Commons Sitting of 16 March 1894

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.
MR. H. PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into the working of "The Margarine Act, 1887," and "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875," as it affects the manufacture and sale of butter; and whether, in view of the recent prosecution at Manchester, the terms of Reference to such Committee should include the question of excessive water in butter?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The case to which the hon. Member refers has engaged my attention, and I have addressed a communication respecting it to the Local Government Board, within whose province the consideration of questions arising under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts mainly rests. If it be the general desire of British producers that such an inquiry as that suggested by the hon. Member should be instituted, I would certainly bring that desire to the notice of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, who may be regarded as the representatives of the interests of distributors and consumers; but I could not properly appoint a Committee without the concurrence of those two Departments.

QUESTIONS.

  PROSECUTION UNDER THE DAY TRESPASS ACT.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a case tried under the Day Trespass Act at the Inverary Sheriff Court on the 23rd ultimo, in which five lads were charged with killing a rabbit on the property of Sir John Campbell Orde, and in which the charge was found not proven; whether he is aware that it transpired in evidence that Sir John Orde, as Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee of the County of Argyll, had instructed the Chief Constable of the county to obtain information through the police to prove the alleged offence, and that the Sheriff in his decision expressed his regret at the manner in which the police had interfered, and rejected their evidence; whether the action of the police in the case was contrary to the General Regulations affecting the Scottish police; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): From the inquiry which I have made, it appears that the statements in the second paragraph of the question are scarcely accurate. Sir John Orde himself had no communication with the police. His son found the accused on the ground, and, without instructions from or communication with his father, immediately went
  434
  to the police station, and handed the Chief Constable a list of their names, as given to him by them. The Chief Constable then sent a constable to Ardrishaig to verify their names, and he met and ascertained from the accused themselves what their names and designations were. The Sheriff informs me that he felt it to be his duty to reject the police constable's evidence, because he had acted wrongly in interrogating the accused without warning them that what they said might be used in evidence against them. The duty of a constable nude the Day Trespass Act, as defined in the Regulations issued to the Argyllshire Constabulary, is stated to consist—
  "In merely reporting any contravention of the Statute which he sees, or which may come to his knowledge, to the proprietor or lessee of the game on the lands trespassed upon during the day in search or pursuit of game,"
  and this duty appears to have been exceeded in this case. I hope that the Standing Joint Committee will see that the Regulations are strictly observed in future.

  DISCLOSURE OF ADMIRALTY PLANS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the fact that copies of detail drawings of the machinery in Her Majesty's torpedo-boat destroyer Havock have been offered for sale; whether the person or persons so offering them have been discovered; and whether the existing law provides adequate punishment for the disclosure of such information regarding vessels of war, when constructed wholly or in part in private yards?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAYSHUTTLEWORTH): Messrs. Yarrow, the builders of the Havock, have made a, representation to the Admiralty to the effect stated, but no proof has been furnished of the fact, nor are we aware that any offender has been discovered. The existing law is considered sufficient to meet any case of unlawful disclosure of confidential documents.
  MR. HANBURY: Do the Admiralty believe that these plans have not been stolen at all?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No proof has been furnished of the fact, and the Admiralty have no information as to

  435
  whether the drawings were stolen, lost, or what became of them.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Are the plans missing?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Messrs. Yarrow have informed the Admiralty that certain facts have become public which ought to have been regarded as confidential. Whether that is due to certain documents having been purloined we do not know.
  MR. TOMLINSON: My question was, whether there are any plans missing.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Not so far as the Admiralty know.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: Have the Admiralty any reason to believe that copies of these documents have been purloined?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: What we have reason to believe is this: that Messrs. Yarrow state that some copies of the plans have fallen into the hands of other people who ought not to have them.

  CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY PENSIONERS.
  SIR J. LENG: I leg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of pensioners in receipt of pensions for service in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny Campaigns died during the year 1893; and whether the vacant pensions have been awarded to applicants in necessitous circumstances?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hauley)(who replied), said: Out of the special campaign pensioners on the fixed establishment of £10,000 a year, 31 died during the year 1893. The pensions which thus became available have all been awarded to candidates in necessitous circumstances.

  ALLEGED CORRUPT PRACTICES BY A WIGAN MAGISTRATE.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that Mr. Richard Johnson, who was placed upon the Commission of the Peace for the County by him last year, and is also a Justice of the Peace for the Borough of Wigan, has been reported as guilty of corrupt practices at a municipal election in that town; and whether it is
  436
  intended to take any steps in consequence of the finding of the Commissioner?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): I have seen in a newspaper a statement that the Commissioner who tried an Election Petition at Wigan announced that he proposed to report Mr. Johnson, who is a County Councillor and a Justice of the Peace; but I am as yet entirely without official information on the subject, and do not even know whether a Report has been made. Until I receive such information it is, of course, impossible for me to consider whether any, and what, steps should be taken.
  MR. LEGH: Was not Mr. Johnson, as Chairman of the Radical Party in Wigan, frequently consulted by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the appointment of other Magistrates?
  MR. TOMLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not fully answered the question whether Mr. Johnson was not placed on the Commission of the Peace by him?
  MR. BRYCE: I understood that that question was answered by my not contradicting the statement made by the hon. Member. All communications which pass between other persons and myself with regard to the appointment of Justices of the Peace are entirely of a confidential nature. I never have stated in any case whatever, and therefore I cannot state in this case either, whether or not I consulted this gentleman or any other gentleman.

  INTERNATIONAL DISARMAMENT.
  SIR J. CARMICHAEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will consider the possibility of coming to an International understanding, either by a Conference or otherwise, as to the relative strength at which the armaments of the respective nations should be maintained, with a view to checking the vast and ever-growing military and naval expenditure, which is now crippling the commercial resources and impoverishing the population of every civilised country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Her Majesty's Government would be

  437
  quite ready to consider and to support any practical proposals for arriving at such an understanding, but they fear that an initiation on their part would at present have no useful result.

  THE WORKING OF THE EDUCATION ACT IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware of the hardship caused to the industrial classes in Scotland, whose trade renders it necessary to remove frequently from place to place, by their children often losing the credit of several months' attendance, from requiring to leave before the end of a term; and that, in some cases, as much as two years' attendance, which they have given, is not credited to them, under present arrangements; and if he can undertake to introduce some schedule whereby proof of attendance will accompany the child from school to school, so as to release the parents from the loss caused by the present system?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,)(who replied)said: I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Formerly, when a certain number of attendances were necessary in order to qualify a scholar for presentation, and a grant upon examination, the hardship of which he complains might have arisen. Rut under the present system all the attendances made by any scholar in a school during any part of a school year are counted towards the grant to that school, and the scholar is not prejudiced, as he supposes, by a change of school.
  MR. JACKS: If I give cases will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Certainly.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware of the loss caused to the industrial classes in Scotland, whose trade, makes it necessary for them frequently to change from place to place, by each School Board district having different books for the various standards; and if he will adopt such measures as will make it compulsory for a uniform book being used in the various standards in every Board school in Scotland?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I regret that inconvenience should be caused by dif-
  438
  ferent districts; and would be glad if the local School Authorities could do anything to lessen it. But the Department has always refrained from restricting the discretion of School Authorities in the choice of books; and I am unable to make any such compulsory Rule as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. DALZIEL: Have the Board power to enforce payment for books? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make the law clear on that point?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I should prefer that this question, on so extremely delicate and important a point, should be given notice of.
  MR. DALZIEL: I will put it on Tuesday.

  IRISH MAGISTRATES.
  MR. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there are only 63 Magistrates usually resident in the County of Fermanagh, and 22 non-resident; of the total number (85) 73 are Protestants, 3 Methodists, and 9 Roman Catholics; if, also, 51 are composed of landed proprietors, land agents, Naval, Military, and Militia officers; also that a largo number of names of qualified gentlemen have been submitted for the approval of the Lord Chancellor, accompanied with a request for their appointment as Magistrates, from the districts of Lisnaskea, Brookboro, Lettercreen, and other places in Fermanagh; and that on several occasions a Court of Petty Sessions could not be held in Brookboro, Newtown butler, and other districts in Fermanagh, owing to the non-attendance of Magistrates; and are there any steps likely to be taken, and when, to remedy the condition of this Bench?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): It is the fact that there are only 63 Magistrates usually resident in the County of Fermanagh and 22 non-resident. Of the total number (85) 73 are Protestants, three Methodists, and nine Roman Catholics; also 51 are composed of landed proprietors, land agents, Naval, Military, and Militia officers. On one occasion during the year 1893 there was no Court of Petty Sessions held at Brookboro owing to the

  439
  absence of Magistrates; on another occasion there was no Magistrate in attendance at Newtownbutler; and at Irvinestown the business of Petty Sessions fell through on four occasions in the same period and for the same reason. Five Magistrates have been appointed within the last few days, and of these two can sit at Newtownbutler, two at Lottercreen, one at Brookboro, and one at Lisnaskea. The Lord Chancellor has informed me that he hopes very shortly to be able to make some additional appointments.

  INDIAN RAILWAY CONTRACTS.
  SIR A. HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a statement made upon the business card of Monsieur Guido Cloes, the London agent of the Belgian firm Les Usines and Fonderies De Baume and Marpent Company, and widely distributed amongst buyers of railway material in this country, to the effect that they have supplied 10,000 axle boxes to the Indian State Railways; and whether, if incorrect, he will give a positive and authoritative contradiction, in order to prevent that statement continuing to be used as evidence of quality, and in order to induce English buyers to give their orders abroad?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): No contract has ever been given to Les Usines and Fonderies De Baume and Marpent Company for axle boxes for Indian State railways; but it has now been ascertained by inquiry from the agent of that company that 9,356 axle boxes were manufactured by them for M. Valère Mabille, to whom two orders for axle boxes for Indian State railways were given in the year 1884. The first order for 8,100 was given to M. Valère Mabille after an open competition, in which his tender for delivery in London was the lowest. A smaller order was subsequently added after a second competition. I may mention that, after the order in question had been given, Lord Kimberley, who was Secretary of State at the time, laid down a new Rule, the object and effect of which was to secure that no order should be placed abroad except for special or urgent reasons.

  INDIAN TARIFF BILL.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, before the promised Debate on Indian Finance, he will have copies of the Correspondence and telegrams between the Secretary of State and Government of India on the subject of the Tariff Bill printed and circulated, together with a full report of the Debate on the Bill in the Viceroy's Council on 10th March?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I shall endeavour before the Debate to lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India on the subject of the Tariff Bill, as well as the Official Report of the Debates in the Legislative Council, if received.

  OVERTIME ON ADMIRALTY CONTRACT WORK.
  MR. WOODS: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Messrs. Thorny croft, of Chiswick, torpedo boat builders, have frequent contracts with Her Majesty's Government; if he is aware that at those works systematic overtime is being worked; and whether the Government will cause a clause to be inserted in all future contracts, restricting the hours of labour to the number now being worked in the Government works, as a condition of accepting their contracts?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Messrs. Thorny croft have frequently contracted for the Admiralty. I am told that some overtime has recently been going on at their works. No proposal to impose a condition as to hours of labour in Admiralty contracts has been before the Government.

  HARLAND AND WOLFF'S SHIPYARD.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether be is aware that the platers' helpers and the labourers employed in the engine, boiler, and foundry shops in Messrs. Harland and Wolff's shipyard, Belfast, to the number of 770, are on strike for an advance of wages; whether the wages earned by these men, and that when in full employment, ranged from 12s. to 18s. per week; whether any of them were employed in connection

  441
  with Government contracts; and whether the Admiralty in giving out con- tracts will make it a condition that all unskilled labourers he paid a minimum rate of 6d. per hour?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No Admiralty contracts are in process of execution by this firm, nor have we any knowledge on the statements in the hon. Member's question. The condition as to wages introduced in all Admiralty contracts is not that suggested by the hon. Member's question, but in accordance with the House of Commons Resolution, as follows:—
  "The wages paid in the execution of this eon-tract shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out."

DUTIES OF COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE BURGHS.
MR. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland
442
whether the Commissioners of Police Burghs, created under "The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892," are entitled to undertake the management and maintenance of the highways within the burgh in terms of "The Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Act, 1891"; and whether the Commissioners of such police burghs participate in the grants made under "The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890," and under "The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892"; and, if not, whether he proposes by provisions in the Local Government Bill to put such police burghs in the same position as those formed under "The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862"?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. The police burghs created tinder the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, do not participate as police burghs in the grants referred to in the second part of the question, and this point is at present under the consideration of the Government in connection with the Local Government Act Amendment Bill.

