post offices, as far as possible.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, it seemed to him that there were cases of hardship that were not properly dealt with by the system of giving 6d. a day for a year in case of injury.

Vote agreed to.

4. £164,700, for Superannuation, and other Allowances and Gratuities.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said, he wished to draw attention to the question of pensions awarded to the widows of those who were killed in the recent explosion at Waltham Abbey. The Secretary for War had said that all criticisms in Committee were directed to obtaining further expenditure of money. That was certainly the object which he (Colonel Lockwood) had in view, but the matter he had to deal with was one of such hardship and involved so much suffering that he thought the Committee would sanction the small increase that was necessary to provide fair allowances for the relatives of those who were killed in the explosion. The gratuities and pensions awarded to the widows and in some cases to the mothers of those killed in explosions were regulated by the Treasury Warrant. He did not know in what way this Treasury Warrant was governed, whether the Treasury had power to increase the amounts that could be awarded under it. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had asked a question on the subject, but he (Colonel Lockwood) had not understood the answer given. He thought many of the public were inclined to believe that in all cases the widow or mother of a man who was killed in one of those explosions received compensation, but such was not the case. A mother only received compensation in the event of being left without anybody to assist her. He did not understand why the representatives of those who were killed in the earlier explosions were dealt with so much more liberally than were those killed in recent explosions. In 1856 when four men were killed in a rocket explosion the widows received full pay while they remained widows, and in 1866 when another explosion occurred the widows received full pay for life, and the mother of the foreman received pay for 20 years. In 1875, however, when some men were killed by an explosion in a cap factory, two of the widows received 6s. a week, whilst two others received only 5s. a week. In 1886 there was an explosion in Shoeburyness, in which three officers and one man were killed. The widows of the three officers received quarters at Hampton Court, but he understood that the widow of the man, although she was left with six children, received an allowance of only £10 a year, or about 3s. 10d. a week. He thought this was a miserable pension to give under the circumstances. In 1892 there was another explosion, as the result of which the widows received 5s. 6d. a week, and last year there was the explosion in the cap-house at Waltham Abbey. On the 17th January he asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) whether it would be possible to make further allowances to the survivors of the men killed, and the reply he received was that it would be impossible to make any allowances to them. One man who was killed (Baily) was the support of his widowed mother, and she received nothing, although she was a confirmed cripple, because she had another relative who contributed to her support, and for the same reason nothing was given to the representatives of three other men who were killed. Mrs. Maynard, whose husband was killed, and who was left with five children, received 5s. a week. She applied for parish relief, and the guardians took the matter up, with the result that work was eventually found for her in the factory by the Government officials. Mrs. Massey got a pension of 3s. 10s. a week, and a gratuity of £14 for one child. The unfortunate widow of a man named Rudkin got no pension at all because her husband had served for less than five years in the factory. He knew very well that there was something to be said on the other side. He was one of those men who could see both sides of a case, and he felt that his capacity to do so militated against his success in political life. No doubt the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would be that the pensions given were not meant to be the sole subsistence of the people to whom they were awarded. It was a fortunate thing for these poor people that the pensions were not their sole means of subsistence; but even granting that the pensions were only subsistence allowances, he thought they were too small to give to the widows and survivors of the unfortunate men who were killed; and further that it was unfair to take into consideration the fact that some other relative was left alive who could contribute a small amount to the support of the mother of the men killed. Mrs. Ingram received no pension at all, but obtained a gratuity of £135. Inasmuch as her husband was earning £3 3s. a week this was not a very large sum to give her. Another widow received a pension of 7s., whilst Mrs. Cross received 5s. a week and a gratuity of £16 for her two children. He did not think the Committee would regard these gratuities as adequate for the support of the people to whom they were awarded. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would, if he had the means, close the Debate at once by granting his petition, but no doubt he felt that the sum at his command was not sufficient to enable him to increase the pensions. As a result of the small amounts given, the people in receipt of these pensions had in some cases been almost starved to death. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the most important thing was to increase the allowances, but if this could not be done he thought that the regulations should be so altered that pensions could be awarded regardless of the time of service, and further that the amounts granted should be increased in proportion to the length of service. He was also of opinion that the question of pensions to those who were employed in dangerous buildings should be placed on a different footing from that respecting men who were employed in other parts of the factories.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hanley)

The hon. and gallant Member and his colleague the Member for Enfield recently made an appeal to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) and received a promise that everything that could be done would be done to secure for these unfortunate people the fullest consideration. The Treasury have awarded the maximum amounts in every case under the Act of 1887. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has called attention to the contrast between the amounts awarded by way of compensation in regard to accidents which occurred as far back as 1856 and 1875, and the amounts awarded in the Waltham Abbey case. Well, up to the passing of the Act of 1887, the Treasury felt that they had a certain discretion to award allowances on a scale which they thought justified by the exceptional circumstances, and if was owing to the expostulations of the Controllor and Auditor General against that practice that the subject came before Parliament and the Act of 1887 was passed. That Act leaves to the Treasury only a certain administrative discretion, and that discretion is bounded strictly by the terms laid down in the Act. There are three classes mentioned in the Act: First, established officers of whom there were no representatives in these explosions; secondly and thirdly, different grades of hired servants. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has called attention to what he thinks the inequity of allotting compensation upon a scale determined by the period of service of the dead men. That is a matter which is under consideration, and which will receive very careful attention. We feel that it is a very hard matter indeed that where a person killed has not been employed for five years the widow or children are only entitled to a gratuity which must be limited to the amount of one year's salary and emoluments. These are points which will have attention, and upon which probably representations will be made to the Treasury. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will see that everything has been done by the War Office and the Treasury that can be done under the present law, and any further liberality that is to be shown to the representatives of the men killed can only be done by the legislative authority of Parliament.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

said, that at a recent very large meeting of the working classes in his constituency reference was made to the inadequacy of the compensation given to those whose bread-winners were lost through explosions. In the Employers' Liability Bill the Government proposed to make themselves responsible to compensate their workmen in the same way as other employers were liable to compensate theirs, and if that Bill had been passed the Government would have had to give full compensation according to the ordinary commercial rules. As, unfortunately, that Bill had not been passed, could not the Government act upon the principle involved in that proposition and modify the regulations so as to increase the allowances made somewhat in accordance with what would be the rights of the individuals, supposing they had a legal remedy against the Crown?

CAPTAIN BOWLES (Middlesex, Enfield)

said, he was pleased to hear that the matter was receiving the attention of the Government. He might point out that even if the Employers' Liability Bill had passed it would have been doubtful whether action could have been taken under it under present circumstances, because it only applied to cases of negligence, and in the present instance the War Office authorities denied that there had been any negligence. He hoped that out of common charity the War Office would press the Treasury to modify the present regulations. As a resident in the neighbourhood of Waltham Abbey, he had received a great many letters on the subject. After the statements he had heard during the Debate he thought that the locality ought to subscribe towards a fund for the relief of the survivors of those who had lost their lives, but he trusted that before a similar case arose the War Office would have devised some plan which would prevent the sufferers from having to rely upon local charity. No doubt local charity was always ready to come forward in such cases; but the people in the neighbourhood felt that, inasmuch as in a recent case where some workmen employed by a private firm were killed through an explosion full compensation was given, it was a little hard that representatives of the servants of the public should be placed in a worse position than the survivors of men in private employment.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Friday.