H.M.S. "CRESCENT."
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new first-class cruiser Crescent has twice had to put back to Portsmouth on her first voyage owing to defects in her engines: what is the nature of those defects: and whether it is intended to continue the attempt to send out relief crews in her to the Australian Station before a more complete examination and test of her machinery have been made than that which was made before the second breakdown?
SIR: U. KAY-SIIUTTLEWORTH: It is the fact that the Crescent has had to put back on two occasions owing to defects in her machinery (in each case the fracture of an excentric). A thorough re-examination of the machinery has now been carried out by the Admiralty officers, in concert with the manufacturers of the engines, and the executives are being renewed and refitted. The work will be completed in the course of a few days, and thorough full-power trial will be made before the Crescent leaves for Australia.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was the Crescent before she started subjected to the usual steam trials? If so, how is it those defects were not discovered?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOKTH: She went through the usual trials before being commissioned.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was she tested to her full capacity?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have no doubt she was.
MR. HOWELL: Were the engines manufactured by the Government, or by a private firm?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: By a private firm.

THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what stops have yet been taken for supplying the Navy with Lee-Metford rifles; and what orders for them, if any, have been given to the Government factories and to private firms respectively?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Arrangements have been made for arming the Marines with the magazine rifle during 1894–95, and the cost has been inserted in the Estimates. No orders have yet been given.

INDIAN FISCAL POLICY.
SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the resolution of the Government to exempt cotton from the duties which the Viceroy has resolved to impose on other goods was taken with the assent of any of the Council at Westminster, or of a majority of that body; and whether any members have recorded Minutes of dissent on the subject; and, if so, whether those Minutes can be laid before Parliament?
MR. WICKHAM: At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that the Council of India wore unanimously opposed to the decision of the Secretary of State excluding duties upon cotton goods from the Import Duties which the Governor General in Council has been recently authorised to impose in order to meet the present financial crisis in India; and if he will object to a Motion for copies of any dissents from that deci-
444
sion which may have been recorded by Members of the Council of India?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The answer to questions Nos. 11 and 28 is that the resolution of the Government not to impose a duty on cotton imported into India was not taken with the assent of the Council of India. Dissents have been recorded by certain Members of the Council, which will be laid upon the Table if moved for.

DERELICTS IN THE ATLANTIC.
MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the American Government has yet sent a reply to the statement made in this House on 12th January last by the late Prime Minister with respect to derelict ships; what is the purport of that reply; and will he communicate it to the House?
SIR E. GREY: The reply was received on the 25th of January last, and is still under the consideration of the Board of Trade. It is to the effect that no scheme at present exists in the United States for patrolling ocean routes for the purpose of removing derelicts, &c., although they are destroyed by United States vessels of war when heard of; but that the United States Government are prepared to invite the principal Maritime Governments to consider an Intel-national Agreement on the subject.

THE COST OF THE CENSUS.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what was the annual cost of the preliminary work performed before the last Census in carrying into effect the alterations caused in areas and boundaries by the operation of various Acts of Parliament; whether he can state the difference (if any) between the Census Vote and the estimated actual cost of taking the last Census; and whether, having regard to the numerous alterations continually being made in the boundaries of various areas, it is proposed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Census, to take the necessary steps to insure the continuity of the Census by having these alterations in boundaries carried out in the Census Returns as soon as possible after they

445
come into operation, in order that the population of the new or altered areas may he available?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRK,): I am informed by the Registrar General that for nearly four years before the last Census was taken two clerks wore employed at an annual cost of about £240 in noting changes of areas and boundaries effected by the Divided Parishes Acts of 1876 and 1882. The difference between the amount voted for taking the Census in 1891 and tabulating the results and the expenditure will he a surplus of about £19,000. The best way of keeping abreast of these constantly occurring changes in areas is now under consideration in the General Register Office.

MUSKETRY EXAMINATION PAPERS.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the authorities in the School of Musketry at Hythe have refused to send an officer's examination papers to his commanding officer when officially applied for, and whether there is any valid reason for such refusal; whether it is usual at Hythe to refuse an officer a musketry certificate for reasons other than ignorance; of the subjects in which he is examined; and whether he can state the percentage of failures to pass the examination under each instructor of musketry at Hythe during the past 12 months, and the names of the instructors who examined the greatest number of officers who failed to obtain a certificate?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-LANNERMAN,): It is contrary to the Regulation to disclose examination papers. If a commanding officer of a regiment has a complaint to make of the procedure of the School of Musketry his duty is to submit the case to the Adjutant General through his General commanding.

THE CASK OF MR. WELD O'CONNOR.
MR. GIBNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Matthew Weld O'Connor, J.P., of Oldcastle, County Meath, Receiver to
446
the Court of Chancery of the Estate of W. S. Garnett, was deficient in his accounts in the sum of £2,000; that he represented this to have arisen through an auctioneer owing him that sum for the proceeds of the grass lettings; and that on inquiry before the Chief Receiver of the Land Judges Court it was ascertained that no such money was due by the auctioneer, nor was any found to be due, the auctioneer having produced his receipts; whether Mr. O'Connor was dismissed or called on to resign; and, if not, on what grounds; is it the intention of the Government to prosecute him; does he a1 present hold any other receiverships, and will he be continued therein; is Mr. O'Connor the same receiver who in July, 1890, was dismissed after judgment in Court by Judge Munroe for falsifying his accounts in the King's Estate, and why was he then retained on the list of receivers; and, in view of the fact that Mr. O'Connor is a Magistrate for the Counties of Meath, Cavan, and Longford, has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to his conduct?
MR. J. MORLEY: The attention of the Lord Chancellor has not been called to any of the matters referred to, nor is he aware whether any of the statements are correct, as such matters are exclusively within the cognisance of the Receiver Judge, over whom the Executive has no control. If Mr. O'Connor's conduct as a Magistrate should be called in question, the Lord Chancellor has no doubt that the Judge will furnish him with any information that may he re quired.

COTTERIDGE SCHOOL, WORCESTERSHIRE.
SIR. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education under what circumstances and for what reasons has the usual grant been withheld from the Cotteridge School in Worcestershire?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The offices of this school, which were in a bad state, were condemned last year. Plans of new offices were approved last August, but they had not been built at the time of the inspection in February. The Department has

447
now received assurance from the managers that the work will be executed at once, and the grant has been put forward.

BREACH OF THE FACTORY ACT.
MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the report of a case heard at the Borough Police Court, Preston, on Saturday the 24th of February last, when a certain firm of cotton manufacturers were charged under Section 24 of "The Factory and Workshops Act, 1891," with failing to supply to certain weavers in their employ sufficient particulars with their work to enable them to ascertain the rate of wages at which they were entitled to be paid for the work, when the Magistrates held that a sign or symbol, which no one but the employer and his manager understood, was sufficient, and might be used instead of plain characters; and if it is competent for the Magistrates to insist, as in this case, upon the Inspector or witnesses stating whether the persons whom the employer is charged with failing to supply sufficient particulars to have complained or not, or even if they have felt aggrieved or are dissatisfied?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): My attention has been drawn to this case with a view to the amendment of the law if necessary. Mr. Birtwistle has received instructions that if such questions should be again asked in any case—namely, from whom he received information, or if one of his witnesses is asked whether he or she gave information to Mr. Birtwistle, he should very respectfully submit to the Court that to answer such questions would be contrary to public policy.

BRITISH CLAIMS AGAINST CHILL.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chilian Council of State has approved the ratification of the Convention between Great Britain and Chili for the constitution of a tribunal for settling the claims of British subjects arising out of the Civil War of 1891; if so, will this extend to the claims of British subjects serving on board American or other vessels; is he aware that, on the ground that certain
448
Irishmen were British subjects, the Chilian Government rejected their claims when put forward by the United States; has the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the case of Patrick Shields, a seaman on the American steamer Keweenaw, and what is the position of his claim; is he aware that he was so brutally beaten by the police of Valparaiso that he is a hopeless invalid for life, and is unable to earn a living; and that the case of Andrew McKinistry, another seaman on the steamer Keweenaw was dismissed by the Commission on the ground that neither were American citizens; does the Treaty lately negotiated between Chili and Great Britain and Ireland provide for the settlement of British claims under a Joint Commission, which will sit for one year, with an extension of six months if the year should prove too short; and will the Government insist on reparation in these cases? Before putting the question I should like to state that when I handed it in at the Table it contained portions of the Message of President Harrison to Congress on the treatment of the British subjects referred to. Is it out of Order to quote such an expression of opinion on the Paper of the House?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quotations are ruled out of Order, because hon. Members who make them are giving information instead of asking for it.
SIR E. GREY: The ratification of the Convention between Great, Britain and Chili has been approved by both Chambers of Congress, but we have not yet heard of its ratification by the Council of State, which only met on the 10th instant. It will deal with
"all claims for which the Government of Chili may be held responsible in view of the acts and operations executed by land and sea forces of the Republic"
during the recent Civil War, and such claims as are presented must, in order to be entertained, be supported by Her Majesty's Legation at Santiago. We have at present no knowledge of the cases of Patrick Shields and Andrew McKinistry, and their claims should be at once sent in to the Foreign Office for consideration. The answer to the penultimate paragraph is in the affirmative. In the event of these claims being submitted to the Commission, its decision as to the reparation which is to be given must,

449
under the terms of the Convention, be accepted as final by Her Majesty's Government.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Up to what day will the Foreign Office receive claims?
SIR E. GREY: I cannot give the date, and I am not aware that any day has been fixed. Certain formalities have to be gone through before the Commission meets.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I wish to state that, on further consideration, the Government has come to the conclusion that if business progresses next week according to the scheme which I suggested to the Mouse a day or two ago they will be able to read the Ways and Means Bill a third time on Saturday. If that is done they will be able to dispense with the attendance of the House on the Monday after Easter, which no doubt will be a great convenience to Members, and especially to the officers of the House.
COLONEL NOLAN: What day will be given in lieu of the day for Motions on going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not in a position to fix the day vet.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What will be the Business for the week after Easter?
SIR W. HARCOURT: Thursday in that week is the day fixed for giving the Royal Assent to the Ways and Means Bill.

NEW WRITS.
For the County of Berwick, v. the Right Hon. Edward Marjoribanks, called up to the House of Peers.
For the County of Montgomery, v. Stuart Rendel, esquire, Manor of North-stead.

MOTIONS.

  LAND TENURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Kilbride, Bill to amend the Law relating to the fixing of fair rents, and the Tenure and Purchase of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kilbride, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. William O'Brien.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 7.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Nolan, Bill to repeal "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Colonel Nolan, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Harrington, Dr. Kenny. Mr. Hayden. Mr. Clancy, Mr. Field, Mr. Maguire, and Mr. William Redmond.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 8.]

  OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Palmer, Bill to provide Pensions in Old Age to the provident poor, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Palmer, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Fisher, and Sir Frederick Seager Hunt.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 9.]

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Roby, Pill to restrict the hours in Mines to Eight Hours per day, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roby, Mr. Abraham, Mr. John Burns, Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Cremer, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr.Jacoby, Mr. Leake, Mr. Pickard. Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Ernest Spencer, and Mr. Woods.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 10.]

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Bartley. Pill to amend the Law respecting the transfer and exercise of Church Patronage and the avoidance of benefices, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bartley, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Sir Richard Webster, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Viscount Cranborne. Mr. Talbot, Mr. Jebb, Viscount Wolmer, Sir Francis Powell, and Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 11.]

  UNIFORMS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Farquharson, Pill to regulate and restrict the wearing of Naval and Military Uniforms, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Farquharson. Mr. Brookfield, Mr. Hanbury, Major Rasch, and Captain Norton.
  Pill presented, and read first time. [Bill 12.]

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Thomas B. Curran, Bill to amend the Law relating to Municipal Franchise in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas B. Curran, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Condon, Mr. Crean, and Mr. O'Keeffe.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 13.]

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Strachey, Bill to empower Boards of Guardians to grant Relief to Members of Friendly Societies in receipt of any allowances from the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Strachey, Mr. Barlow, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, and Mr. Howell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 14.]

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Bill to amend the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Flynn, Dr. Tanner, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Roche.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 15.]

  BEER ADULTERATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Round, Bill for better securing the purity of Beer, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bound, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Fellowes, and Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 16.]

  GUARDIANS OF THE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Gilhooly, Bill to amend the Law relating to the election and constitution of Boards of Guardians of the Poor in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gilhooly, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Condon, and Mr. Finueane.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 17.]

  PATENT AGENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Alban Gibbs, Bill to amend the Law relating to Patent Agents, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alban Gibbs, Sir Reginald Hanson, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Kimber, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Birrell, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 18.]

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) AND PURCHASE OF LAND) (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Clancy, Bill to amend the Land Law (Ireland) and Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clancy, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Hoyden.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 19.]

  TOWN HOLDINGS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. H. L. W. Lawson, Bill to give compensation to occupying tenants of Town Holdings for beneficial improvements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. L. W. Lawson, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Field, Mr. George Palmer, and Earl Compton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 20.]

  RATING OF MACHINERY' BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Coddington, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Rating of hereditaments containing machinery, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Coddington, Mr. Holland, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Sir Bernard Samuelson, Mr. Maher, Mr. Tomlinson, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Smith Wright, and Mr. Strachey.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 21.]

  COMPULSORY VACCINATION ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hopwood, Bill to abolish the compulsion to Vaccinate, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Channing, Mr. Byles, and Dr. Clark.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 22.]

  COMPANIES ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir William Houldsworth, Bill to amend "The Companies Act, 1862," ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Howell, Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Harrop Side-bottom, and Mr. Cheetham.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 23.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRE-LAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Webb, Bill to repeal "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Webb, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Sexton, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Young.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 24.]

  LABOUR MINISTER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ernest Spencer, Bill to establish a Ministry of Labour to be presided over by a Minister to be called the Labour Minister, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ernest Spencer, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir John Blundell Maple, Sir Seymour King, Sir Joseph Pease, Colonel Howard Vincent, Mr. Dalziel, and Mr. Wilson Lloyd.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 25.]

  MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES (MIDDLESEX) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Howard, Bill to amend the Law as regards Music and Dancing Licences in Middlesex ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard, Mr. Bigwood, Captain Bowles, and Mr. Stephens.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 26.]

  BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Banbury, Bill to amend the Law relating to Building Societies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Banbury, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and Mr. Bartley.
  Bill presented, and real first time. [Bill 27.]

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Kenny, Bill to amend the Law relating to Municipal Franchises in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Kenny, Mr. Harrington, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Field, and Mr. Clancy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 28.]

  PAUPERS DEPORTATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Flynn, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Deportation of Paupers from Great Britain to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Flynn, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Gilhooly.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 29.]

  TOWN PARKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Captain Donelan, Bill to amend the Law relating to Town Parks in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Captain Donelan, Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Tuite.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 30.]

  DEEP SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Mains, Bill to facilitate the Development of the Deep Sea Fisheries of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mains, Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. Sheehy, Dr. Cummins, and Mr. Gilhooly.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 31.]

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD CONSTITUTION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Finucane, Bill to amend the constitution of the Irish Lights Board, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Finucane, Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. Crean, and Mr. O'Keeffe.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 32.]

  BURIALS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Carvell Williams, Bill to further amend the Burial Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carvell Williams, Sir George Osborne Morgan, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Perks, and Mr. Barrow.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 33.]

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir A. Acland-Hood, Bill to regulate the Marking and Sale of Foreign and Colonial Meat, ordered to be brought in by Sir A. Acland-Hood, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Horace plunkett, Mr. Jeffreys, and Colonel Lockwood.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 34.]

  GROUND GAME ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL
  On Motion of Mr. Billson, Bill to amend "The Ground Game Act, 1880," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Billson, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Luttrell, and Mr. Cobb.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 35.]

  OLD AGE PENSIONS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Captain Naylor-Leyland, Bill to establish voluntary State-aided Old Age Pensions, ordered to be brought in by Captain Naylor-Leyland and Mr. Round.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 36.]

  FRUIT IDENTIFICATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hozier, Bill for the Identification and Regulation of the Sale of Foreign and Colonial Fruit, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hozier, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Akers-Douglas, and Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 37.]

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Bill to provide for certificates for Persons in Charge of Steam Engines and Boilers, ordered, to be brought in by Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Howell. Mr. Charles Fenwick, and Mr. Joseph Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 38.]

  COMMONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Bill for the better regulation and preservation of Commons and Village Greens, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Byrne, Viscount Wolmer, Mr. Bonsor, and Mr. Lawson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 39.]

  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir William Wedderburn, Bill for the amendment and extension of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Wedderburn, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Crombie, and Mr. Seymour Keay.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 40.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Tuite, Bill to amend the Law relating to the expenses of Returning Officers at Parliamentary Elections in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tuite, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Captain Donelan, Mr. Maurice Healy, and Mr. Flynn.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 41.]

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Luttrell, Bill to amend the Law in regard to the appointment, qualification, and removal of Justices of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Luttrell, Mr. Billson, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Howell, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Owen.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 42.]

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir James Whitehead, Bill to amend "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, ordered to be brought in by Sir James Whitehead, Mr. Richardson, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. William Smith, Mr. Burnie, and Mr. Patrick M'Hugh.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 13.]

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Richard Webster, Bill to amend the Law for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Webster, Mr. Greene, Mr. Bucknill, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Cohen.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 44.]

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jeffreys, Bill for the marking of Foreign and Colonial Meat, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeffreys, Sir A. Acland-Hood, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Fellowes, Mr. Hozier, and Mr. Horace Plunkett.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 45.]

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Harden, Bill for the amendment of the Law for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hayden, Mr. John Redmond, Colonel Nolan, Mr. Clancy, and Mr. Harrington.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 46.]

  FACTORS' ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Greene, Bill to amend "The Factors' Act, 1889," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greene, Mr. Brynmor Jones, and Mr. Arthur O'Connor.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 47.]

  RELIGIOUS TESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Bill to abolish Religious Tests in connection with the office of Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Mr. Crean, Mr. Tully, and Mr. Pinkerton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 48.]

  LONDON MARKETS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Samuel Montagu, Bill to enable the London County Council to purchase Spitalfields Market and Covent Garden Market, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Samuel Montagu, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Pickersgill, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. James Stuart.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 49.]

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (WALES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Bill to enable owners and occupiers in Wales to have effectual control over the Liquor Traffic, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Rowland Jones, Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, and Mr. Burnie.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 50.]

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS LOCAL VETO (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Johnston, Bill to enable the ratepayers of any locality to veto the
  456
  issue of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Jordan, Lord Arthur Hill, Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. Wolff.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 51.]

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to provide for the Earlier Closing of Shops, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Field, Colonel Bridgeman, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. Mather, Mr. Austin, and Mr. Kearley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 52.]

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Henry Roscoe, Bill to amend the Law relating to Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Leake, Mr. Mather, and Mr. Roundell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 53.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (EXEMPTION FROM SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Richard Temple, Bill to regulate the conditions under which Children are exempted from Attendance at School, ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Howard, Mr. Tomlinsonn, Mr. Price, and Mr. Dodd.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 54.]

  LAND VALUES (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Naoroji, Bill to provide for the taxation of Land Values by Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Naoroji, Mr. Lough, Mr. James Stuart, and Mr. James Rowlands.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 55.]

  COTTON TRADE (FORTY-EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Maden, Bill to restrict the hours of labour in the Cotton Trade to Forty-Eight per week, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maden, Mr. Philip Stanhope, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Burnie, and Mr. Woods.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 56.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Howell, Bill to consolidate, simplify, and amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Elections; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howell, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Pickers-gill, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. Stewart Wallace, Dr. Hunter, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, and Mr. Warmington.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 57.]

  TRUSTEE ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Kenny, Bill to amend "The Trustee Act, 1893," ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Kenny, Mr. Carson, Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Boss, and Mr. Clancy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 58.]

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jesse Collings, Bill for giving Industrial Agricultural Education in Elementary Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir John Lubbock. Mr. Robert Reid, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Dixon, and Sir Richard Paget.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 59.]

  LIBEL BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend the Law of Libel, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. H. L. W. Lawson, Mr. Willox, Mr. Byles, Colonel Palmer, Sir John Leng. Mr. T. p. O'Connor, and Sir Charles Cameron.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 60.]

  FOREIGN GOODS (MARK OF ORIGIN) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Howard Vincent. Bill for the placing of a Mark of Origin on Foreign Goods, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Howard Vincent, Sir Henry Howorth, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Maclure, Colonel Bridgeman, Colonel Brookfield, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Havelock Wilson, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Field, and Mr. Wrightson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 61]

  FIRE BRIGADES (EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICE) BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount Curzon, Bill to exempt Members of Fire Brigades from Service on Juries, ordered to be brought in by Viscount Curzon. Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Baird, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 62.]

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION CHURCHES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Snape, Bill to remove the obligations imposed by Statute upon the Liverpool Corporation to maintain wholly or in part certain Clergymen, Church Officers, and Churches in Liverpool, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Snape. Mr. Neville, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Stephen Williamson, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Brunner.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 63.]

  MINING ACCIDENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Baird, Bill to establish a system of National Insurance against Accidents
  458
  in Mines in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Baird, Mr. Hozier, Mr Parker Smith, and Mr. Cochrane.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 64.]

  FOREIGN SHELL FISH BILL.
  On Motion of Major Rasch, Bill for labelling and marking consignments and parcels of shrimps, mussels, and oysters of Foreign catch and preparation, ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch. Colonel Howard Vincent, Mr. Round. Mr. Field, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, and Colonel Brookfield.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 65.]

  TRADE DISPUTES (ARBITRATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Butcher. Bill to establish Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration in Trade Disputes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Butcher, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Horace Plunkett, and Colonel Palmer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 66.]

  CORONERS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Captain Grice-Hutchinson, Bill to amend "The Coroners Act. 1887," ordered to be brought in by Captain Grice-Hutchinson, Mr. Albert Bright, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Godson, Mr. Brooke Robinson, and Captain Norton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 67.]

  ITINERANT STREET MUSIC (LONDON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jacoby, Bill to license and control Itinerant Street Musicians in London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacoby, Sir Thomas Roe, Mr. Arnold-Forster, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Samuel Smith, and Mr. William Sidebotham.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 58.]

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND REFERENCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Thorburn, Bill to provide for the reference of the question of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland to the Parliamentary Electors of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thorburn, Viscount Wolmer, Mr. Parker Smith, Sir Mark Stewart. Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 69.]

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) (ENGLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Wilfrid Lawson. Bill to enable Localities by a direct Vote to prevent the issue of licences, ordered to be brought in by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, Mr. Allen, Mr. Benn, Mr. Billson, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Snape, and Mr. Whittaker.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 70.]

  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Alexander Gross, Bill to amend the Law relating to the letting and tenure of Smaller Dwellings in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alexander Cross, Sir James Carmichael, Mr. Baird, and Mr. M'Gilligan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 71.]

  TRAMWAYS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Schwann, Bill to enable municipalities to work and levy tolls on their own Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Schwann, Mr. Addison, Mr. Neville, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Mr. Havelock Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 72.]

  PLACES OF WORSHIP, ETC. (RATING) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Clarence Smith, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Rating of Places of Worship and Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clarence Smith, Mr. Clough, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Perks.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 73.]

  MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Perks, Bill to amend the Law relating to the attendance of Registrars at Marriages in Nonconformist Places of Worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Perks, Sir Isaac Holden, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Oldroyd, Mr. Snape, Mr. Spicer, and Mr. Waddy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 74.]

  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Wrightson, Bill to give facilities for the acquisition by Working Men of their own Dwelling Houses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wrightson, Sir John Gorst, Mr. James Lowther, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Bartley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 75.]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Stern, Bill for facilitating the operation of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890," in so far as it relates to rural sanitary districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stern, Mr. Channing, Mr. Logan, and Mr. H. L. W. Lawson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 76.]

  PEERS DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Brodrick, Bill to remove the disabilities of Peers on succeeding to their titles in respect of sitting in the House of Commons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Curzon, and Viscount Wolmer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 77.]

  POLICE (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. James Rowlands, Bill for placing the Police of the Metropolis under the control of the ratepayers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Howell, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Pickersgill, and Mr. Naoroji.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 78.]

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS (LONDON) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Hughes, Bill to enable London Local Authorities to acquire freehold land for Public Buildings, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Hughes, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Algernon Borthwick, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Jacoby, and Mr. Bousfield.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 79.]

  VEHICLES LIGHTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Webster, Bill to regulate the use of Lights on conveyances after dark, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Webster, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Charles M'Laren, Mr. Grice - Hutchinson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, and Mr. Banbury.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 80.]

  MARKET GARDENERS COMPENSATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Edmund Lechmere, Bill to extend the provisions of "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883," so far as they relate to Market Gardens, ordered to be brought in by Sir Edmund Lechmere, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Channing, and Mr. Maguire.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 81.]

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Bill to enable owners and occupiers in burghs, wards of burghs, parishes, and districts in Scotland, to prevent the common sale of intoxicating liquors, or otherwise to have effectual control over the drink traffic within such areas, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Sir Charles Cameron, Sir Leonard Lyell, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Dr. Clark, Mr. Birrell, and Mr. Angus Sutherland.
  Bill presented, and read first time, [Bill 82.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Thomas Lea, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland on Saturday and Sunday; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Lea, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Jordan, Colonel Saunderson, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. Webb, Mr. William Kenny, and Mr. Kennedy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 83.]

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Knowles, Bill for the National Registration of Plumbers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Knowles, Sir Algernon Borthwick, Earl Compton, Mr. Dixon. Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, and Mr. Sexton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 84.]

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Tully. Bill to amend "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1S83," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tully, Mr. Knox. Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Patrick M'Hugh, and Mr. M'Gilligan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 85.]

  FARM SERVANTS' HOLIDAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Napier, Bill for providing statutory Holidays and Half-Holidays for Farm Servants and Agricultural Labourers in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Napier and Dr. Clark.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 86.]

  DERELICT VESSELS (REPORTS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Macdona, Pill for the reporting to and publication by Lloyd's of intelligence as to Derelict Vessels on the high seas, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macdona, Mr. Hozier, Sir Edward Harland, Mr. Wolff. Mr. Alban Gibbs, Mr. Bound, Mr. Havelock Wilson, and Mr. Penn.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 87.]

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT (1884) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to amend "The Bishopric of Bristol Act, 1884," ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Sir Edward Hill.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 88.]
  MR. SETON-KARRwished to ask whether it was not competent for him now to introduce his Bill with other hon. Members, he having given notice of the Bill on Monday, and his name appearing in the Ballot? He understood from the arrangement come to between the Loader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition that notice given on Monday would be good, and on the faith of that understanding he did not repeat his notice, but his name appeared in the Ballot, and he respectfully submitted that he had a right to bring in his Bill now.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think not. The hon. Member must give fresh notice, as he omitted to take the necessary step.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  NAVAL AND MILITARY DEFENSIVE PREPARATIONS.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: I rise to call attention to the close relation which should exist between our Naval and our Military defensive preparations, and to move—
    "That this House, before voting supplies for the maintenance of Military establishments in the United Kingdom, seeks an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the Estimates for that purpose submitted to it are framed upon consideration of the needs of possible war by sea and land, and upon a consideration of advice tendered in that behalf by such Officer of each Service as is fitted to command in war Her Majesty's forces of that Service."
    If the Statement of the Secretary for War, which was issued yesterday, had been of the character of the Statement issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty to us yesterday, there would not have been any reason for making much of a statement in support of the Motion, which might have been allowed in that case to stand by itself. But the Statement of the Secretary for War is not in the nature of the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty lays down principles with regard to the management of the Navy for this year, and to some extent for the future, and is based upon a clear and fresh consideration of the needs of the country—a consideration which may be wise or unwise, which may have produced results of which we may approve or disapprove, but which we cannot discuss now—but, at all events, it is a Statement which shows a full and fresh consideration of the needs of the country with regard to naval defence pure and simple taken by itself. But the Statement issued by the Secretary for War is not like that Statement: it is a Statement rather in the old groove, I regret to say, and a Statement which is generally marked by that optimist view

    463
    as to the defensive position of the country which is held and defended with great ability by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War. When I speak of the Statement as being optimist, I wish to repeat what I said on the War Estimates last year as to my right hon. Friend's immense popularity in this House based upon his ability; but however much we may admire him we must recognise in him a very strong supporter of the existing system of War Office administration. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN dissented.] We have to judge him by results. We cannot base any statements upon private conversations or opinions; we have to judge him by his policy. His policy is essentially on the old lines, with a small and gradual improvement made from year to year, no doubt, but essentially on the old lines. To illustrate what I have to say—and it is the only illustration I will give—the only statement which I will allow myself to make in detail concerns what is, after all, the main paragraph in the Statement, the one which to the public will convey the impression that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. It is in the first paragraph of the Report which was printed which will strike the public eye. After a formal paragraph which appears each year, comparing the numbers of the Army with the numbers last year, and giving the reasons for any change, the next relates to recruiting, and that paragraph appears to state that nothing could be more satisfactory than the present condition of recruiting. I give that as an illustration—that the statement is an optimistic statement, because this paragraph, when carefully read, contains the words "for a time." It states that the establishments were so full on January 1st, 1893, that it was found possible for a time to dispense with special enlistments. But, as a matter of fact, no later than the Spring of 1893 special enlistments had to be resorted to again, because the Recruiting Returns had fallen off considerably. I wish to avoid details, because we have discussed them a good deal on former occasions, and not much good has come of it. It seems to me that there is more likelihood of effecting a real change of the military and naval conditions of the country by looking at the large principles which lie at the root of the systems. The
    464
    Secretary for War shook his head when I said that he is optimistic; but certainly I gathered last year in his speech upon the Estimates, and I gather from the Statement which he has placed before the House, that he is generally satisfied with the present condition of the Army. But there are few persons who have been connected with the Army, not as Secretary of State, who are satisfied with its general condition. I quoted last year pretty fully the opinion publicly expressed by one of the most distinguished Generals, who, perhaps, more than any other man, has the public; ear on such questions—I mean Lord Wolseley. I quoted fully his statements made at a time when he was largely responsible for the administration of the Army, and I am not aware that any changes have been made since that date which have affected the essential truth of those opinions. Lord Wolseley represents the War Office, and, to a certain extent, the administration at home. But what is the view of the other great branch of the Service connected with the Indian Army? Can it be said that those who have practically handled that branch of our Army, of which we are most proud, are supporters of the present state of things? It is a well-known fact that those who have advised the Government of India for many years past on military affairs hold the strongest views against the existing administration of the Army, and I think that no one who knows the facts will contradict the statement which I will make, in as summarised a form as possible, of what their views are with regard to that administration. Those views are—that the last state of the Home Army is worse than the first, and that no public company or private firm can afford to conduct its business on such a basis. When we consider that there is an expenditure on defence of the British Empire of £53,000,000 sterling a year in the cheapest years, and£58,000,000 in the dearest years, and that this year we are increasing our expenditure by more than £3,000,000 sterling on one branch of our defence it is impossible to say that the defects alleged by those high authorities result from the machine being run too cheaply. Those who have advised the Indian Government for some years past believe there is still enormous work to be done before we can convert

    465
    this army at home into a "serviceable and homogeneous fighting organism."
    "A Railway Board makes it its business to select as General Manager of the line a man who not only commands respect and can enforce obedience, but is an expert in the various branches of railway administration which it is his duty to supervise; and similarly the responsible professional adviser of the Secretary of State for War, whether he be called Commander-in Chief, Chief of the Staff, or by any other title, should be a man,"
    to quote Lord Randolph Churchill's words,
    "of military training, military experience, and military eminence."
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: When did I use those words?
    SIB C. W. DILKE: In the special Memorandum attached to the Report of the Hartington Commission. Those words may be adopted by myself as regards the last part of my Resolution. The noble Lord showed by his also somewhat optimistic speech last year that he, since he has been relieved of the cares of Office, has to some extent modified his views; but I prefer to go to the views he held when he was in some degree responsible for the administration of the Army. Besides these opinions we have the tremendous indictment brought by the Hartington Commission, which was an absolute condemnation of the existing military system. As there were upon that Commission three gentlemen who bad filled the Office of Secretary of State for War, one General from the War Office, one Admiral, with scarcely any outside opinion, we must ask whether since the dale of that Report there has been any change in the system which can in any way modify the conclusions at which the Commission arrived? I do not know of any which can be held to remove in any degree the anxiety aroused in the public mind by the statements to which I have referred. Some years ago the military system was supposed on paper to give the country eight Army Corps. Then the estimate was reduced to five Army Corps, then two, and then one, and eventually, when more closely examined, it has dropped to a single division of 20,000 men for foreign service. We are largely increasing this year our expenditure on the Navy. With regard to the Navy, we know the results we obtain for our expenditure; we find them in a tangible form. We know by the improvements
    466
    which have been made in the last few years in our system of mobilisation, that although there may be defects and drawbacks as regards the construction and manning of our fleets, we get value for our money, whereas as regards the Army we do not get it. In India, we get a good but a small Army—for which India pay a very full, and, as she thinks, an excessive rate—and at home we get an altogether intangible force, arrived at on paper by adding together items, which is not homogeneous in its character, and not in any sense an Army comparable with the Armies of the smallest Foreign Powers in organisation, with a view to war. There has not been any improvement since the crushing Report of Lord Hartington's Commission. There has, of course, been an automatic increase in our Reserves—and that is the one good fact about our present system—so that there are, roughly speaking, 80,000 men available; but this Reserve differs from the Reserve of any other country in the world in times of peace, because although some steps have latterly been taken to see that the men really exist, and that they are occasionally practised in the handling of arms, the Reserve is not called out, as are the Reserves of every other power in the world, and incorporated with the Forces, and made to take part in manœuvres. Therefore, in the modern sense, it is not a true Reserve, although it is, no doubt, a very useful force. We know that the number of our guns is still extremely low as compared with what other countries get for their money; and our field artillery and cavalry are loss adequately supplied with horses than are other Powers, and we still avoid manœuvres on a largo scale, as practised by other Powers, simply on account of the cost. We are called upon to-night to pass the Vote for Men and the Vote for Pay. The Vote for the number of men and the first Vote for the Navy that will be taken on Monday are really the foundation of the whole system of our defence. The responsibility that falls upon the House of Commons in voting these two items, the number of men for the Army and Navy, is a very heavy one, which they share with the Cabinet who present the Estimates to the House. It is a responsibility which ought to imply an amount of care and consideration by the Govern-

    467
    ment who submit the joint Estimates which there is much reason to believe they Jo not receive. I wish to know whether the Government present these Estimates as representing the least but still what is sufficient for the needs of the country for the next 12 mouths, not only for the protection of the home country and the Empire, but for the protection of our trade in all parts of the world? That is what these two items ought to mean. Do they mean this? Is it the case that, so far as human foresight can provide, the Government have thought out afresh, as is their duty, the naval and the military needs of the country? They have had some pressure put upon them in this House—perhaps they would have done it without that pressure, and I do not want to raise controversy with regard to that—but they have been brought to a careful and full consideration of the naval needs of the country. Have they entered into any similar consideration with regard to the military needs of the country? Have they entered into any joint consideration of the Army and Navy as to the share of expenditure which ought to be devoted to the two Services? That is what I doubt. There can be no doubt, I think, that these considerations involve something more than the mere thought by the Secretary for War of what should be the Estimates for the particular Service. That is not enough. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to tell us, not for himself but for his colleagues and the Cabinet as a whole, whether they have thought out these questions? Is he prepared to say that the number of men and the particular sums of money asked for in the Army Estimates are both sufficient and the best possible? The question that lies behind is whether the Cabinet are satisfied that in the Army as well as in the Navy we get full value for the money we spend, that there is no waste that is preventable, and that we are furnished for our enormous expenditure with something like a model Army, and an Army fit for war? It must be remembered that we have been too much in the habit of regarding Army Estimates as a sort of luxury, as something which provide us for a large expenditure with a toy instead of a machine for war. But unless it is something more
    468
    than a machine for those little wars where a few thousand men are required, and unless it is sufficient for the needs of modern war, certainly we ought not to go on year after year discussing these Estimates without inquiry. It may be the case—I do not wish to raise the ire of any military Member of this House —it may be the case that, with the exception of that portion of our Army which meets our needs for India, either actual or prospective, it would be cheaper and better for this country to spend vastly more than we do upon the Navy and less upon the Army. What I want to know, and what the Cabinet in framing their Estimates ought to know, is this: are the proposals before the House those which alone are capable of securing the safety of the country and of the Empire? There is some evidence, I think, that the customary mode of proposing to the House two separate sets of Estimates which have nothing whatever to do with one another, with the Secretary of State for War sitting on that Bench and proposing one set one day, and the Secretary to the Admiralty coming down and proposing, on the authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty, another sot on another day— there is some reason to suppose that that long customary plan is not a plan which would be likely to give you that joint and general consideration of our defensive condition which we really want. Who controls these two gentlemen and allocates between them the expenditure of the year? The House of Commons, no doubt.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: The noble Lord has been Chancellor of the Exchequer himself; but we cannot go—it is impossible for us to go, because of the obligation of the Privy Council oaths—into the question of what happens in the Cabinet when the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War come with their Estimates. As I have said, the noble Lord has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was going to ask him whether he thought the circumstances of the consideration of the Estimates in the year in which he resigned and the reasons which led to his resignation —whether he thinks that is a satisfactory manner of transacting the joint considera-

    469
    tion of the Army and Navy needs of the country, which he seems to tell us is secured by the existing system? I will not trouble the noble Lord, however, for a reply. I prefer to take the Leader of the Party opposite as stating the views of the Party, and he has, to the full, continued the doubts which I, for one, very heavily entertained before as to the present system of administration as between the two Departments. The Leader of the Opposition thinks the present system is not satisfactory: it does not give us that which we certainly ought to receive—the full and joint consideration of these double means of our defence, a proper allocation of money as between these two Services and proper control. The control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Treasury control, a control in which, if he does his duty as guardian of the public purse, his first consideration is for economy, and that control from time to time, if he is dealing—as he is not in the present case— with a weak man, would enable him to secure economy at the expense of efficiency in the long run. The mere control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be a satisfactory control as regards the efficiency of the Services. And, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not military and naval, still less jointly military and naval, experts behind him to tell him what particular items are necessary for the Public Service. If he objects to the Estimate for coaling stations, say, it is on the ipse dixit of a particular civilian, and not one who has got responsible authority behind him to advise him on the subject. The Leader of the Opposition has fully confirmed the doubts which existed in my mind, and confirmed the statements of the Hartington Commission, so often quoted by the Member for West Belfast, who has done such good service in calling attention to these matters. We come to the consideration of what is the remedy, because, of course, year after year we have had grumbling in this House—not perhaps on previous occasions at the whole defensive position of the country, but at first one Service, and then the other, for not doing this or that, or for not giving us value for our money. We, of course, have to face the public with the fact that the British Empire spends a great deal more on defensive Services than any
    470
    Empire in the world. We are spending from £53,000,000 to £58,000,000 sterling a year on these Services. It is chiefly in this country and India that we are spending these fabulous sums, and the inhabitants generally are beginning to doubt whether a business management for the whole of the defensive Services of the Empire, with one plan, one scheme, one responsibility, would not give them better value for their money than they get at the present time. What is the remedy? The remedy suggested by the Hartington Commission for the particular question was, I fear, rather a feeble one. They recommended a certain amount of intercommunication between the Services, but General Sir Henry Brackeubury— who is now in India—objected to the particular measure, as he thought it altogether inadequate. He was the military Member of that Commission, and the Admiral who was on the Commission also objected to the particular measure proposed. Very little has been done upon these lines. A sort of Joint Committee exists; but I think it is clear from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and from little revelations in the semi-official handbook to the British Army recently published, that that Committee does not deal with what may be called Cabinet responsibility, that joint responsibility for the Services for Imperial defence. Here I am speaking what is mere gossip; it may be idle rumour. These matters are somewhat secret, but there is no doubt that the late Government for a time established a Defence Committee of the Cabinet. I believe that that Defence Committee had not permanent direct advisers, or records for its successors who were to come after it. Of course, a mere Committee from time to time of the Cabinet may be a useful thing; but, unless you give it more formal consecration by the official system of the country, it cannot be vouched to this House with any great weight or authority, and it requires a more firm place in our defence and economic system than it has occupied up to the present to be of real use. At the present moment it has not had any serious effect. It may have done something with regard to naval matters, but as regards the work of the administration or the particular form of the Army Estimates, or the proposals made to us

    471
    for the Military Service, I do not think that Committee has had any effect. Indeed, the extraordinary similarity of the Army Estimates from year to year shows that there has not been any serious or fresh consideration of military questions. Now, Sir, what we all want is the same thing—namely, real responsibility of the Cabinet. Those who are nominally responsible we want to make really responsible for the advice—say to-night or on Monday—they give to the House. We do not want to feel we are merely acting on the advice of right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench, but on the responsible opinion of the Cabinet as a whole. The Cabinet must obtain the best advice possible. I, for my part, should prefer that the advice should be concentrated for each Service, because I think it is far more responsible advice if it comes mainly on the responsibility of a single man as regards the Army and Navy respectively than if you dispersed it among a great number of people, because if you disperse the responsibility it is not real. What you want to get is some person who is really responsible for the time being to his chief. As far as I am concerned, form in this matter is immaterial. There have been times when perhaps there might have been at the head of affairs those who had a very strong constitutional inability to face the very painful facts connected with the modern situation as regards dangers to this country, which have made it undesirable cither that the whole Cabinet or the Prime Minister in particular should have this responsibility specially laid upon him. I, for my part, wish to disavow, on behalf of those who give attention to these matters, and think it our duty to do so, anything like, by thinking of war, being suspected of being less anxious for peace, or less afraid of the consequences of war, or more willing to incur them than other people. There is no member of the Peace Society in this House who has a more earnest desire for peace than I have. I have seen something of war, and those who have seen war, I am sure, would be the last who would desire to promote a warlike policy. But it seems to me the first duty of the House of Commons to lay this responsibility upon the political personages; and whoever may be those charged with the Government of this country, they are the
    472
    proper persons to be responsible to this House for the advice they give. There is, at the present moment, an exhibition taking place in London, in which a young Scotchman, who is almost worthy to be ranked with Rembrandt, has portrayed the horrors of war in a way that is accepted by us all. A horrible and squalid but pompous spectre is represented stalking across the picture, beating with one hand a great drum, whilst with a flaming torch in the other he is setting fire to the dwellings of the people. We all hate war, and there is no man who hates it more than I do. But to hate it ought not 1o drive us to refuse to consider it. The whole of this enormous expenditure of ours, by far the largest single branch of our expenditure, is worthless and useless expenditure altogether unless it is an absolutely reliable insurance against the dangers of war; and I do not think any man who watches the foreign policy of this country, however prudently conducted, can doubt that many of these dangers have increased and gathered in a kind of network which has been drawn tighter during the last few years than for a great many years before. I know some people in this House are under the impression that I am absolutely connected with one particular form of remedy which has been associated with my name in the public Press, and I wish to say that form in this matter is immaterial. I have stated what I want to secure, and I will put two or three different ways of securing it which very often would come to the same thing. What I ventured to suggest at first was that the Prime Minister should be brought to take more personal concern in the defence of the country than is the case at the present time; that he should consider himself mainly responsible for the joint consideration of the whole defence proposals; that he should hoar the Secretary for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and their advisers if he is doubtful, and that they together, more seriously than has been the case in the past, should go into the difficulties of the problem, and he should then advise with them as to the Estimates. It was pointed out to me that sometimes there might be a Prime Minister who would have a special dislike to the question, and any such meeting might become a form, and mean

    473
    nothing more than the present consideration of the Cabinet. There are some Members of this House who think because of recent events that I must entirely differ from the present Prime Minister. There are questions on which I do not agree with him, such as those about Egypt and the annexation of Uganda, but I am certain that our present Prime Minister can be trusted with this responsibility, and if he would take it upon himself, and let the country know that he, from time to time, would thoroughly go into this question with those primarily responsible to this House, the House would have confidence that a great deal has been gained for the joint consideration of this military and naval expenditure. But something more is needed, and there was another suggestion made— that a Defence Minister, a Minister who should represent the Army and Navy, should be the person charged specially with the responsibility to this House. That suggestion was made many years ago. It is the practice of all the Australian Colonies who, although they have the management of defences on a much smaller scale, nevertheless admirably manage that particular defence with which they are charged. It will be the plan adopted under the Federal Constitution of Australasia for the defence of Australasia. That plan has been suggested for us. It was proposed to the Hartington Commission by the Member for South Paddington, and the Commission voted against it. I do not think the reasons for deciding against it are satisfactory or conclusive reasons.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I did not recommend that.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: I thought the noble Lord did. At all events, the proposal was discussed by the Hartington Commission, and rejected by that Commission for reasons which were inadequate. The reason given against it, that such Minister would be overwhelmed with detail, is not, I think, a good or sufficient reason. He would undoubtedly be overwhelmed with detail if he tried to do what too many Ministers do at the present time; if he tried to answer every question or letter of every Member affecting the particular Department over which he presided. If he did the enormous amount of detail work which both the present First Lord of the Admiralty and
    474
    the Secretary of State for War do, no doubt he would be overwhelmed with work, and just as these two find it difficult to get through their work in the day, so he would find it difficult to get through his in the day, and would have to give the night as well. I am quite ashamed of myself when I have, on behalf of a constituent who is, say, a Yeomanry sergeant or something of the kind, to put some purely personal and private matter to find the great machinery of the Secretary of State for War has to be brought into play to give an answer in that matter. We should all prefer to have them set free to attend to the larger problem, and that some clerk should deal with this trifling matter for us. I do believe that in every Department of the State Ministers do a large amount of unnecessary work—unnecessary in the sense that other people could do it just as well—and the main work of that Department could be discharged by them without the enormous call upon their time and labour which is made at present. I doubt, therefore, whether the answer given by the Hartington Commission was altogether a sound one as to being overwhelmed with detail. I do not think it necessary he should be. I believe it should be possible that a Minister of Defence might, in connection with great experts and the permanent heads of the two Departments, having those under him who would discharge all the House of Common sand the House of Lords' work as regards detail—could discharge his duties efficiently and preside over both in chief. Put I am not wedded to a particular form. Whether the Prime Minister specially undertakes the duty, whether it is undertaken by a Defence Minister, or whether the suggestion is adopted which, I believe, is that of the Leader of the Opposition, that a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, which I have heard was instituted by the late Government, should be provided with a more avowed and distinct position, armed with permanent responsible advisers, and equipped with records so as to hand over its work to those by whom they might, be succeeded in Office — all these plans would come at the present moment to very much the same thing. I am certain the noble Lord at the head of the Government would personally charge himself with a

    475
    great deal of this duty, so that all the plans would produce the same result. They would give us what we have not at the present time—that joint consideration of the defences of the Empire which the necessities and needs of the Empire demand, and which is also forced upon this House, it seems to me, by the great amount of money we at present spend. I will not trouble the House any longer. I believe at this moment the House feels, with the Army especially, that on the whole question of defence there is an absence of responsibility to this House. Take the most challenged act connected with either Service of the last 10 years—the case of the reduction of the Horse Artillery by the late Mr. Stanhope. In that case I will ask anyone who remembers it, and what was said against it and for it, how it was pointed out how short we were already in artillery, and what reasons there were for believing this country ought to be specially equipped with artillery as a means of war. All those who remember that controversy must be aware that it was impossible to get at a very real responsibility upon that occasion, because we could not imagine that the Secretary of State himself, as an individual, apart from advice, would wish us to take his mere ipse dixit for the change. On the other hand, we were never able really to ascertain who had been the suggester of that change, and who would really make himself responsible for the result. There is in this country a very special danger with regard to our whole military and naval operations, and one which ought to be borne specially in mind when considering this great subject. We are a defensive country—a country which stands on the defensive. We are not a warlike country in the sense in which many other Powers are warlike, which are continually considering whether it may not be more to their advantage to attack and begin the war by an attack on another. That, from time to time, has been the position in the last 30 years of a great number of countries in Europe, each of which has been led by the necessities of their position to consider this question. We are essentially a defensive country from the point of view of a great war, and it would never enter the mind of anyone that we should take the first step in war. We stand purely
    476
    on the defensive. We have got a great deal and, like rich people, we want to keep it. But by the very necessities of our military position we are too much inclined to consider what may be called strategic defence as against a policy of mere defence. Our policy is a policy of mere defence, but in strategy—if we were to go to war against our will—we should have to follow the ordinary rules of war. We should have to find our enemy, attack him and reduce him in the ordinary way of war. Obviously with our Army and our small numbers that can hardly be expected to be a land attack. It must be expected to be a naval attack, and it will be by naval means we shall in all probability have to reduce our enemies in future war. There is this great danger. If you look on this defensive position as implying defensive strategy you fall into the danger pointed out by all great writers, you look upon your force merely as a shield, and so regarding the matter you must prepare yourself for defeat, for unless you are prepared to use it as a weapon to parry and repulse, you cannot carry out even a defensive policy. That is a special danger in our case. It points, of course, to the predominance of the Navy in our defence, and as one who tried some years ago, when I first began to consider this matter, to work on this question of the Army by itself as detached from the Navy, I very soon found I was on a wrong line. The naval school point to the necessary predominance of naval considerations and to the Navy being the attacking force. I do not wish in any way to interpose these views upon others who may support me. My main point is that I think I have established a sufficient ground for anxiety and sufficient call for remedy to make it worth the while of the House to give some time to the consideration of those particular remedies which I have ventured to point out.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,who rose to second the Resolution, expressed his satisfaction that this important subject had been brought forward during the tenure of Office of the present Secretary for War, who was an official as open in his mind as regarded military problems and fair dealings with the Army as any who had preceded him in his Office, and even if they were not likely to convince him they could feel that they were not

    477
    talking in vain, as they were appealing to a Minister who showed he took a keen and lively interest in the very important work of his Department. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) had always found the greatest difficulty to be contended with was this. People would say, the moment this question was raised, "It cannot be as bad as yon say, because in the past, somehow or other, we have always succeeded." That was not his reading of the past history of our military and naval forces. There had been many defeats and many operations of war which, though not defeats, had been failures from the point of view from which they were undertaken; there had been constant throwing out of plans and failure and dislocation due, and solely due, to the want of disorganisation in the great Department at home. As an instance of this he looked back to the Peninsular War, to the Crimean War—where £50,000,000 sterling were spent in repairing the errors of the Department— and to many of those expeditions mentioned by his right hon. Friend. He looked back to the Egyptian Campaign and the Afghan Campaign, and in all these wars there had been an enormous unnecessary waste of blood and treasure, in consequence not of a lack of courage on the part of the troops in the field, but of want of organisation in the Departments at home. He had never urged—as some people had suggested—that when British sailors and soldiers found themselves side by side they would not, owing to jealousy between the forces, make every effort to do what they were set to do—namely, to uphold the honour of our country and obtain the success of the war. Hut he pointed to defects existing, not as between the men in the field, but in the offices by which our armies were placed in the field and our navies on the ocean. Could any one for a moment contend that our military and naval expenditure was based on any reasonable calculation? The greatest maritime Power in the world spent £17,000,000 on its Navy and £10,000,000 on its Army. Could that expenditure be based on any reasonable and logical calculation of the different duties which those two Forces had to discharge, and their relative positions in maintaining the defence of the Empire? The fact was
    478
    that the tradition of the times of the great Continental wars had been continued down to the present day. But he knew that the present Secretary for War had expressed the view that the time had gone by when this country could hope to engage with success in the great military struggle of the Continent; and he hoped that the possibility of this country taking part in such wars in the future had been utterly discarded. He contended that it was impossible that this comparison of expenditure between the Army and Navy could be referable to any rule of logic and reason. Every item of naval defence was far more costly than the corresponding item for the Army. There was no item in the Army expenditure at all comparable with the cost of the matériel of a great battleship. Yet the country was spending three times as much on its Army as on its Navy, and it had spent four times as much. He was glad to believe that it was no longer the case that the Navy might not be mentioned when the Army was under discussion in the House. But he remembered the time when such a ruling was given; and that was a clear illustration of the attitude which had been preserved with respect to the relation of the two Services. It might be said that something had already been done, and that there was no occasion for alarm. He challenged that statement point blank. The Navy and the Army existed for one purpose only—to conduct successful war; and if they wore not capable of fulfilling that purpose they might, as well be abolished to-morrow. There was on record the deliberate judgment of the officials of the Army and the Navy, and of the leaders of opinion in the House, that by neither the Army nor the Navy at the present time was that object achieved. It might be thought that the Army was prepared to conduct those small expeditions which had to be undertaken from year to year. Had all those great officers of State who were employed for the purpose devoted their attention to that object? No; they had not. There was the statement made by one of the most responsible and justly-respected members of the War Office Administration, Mr. Knox, on the very question as to whether there was any provision made for providing battalions to take part in any expedi-

    479
    tionary force or a small war. Mr. Knox said—
    "The provision of expeditionary battalions to be sent abroad in case of a small war was a point which certainly was not worked out by Lord Cardwell's Committee, and no plan that I know of has been worked out by any Committee, or by the War Office with a view to meet that emergency."
    Therefore, for 20 years there had been no attempt to perform one of the most elementary duties of the Admiralty and the War Office. Was the country hotter prepared for a war on a large scale? He asserted that it was the deliberate judgment of one of the strongest Commissions which ever sat on the subject— Lord Harrington's Commission—that no attempt had been made to establish settled and regular communication between the Services, and that no combined plan for the defence of the Empire in any given emergency had ever been worked out. It was typical of the present way of looking at things that the Royal Marines—a force unrivalled in the world—were neglected both by the Admiralty and the War Office. They were deprived of their just number of officers and of promotion; they were disappointed in many ways which were keenly felt by officers and men; and they were not represented as they ought to be either at the Admiralty or the War Office. Yet the Royal Marines was the nucleus of the very force which a great maritime Empire which had its pathways on the ocean needed to do its work. It would be impertinent for him to suggest any remedies. But there were two or three remedies which had something to recommend them; and any one could see that the present order of things did not, and could not, afford an avenue of escape from the difficulties under which we labour. What was wanted, in the first place, was some arrangement by which a proper organisation for war might be set on foot. In the second place, there ought to be means by which the country could be informed if such an organisation did not exist. Time after time, a condition of affairs in naval and military matters had been disclosed such as the country would not have allowed to continue for six weeks if it had known of it. Time after time, naval scares, promoted from outside, had pointed to the necessity for
    480
    additional expenditure on the Navy. Lord Northbrook objected to the plan of making a single officer responsible to the House of Commons, but Lord North-brook was the last person to speak in defence of the existing system. He could remember the time when Lord Northbrook stated in public and private that no expenditure on the Navy was necessary, and that if £2,000,000 were given to the Navy he should not know what to do with it. He remembered also that 10 mouths later Lord North-brook had asked for £11,000,000 for the Navy to enable it to go to sea. There had been in the meantime a popular agitation about the Navy which forced the administrators of naval affairs to take this action. The scale of preparation for war was more adequate in the Navy than in the Army. Nevertheless, at the time of the Russian scare an order was actually sent to a distinguished naval officer to report on the best means available for the defence of our coasts and the protection of the shipping in the Channel. This plan, which ought to have been prepared months before, was written by the officer on the spot; and the Report still existed. This, too, was in view of war with what was then a fourth-rate naval Power. There was practically a consensus of opinion among naval and military officers that some definite responsibility must be attached to some individual with regard to the defence of the Empire. The recommendation was made in the Report of Lord Hartington's Commission that such a person should be appointed, and appointed for a sufficiently long term of years to enable him to learn his work. This was not a novel proposal. It was carried into practice in nearly every country which had to conduct its defence on a large scale. It existed in Germany, Russia, Italy, and France—the same result was aimed at by the constitution of the "État Major." Parliament was told certain facts sometimes on the responsibility of Ministers, but what was stated did not represent all the facts; and what was wanted was that Parliament should know something in addition to the modified and political view of defence questions which came through Ministers, as, for example, what the naval and military officers who had to fight in case of war thought of the subject, and what were the military

    481
    and naval needs of a given situation. He was in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Baronet that Parliament should make it an absolute sine qua non that some permanent responsible adviser should be established whose position should be authoritative as far as stating what were the naval and military needs. Great and most vital as was the question which had been raised last year in connection with Ireland, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the matter which they wore now discussing was of even more transcendent importance. he believed that they were doing their best to incur such a disaster by land and sea as would strain all the tremendous powers of recuperation even of this great country. It would not be unworthy the attention of the House if hon. Members gave their impartial judgment, sympathy, and interest to make it possible that Parliament should no longer continue to pursue the policy of appointing Commissions. They had got beyond the stage of Commissions, for every known fact bearing on the matter had been accumulated. They needed some strong man who would move in the matter: and he believed the Secretary for War was able and desirous to take that initiative in this movement if properly supported by hon. Members, which if taken might lead the country out of this Slough of Despond in which it now was. He begged to second the Motion.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "This House, before voting supplies for the maintenance of Military establishments in the United Kingdom, seeks an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the Estimates for that purpose submitted to it are framed upon consideration of the needs of possible war by sea and land, and upon a consideration of advice tendered in that behalf by such Officer of each Service as is fitted to command in war Her Majesty's forces of that Service,"—(Sir C. W. Dilke,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD E. CHURCHILL: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman who spoke last into the wide area of naval and military service which he has traversed in the course of his speech,
    482
    and by doing which he has rather led the House away from the most interesting and, in some respects, most advantageous argument which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean adduced in his very comprehensive speech. But the fact of the matter is that I do not think the right hon. Baronet quite grasped the relations of Parliament to the Government or the relations of the Government to Parliament. There is no real responsibility— no practical responsibility—on the part of the Minister or Secretary of State to the House; and, unless we go back many years, there is no record of a Vote of Censure upon that Minister, which would involve, of course, the fall of the Administration. No Vote for the Army or Navy has ever been negatived that I can remember, and voting against the Estimates in any force is hardly known. Everything asked for has always been granted. I want to know, therefore, how we can get any Parliamentary control if it is the regular practice of Parliament to vote the sums demanded without making any effort to ascertain the information on which the Minister made his Statement. We have never been able to do that, and never shall be able, so long as the civil management of the Services continues. So long as Ministerial responsibility and naval and military responsibility are not directly connected, and the Services are not able to make their opinion officially known, not only to the Minister of the day, but to the Government of the day, the House of Commons will never have sufficient knowledge to enable it to decide whether the Government is right or wrong in its changes or in the supplies for which it asks. That has always been my belief, and I have heard much of these matters, notably on the Hartington Commission. Members know little of that Commission, because they have not seen the evidence, which was given on condition that it should not be published, and to read the Report without knowing the evidence is to be hampered in arriving at a decision. The right hon. Baronet dealt largely with certain operations of the Army, and he rather criticised the military system in India. I can say on authority which I cannot now name that the British troops in India have never been more efficient or more lit for service on the frontier.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: What I said was that the Army in India, though small, is admirable, but that the Indian Government are not satisfied with the system of administration, including the system of despatch of troops, its cost and efficiency.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The Indian Government have always been anxious to place British troops on a stronger numerical footing, but I know of no dissatisfaction on the part of the Indian Government with the system of sending out regiments to India. The troops go out with great regularity to India; they soon settle down to the climate, and soon become efficient. Certainly this was the case under the late Commander-in-Chief, and I believe that the present Commander-in-Chief is quite equal to keeping the troops in India in the same state of efficiency. The maxim Si vis pacem para bellum does not command approval if it moans that in times of profound peace, when it is difficult to discern from what quarter war may come, the country is to get into a panic, to change its existing system without due deliberation, and to spend large sums of money without sufficient thought. I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet that the question whether our present system for the management of the Army and of the Navy ought to be altered deserves the serious consideration of any Administration. I think the object of any Administration should be to find out the best method in which to associate more closely the professional or the military element with the responsibility of the civil element, and until that is done there can be no responsibility with regard to the administration of the War Department towards the House of Commons. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at all a useful influence in controlling the Estimates of the War Department, for there is no joint communication on his part with the Services as to their needs. At any rate, I have never hoard of any organised scheme of joint communication, although the adoption of such a scheme has been recommended by a very influential Commission. One great deficiency in the existing system is that Cabinets never get military or naval advice directly. I think that is the greatest fault in our system. They receive it
    484
    through the Minister for War and through the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it is quite possible that those Ministers may have opinions of their own opposed to those of their advisers. That was the case with Lord North-brook. The Cabinet never know the naval position until there is a great outcry. Professional opinion never reaches the Cabinet at all. This is why I think a Committee of the Cabinet would be rather dangerous; for it would interpose a further obstacle between the Cabinet and the experts. The plan providing for control over the Services by a Committee of the Cabinet does not appear to me to be satisfactory except in some special cases. Nor do I think that the Prime Minister is the proper man to have practical superintendence over the Services and their management. The Prime Minister ought to form his judgment, as he does now, on the Report of the Ministers responsible, but to bring him into close and constant communication with the War Office and the Admiralty would interfere with the ordinary duties of the Head of the Government, and prevent him from obtaining the acquaintance he ought to have with the views of the other Departments. I do not agree with the idea of a Civil Minister looking after two Departments. The right hon. Baronet charged me with having been in favour of a Civil Minister to do this. I never was. It would be impossible to have a Civil Minister to superintend the Admiralty and the War Office; it is not in the power of man to discharge such a work. What I propose, and what the more I think of it the more I favour is the appointment of a Finance Minister, who might be called Treasurer of the Army and Navy, who would hold a high position, and be in constant communication with the Heads of the two Departments, so bringing them into closer connection than is the case at present. This official, for weeks before the Estimates are prepared, would find out what each Service required, would balance the respective claims, and would present to the Cabinet not only the civil, but the military and naval opinions brought before him. There would thus be useful inter-communication between the Cabinet and the professional element. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would always have his voice in what the

    485
    expenditure should be, but such a Treasurer as I suggest would certainly have great authority with the Cabinet, before whom he would place what long and careful investigations would show to be the military and naval wants of the country. As a rule, the practice of Governments is to make the Estimates of one year very much like the Estimates of the year before, and Cabinets as a rule, I think, do not give much consideration to the Army and Navy. They take it for granted that what the respective Ministers say is right, and they will never be able to get real information until naval and military responsibility is represented by such an officer as I have suggested. Until this is done we shall go on spending much about the same sums year by year, and there will be the same annual complaints that the Services are not sufficiently provided for. I much wish the Government would appoint a small Commission—there is plenty of information ready to hand — to examine into the schemes suggested and draw up a plan. Then it would be possible to make some real progress.
    SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, the question they as Representatives of the people, of the country, and the guardians of the Public Purse had to ask themselves was whether the money granted under these Votes was properly represented by the results they got. That really was very closely connected with the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. It had been said by both previous speakers, and truly said, that this whole raison d'être and object of their military and naval expenditure was for the purpose of war. If that expenditure did not place the Army and Navy in a position adapted to the exigencies of war then, obviously, they had no cause to have either a considerable Army or a powerful Navy, and the point he would submit was this—Did the House and the country get full value for their money, looking at the two Services as means for the purposes of war? He would say at the outset that he had himself the greatest personal detestation of war. He did not speak as a Jingo, he had seen too much of war not to know that there were innumerable blunders committed in it: that a great deal depended upon chance, and that very often the exertions of gallant troops and good naval officers were frus-
    486
    trated either by the incompetence of Generals or by mal-administration at home. No reasonable man could allege that these things could always he avoided. They spent upon the Army about £17,500,000 a year, apart from the expenditure on the Army in India. The House voted that sum. How much of it could it be said was available for purposes of war? The only establishments which we kept up which could be considered for purposes of war, either offensive or defensive, apart from the questions of garrisons and the Colonies, and of undertaking petty expeditions and obligations which the necessities of the Empire imposed, were the Militia, the Yeomanry, the Volunteers, and the Reserves. These Services together cost about £2,250,000 out of the £17,500,000 total net expenditure. They, therefore, had an expenditure of £15,250,000 representing the normal peace outlay of the country. No doubt if this expenditure furnished them with a machine which on an emergency arising was ready to pass from a state of peace to a state of war it might be said, and very fairly said, that it was perfectly justified by the objects in view. Rut our Army, he regretted to say, was a peace Army, and nothing more than a peace Army. It would require to be entirely reorganised and reconstituted to make it an Army efficient for the purposes of war. That was an important point for consideration. It might be said that they had a powerful Reserve. He was glad to know that the Reserves had now been brought up to 85,000 men. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office on that satisfactory result; but he wished to draw attention to the fact that that Reserve of 85,000 men was far from being a Reserve for war purposes. All they could do with it would be, not to bring the Army up to a condition at which it would be fit to make war, but simply to furnish a nucleus upon which they might proceed to build up a military war system. He would explain how he arrived at that conclusion. The House was no doubt aware that our regiments were on a very attenuated scale. Our Cavalry regiments, if they were wanted for active service—as all military men acquainted with the subject would tell them—would not, after making the necessary deductions that it would be

    487
    necessary to make from the nominal strength in order to arrive at what would-be the strength in the field, would not amount to more than 250 or 300 sabres per regiment—a mere handful of men. Our Infantry battalions, which were nominally 750 strong after deducting recruits, sick, depôts, and guards, would go into the field 400 strong, or mere skeletons of corps. A proof of that was to be found in the little manœuvres, such as those which took place in Surrey and Hampshire. They showed how weak the regiments were. The Artillery were probably in a better condition; bit they, too, were on an attenuated scale. On an outbreak of war 45,000 men of the Reserve would be required at once to bring the regiments up to the proper strength, leaving out of account how they were to keep them supplied so as to make up for the waste of war. That took away 45,000 men of the Reserve. It left 40,000, which would be required on the outbreak of war for service in India. They heard a great deal about the efficient state of the Indian Army. He was happy to think that it was efficient—a most efficient Army so far as it went, but it was an Army entirely on a peace footing. It was an Army without reserves or depots, and which had been largely reduced during the last 40 years. It had been increased somewhat in regard to British troops, but its whole strength had been greatly reduced during the past 40 years. Meanwhile their Indian territories and responsibilities had increased in every direction. They had now in India territories as big as the United Kingdom and Franco and Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Sweden; the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a tract a great deal larger than Europe if they deducted Russia. This territory was occupied by a garrison of about 200,000 men; there were hostile tribes on the frontiers, and beyond the frontier on the North-West there was a great possible source of danger. For that country they had, as compared with the enormous forces in Europe with the garrison in England, an Army on a peace scale. If they were called on to send a force to the frontier—and he would not say that that was a liability which it would be political prudery to ignore—the utmost force of British troops we could send
    488
    would be 30,000, leaving 40,000 in India, a number altogether too small to hold that country in the state of excitement which would inevitably arise. Even that force could not be sent out unless they were sure of receiving immediate reinforcements from England. Therefore, India and England would at once absorb the whole of the Reserves. He did not desire that they should add one additional soldier to the Army or that they should spend £1 more on it than they spent now. On the contrary, he believed that the Army cost now a great deal more than it ought to cost for the results which one got, and he contended that for a country situated as we were, with all our enormous responsibilities in every part of the world, with all the responsibilities that might come on us at any time, they ought to be provided with a system under which they would be prepared when the occasion arose to pass at once from a state of peace to a state of war. The country and the House ought not to be satisfied with less than that. At present we had no such system nor any assurance that it would be introduced. The Report of the Hartington Commission stated that in the broadest way, vet nothing had been done since the publication of that Report. What was wanted, beyond all doubt, was that there should be somebody responsible to the War Minister for the preparation of a scheme of defence—an officer prepared, by a long and careful study of all engagements, and liable to at once put the Army on a war footing. There was no one of that kind at present at the War Office. There were, no doubt, a number of essays written from time to time by officers more or less irresponsible suggesting operations in the Baltic, in the Black Sea, in the Caucacus, and elsewhere, but nowhere at present had the Secretary for War a properly worked-out scheme which would enable the Government, if, unhappily, the country was drawn into war, to satisfy themselves that they had at their hands the best means of defence in a complete form. It had been said that the creation of responsible officers behind the Government would be to take away from the responsibility of the Government itself. The idea always had been that the Minister for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty should be entirely responsible for

    489
    everything down to the smallest detail. He thought that Parliamentary responsibility had often been carried too far. Now, he would put it to the House, how was it possible, especially in these busy days, for anyone, be he ever so experienced, to give his services to that House afternoon and night, and at the same time to carry out matters of detail and careful work involved in applying the military means at the disposal of the Government to the needs of the country? After all, what was the policy of the Government? Parliamentary responsibility simply meant that if things went wrong the Government was turned out. What satisfaction was that to the country, which wanted to know that the supplies they freely granted should be turned to the best account? For that purpose, both in regard to the Navy and the Army, there should be some high authority which should be definitely responsible to the Government. To everybody who took the trouble to ascertain it was well-known that although the nations of Europe were now on friendly terms, they did not keep up and increase their gigantic Armies for the purposes of peace. He recognised with gratitude what had been done by the Secretary of State for War during his short tenure of Office. But there had been a most important change made in the last three years at the War Office under which what small responsibility which was left to individual officers had been taken away. Under the new system the Commander-in-Chief had been made nominally responsible for every detail of military business. No man dare write a letter from the War Office in his own name. He quoted the name of the Secretary for War. He challenged hon. Members to produce any record of the War Office to the contrary. That system of centralisation must ensure absolute failure in ease of war, and he was afraid that unless there was a reform before war broke out they would undergo some great catastrophe. He did not say that he believed the British nation would ever go under in any war. He believed that, under any circumstances or trials, we should win through to eventual success; but what he did feel was that they would only achieve that success after a great and needless waste of blood and money, which might have been
    490
    saved if in times of peace this country, and those who were responsible to this country for its expenditure and for its business, had devoted some reasonable share of their time to work out and settle in a satisfactory way this grave and most important problem.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not mean to detain the House for more than a very few moments. But the reference which the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean made to me in moving the Amendment which is now the subject of our discussion perhaps makes it desirable that I should just explain to the House what my views are upon this important question so far as I have myself ventured to formulate them. I may, however, premise what I have to say by making the admission to the House that the actual method by which our common object is to be carried out appears to me to be surrounded with difficulties, and that I find it much easier to criticise the various schemes that have been propounded than myself to propose one which shall be absolutely free from objections. However, I think I am absolved from arguing the main proposition, which has been so ably laid before us by the various speakers who have preceded me. No one has ventured to get up and say that there is not a grave necessity lying upon us at present for co-ordinating our forces for ensuring harmonious action between the Navy and the Army, and for preparing those plans for military defence—I use the word "military" as including both the Army and the Navy—which every nation in the world prepares in time of peace, and which I rather suspect we have not, at all events, got in any advanced state of preparation. If that general proposition be conceded to me, and if I am absolved from arguing it, I will confine myself to a very brief consideration of some of the plans for meeting the difficulty which have been propounded. First, and perhaps the most apparently plausible of all the schemes, is that of a Minister of Defence—a Member of this House or of the other House—who shall be responsible to Parliament for the general defence of the Empire. My objection to that scheme arises out of this consideration: I cannot quite see what is to be the relation between this Minister of Defence and the Heads of

    491
    the Army and Navy. If you thought it desirable or practicable to reduce the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister for War to the position of Under Secretaries, then I think the position of a Minister of Defence would be a possible one. But I do not think you can administer your Army or your Navy by men under the rank of Cabinet Ministers. I do not believe the Services themselves would tolerate it, and, though it is true that under our system of Parliamentary questioning and answering, and under the system under which every constituent, however remotely connected with either Service, justly thinks he has the right, through his Representative, of obtaining some reply to his communication direct from the Minister for War— though, I say, under that system the Minister for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty are obliged to consider details which had much better be loft to their subordinates—still I think the broad fact remains that you must have at the head of your Army and your Navy men responsible to the House and the country for the conduct of their Departments, and men who shall not be under the rank of Cabinet Ministers. If that is so, what position is your Minister of Defence to have in relation to these two great officers of State? The position appears to me to be impossible. Is he to walk about between the Admiralty and the War Office, consulting now with the one and now with the other? Is he to be responsible for the Navy Estimates and for the Army Estimates, and, if not, how is he to be responsible for the defence of the Empire? By this proposal to set up a third officer of State who is not to be at the head of one Department or the other, you are endeavouring to construct a machine, with the best intentions, that cannot be expected to work satisfactorily. Some objection of the same kind, I think, attaches to the suggestion thrown out by my noble Friend near me, who speaks upon this matter probably with an authority second to none in the House, and who has given very great attention to the question. His proposal, as I understand it, is that a Finance Minister should be appointed who shall be neither the First Lord of the Admiralty nor the Secretary for War nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it appears to me that, although he is not to
    492
    be one of these three officers, he will, as it were, take out of the hands of each of these officers some essential part, of his work. How could a Chancellor of the Exchequer propose a Budget to his colleagues when a third of that Budget is settled for him by another colleague in the same Cabinet? Whore is this military financier to get his figures from? He must get them from the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister for War. Just as I think he will take from the Chancellor of the Exchequer part of the responsibility which attaches to that officer, so he will take away from the Minister for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty part, of the responsibility which properly attaches to their offices, because the man who decides on the finance of the Services decides the policy of the Services. If the Finance Minister is really to be responsible for the expenditure of the Army and of the Navy, you may call him a Finance Minister, but he will in reality be the controlling authority both over the Army and the Navy. Then there is a third proposition, or rather there are two other propositions which are separate but, which I think should be considered together. There is the suggestion that the Prime Minister should himself undertake the business in conjunction with his colleagues at the Army and the Navy, should make himself acquainted with the general problem that has to be dealt with, and should make himself responsible for the solution of that problem; and then there is the plan which I regard as essentially different—namely, a Committee of the Cabinet. That the Prime Minister should himself take the whole burden on his shoulders must depend upon what else he is called upon to do. I cannot imagine that anybody who is, for example, both Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary should, however exceptionally endowed with physical and mental endurance, have also time to go into the details of national defence. With all the amount of work which the Foreign Secretary is called upon to do it is impossible that any single Minister, of ordinary or even exceptional mental and physical powers, should undertake so important a matter. Under these circumstances, I should imagine he would associate with himself a Committee of the Cabinet, of

    493
    which he should, when present, be Chairman, and should throw upon shoulders less heavily weighted than his own the responsibility for the advice given to the Cabinet. That is the only possible way which I can see of keeping the Members of the Cabinet in touch with the military and naval exports. Some gentlemen have talked as if it was desirable to leave the solution of these questions to experts. It appears to me impossible. Do what, you will, under a system of representative Government and Parliamentary responsibility, the ultimate weight of the decision must be borne by civilian Members of the Cabinet and by the Government. I do not see how you can escape from that. I quite admit the obvious anomalies of a civilian being responsible for the treatment of questions with which he has little familiarity, and making himself master of principles which are commonplaces to a soldier and which he will have laboriously to learn. Grave as the objections are to such a course, I think-that, it' we are to keep Governmental responsibility, we must make up our minds to submit to them. I do not talk of this House having control over the Estimates or otherwise. I think discussions in this House may be a useful check upon Ministers and Departments, but we are now talking business, and as men of business we know perfectly well we cannot lay down what is or what is not necessary for national defence. We know perfectly well that as a body of men sitting speaking within these walls it is absurd to expect us to utter an opinion worth having in regard to any far-reaching scheme for dealing with the defence of the Empire. All we can do is to express our views and leave them to be carried out by responsible Ministers, giving them the machinery by which the duty which we cast upon their shoulders may be by them adequately fulfilled. How, then, do I think a Committee of the Cabinet is the only method of bringing the Cabinet itself into touch with expert opinion, and, through the Cabinet, giving the House practically the best advice and information they can obtain on these subjects? The answer is this: A Committee of the Cabinet such as I contemplate is not merely one of those passing bodies called into existence to
    494
    deal with a particular question and passing out of existence when that particular question is decided. I rather contemplate that the Prime Minister, with or without his colleagues, or a Committee of the Cabinet, with or without the Prime Minister, as the case may be, should constitute themselves a body with permanent records and confidential advisers. That is what we want. The Minister of a Department makes it his business to inform his successor exactly how matters stand in the Department and what questions remain unsettled: and if they are two gentlemen of common sense, they will find it possible, however sharp their political differences on questions connected with the Department, to come to a perfect agreement, so as to preserve that continuity of administration which happily characterises our Government, whatever Party be in power or whatever changes the political wheel of fortune may bring about. If we conceive some organisation of this kind—a Committee of the Cabinet, expert advisers, permanent records—then you would ensure at all events that the Cabinet, who are the ultimate depositaries of power in this matter, shall have brought to their minds the real difficulties of the case, the real problems which they have to solve, the real necessities which they have to meet, and the best way of meeting them. Then it will rest with them to say whether they will take the whole advice which is given—advice, of course, always involves corresponding expenditure—or whether they will take part of the advice, or, indeed, what plan they will adopt. Some gentlemen have suggested that, where in any case the responsible advisers of the Committee of the Cabinet differed from the Cabinet, they should have the right to publish their opinion, so that the House of Commons, having the case of the experts put before them in a Memorandum, and the case of the Government in speeches by Ministers of the Crown, should decide between the two and make up their minds to which they mean to adhere. I see advantages in this plan, but I see great difficulties also. It appears to put everybody concerned in an almost impossible position. I am afraid that we shall have to address whatever Government is in power. I do not see how you can

    495
    possibly have two Governments in power. You cannot have two Ministries, one sitting in tills House and the other a set of permanent officials sitting in an office. You must have one Ministry, and that one Ministry must be responsible to this House, and I do not see how they could carry out their work if the rivals sitting at Whitehall had the power of making direct communications to this House, and the House deciding by their votes as between the Ministers and the officials. The House will see that I profess to possess no clear-cut or perfectly satisfactory solution of this great difficulty. I recognise all the pitfalls which lie on either side of the path; but I do believe that, without either revolutionising our Parliamentary system, without altering the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, without doing anything which could injure the susceptibilities either of the Army or the Navy, it would be possible by some such changes in our Cabinet system or some such addition to or modification of our Cabinet system as I have suggested, to bring home so clearly to the mind of the Ministers of the day the real dangers and necessities connected with the problem of national defence, that no Government, having the facts before them, would dare to ignore them; and we might rest secure, not only that the Government had the best advice at their disposal, but that on the whole, so far as was consistent with their general policy, the advice of the competent advisers was likely to be followed.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The tone and character of the speech to which we have just listened, and of the speeches which preceded it in this Debate, may suffice in themselves to indicate the great importance of the question raised by my right hon. Friend. He brought forward with great ability and clearness what he conceives to be a want in our present system of Government as applied to questions of national defence, and my right hon. Friend has made suggestions in a moderate and tentative way which I, for one, shall not be disposed lightly to put aside. My right hon. Friend, rather, I suppose, by way of disparaging my opinion, said that I was an optimist. I presume an optimist is one who
    496
    prefers to look on the sunny side of things. I have done that all my life, and I hope I shall go on doing it. My right hon. Friend said I was an optimist with regard to the old lines of Army administration; and I ventured to shake my head. My right hon. Friend in his speech made no distinction between Army organisation and Army administration. So far as Army organisation is concerned, I am an optimist to such a degree as I shall explain when I introduce the Estimates in Committee of Supply; but I am not an optimist in regard to the question of Army administration, because, as much that I have done and said will show, many things exist with respect to which there is great room for improvement. So far as observations have been made upon the Army system by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and by my right hon. Friend, I think that those observations were suitable rather for the Debate which will follow this on the Army Estimates themselves. When I hear wholesale denunciations of our present Army system, when I hear that the Government of India disapproves of it, when I hear that it produces inefficiency in all quarters of the world, and that it would be so easy, for the same money, and without adding a single man, to produce something very much better, I cannot but remember all the schemes for that purpose, including some, I think, by my right hon. Friend, which I have seen analysed in a ruthless manner and pulled to pieces, the expense of them calculated, and the conclusions that were come to respecting them. Having seen all those schemes, many of which may in themselves have a more logical and complete appearance than our present system, which is undoubtedly a mixed system adapted to many ends, I much prefer still to abide by the system we have and to make the best of it, rather than to adopt any of those great changes which have been suggested. I merely say that as the question of the Army system has been introduced. But the real question which is before the House now is whether we, by our present arrangements, have that unity of policy for the defence of the country which is necessary. Abundant allusions have, of course, been made to the Hartington Commission of 1890. It has been said

    497
    that that Commission condemned in the clearest terms what has been called the existing system. Yes, the system which existed in 1890; but my right hon. Friend and others who take that line forget that four or five years have elapsed since that inquiry. I can assure them, of my own knowledge and on my own authority, that many of the events and facts which impressed the minds of the members of that Commission, of which I wits a member, are now quite impossible, in consequence of the arrangements that are made for consultation and cooperation between the two Departments. I will give an instance at once, because a concrete instance is sometimes more effective than a general statement. The instance is one which was brought before the Commission, and greatly impressed me at the time. In providing for the defence of a certain foreign station, works had been erected at great expense, and no doubt with the greatest propriety from the point of view of the advising military officer, for the purpose of guarding a certain approach to a main fortress, But when the works had been completed, and when the opinion of naval officers came to be taken, the naval officers said that the approach was one which no seaman with a head on his shoulders would ever think of going up, and therefore the whole of that work was practically thrown away. This is an example which shows the sort of danger we were incurring at, that time; it is an instance of what we were liable to under the old system, but it is impossible now. We have a Joint Naval and Military Committee, comprising the most eminent professional officers in each Department, who consult and deliberate on every point in regard to the defence either of the shores of this country or of any foreign station. Beyond that, there is the most perfect co-operation, even on those questions of high military policy which have been referred to between the high officers of the two Departments. So when I heard to-night hon. Members saying that there is absolutely no scheme for combined defence or operations I wondered from what source those hon. Members derived the information which was the basis of their confident assertions. But I am one of those who agree with my right hon. Friend, and with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that
    498
    we ought to go further. After the criticism which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has passed upon the two proposals that have been made-one for a Minister of National Defence, and the other for a sort of treasurer, I think be was called, who was to sit with a Captain-General of the Army on one side and a Lord High Admiral on the other side, and to dispense all the justice he could between them—as to these two suggestions I need not say much. Neither of them recommends itself to me. My right hon. Friend, in introducing this subject, said the Minister is at present too much encumbered with details. I am not one who fall into that error; but the particular details to which he referred, the letters received about all sorts of apparently trifling matters, are not, I think, to be entirely disregarded, because really it is only by being brought into contact with details that a Minister can know how a Department is proceeding and have his mind opened to a great many higher questions which otherwise would escape notice. The great objection that was brought at the time of the Hartington Commission against the present system was this—that you took a pure politician, who knew nothing of Army matters or of Navy matters, and put him at the head of the Army or the Navy. It was asked, How can you expect such a civilian to be an efficient head of the Army or the Navy? And the odd cure suggested is that you should take another politician—one equally ignorant of both Services—aud assign him the duty of managing them both. That plain statement of the case is enough to condemn the proposed Minister of National Defence without going further. I will not proceed to discuss the alternative of the treasurer, with a naval and a military adviser on either side. As the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not see where his place would come in. The head of each Service ought to be of Cabinet rank; but I do not see what the position of the treasurer would be, because when he turned away from his Captain-General and his Lord High Admiral, he would have to face the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who might have something to say to his decisions; and it would be very difficult to adjust the proper hierarchical position

    499
    of each of these three officers. Then I come to the proposal, which certainly is much more practical, and commends itself much more to me, that there should he more definite control on the part of the Cabinet over the administration of the two Services. In the latter part of his Motion the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has a clause with reference to professional advisers which I do not quite understand, and of which I am a little suspicious. I think it would be desirable— in fact, necessary—that the Ministers for War and Marine and the Prime Minister, acting as a Committee of National Defence, should have the amplest information from the highest officers of the Army and the Navy as to all points of detail. But I should be slow to exalt these professional officers into any position which would give them higher standing with reference to the Committee of the Cabinet. The Committee of the Cabinet, if it knew its business, would freely ask their opinions, just as a Minister in his own separate Department does now: he would be a poor administrator and a foolish man who did not consult his professional advisers, or who sought to override them in matters upon which they were infinitely better able to form a judgment than himself. At the same time, the thing we must keep hold of is responsibility to this House for the spending of public money. The persons who must be supreme in these matters are the persons who find the money and who have to pay for the service. However much I should be disposed to pay deference to professional opinion, from one Service or the other, I hope that nothing will be done or suggested by the House of Commons which will detract not only from the responsibility, but from the absolute power of Ministers over that which involves so large a demand on the Public Purse. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington said that at present there was no responsibility on the part of a Minister to Parliament. He asked who over heard of a Minister being impeached or censured. But I may point out that if a Minister enters upon a foolish course, he is very soon made to feel that the House of Commons does not approve of it, and he will not persist in it. He wall, in fact,
    500
    avoid it in the future. He is here in touch with those who represent the taxpayers, who represent public opinion in the country. In that sense he is responsible as much as any man can be. The noble Lord suggests that we should have a naval officer at the head of the Admiralty and a military officer at the head of the War Office; but what responsibility would they he under to this House if each was absolutely supreme in his own Department, and if the Minister representing each Department in this House was either on a level with them or inferior to them, or a mere clerk or treasurer? With the plan which the noble Lord suggested there would be very little responsibility here, because the Minister would be really acting under the advice and direction of others; and they would not be here at all, so that the House of Commons would lose its control over the whole business. The noble Lord seems to be impressed with the view that pure civil control in these Departments is an evil. One cannot imagine a, civilian Minister altogether exceeding the bounds of his duty by disregarding the advice received by him; but a civilian Minister who knows how to administer a Department is probably the best head of it, better than a professional head, because he brings to the consideration of professional 'questions a little of that outside feeling which professional officers are sometimes too ignorant of. I can assure my right hon. Friend who brought the Motion forward that I personally sympathise with the object which he has in view, in as far as it is to bring about a more direct control by the Cabinet over these great Departments, and in as far as it means greater unity of policy. I do not agree with the view that this Committee of the Cabinet should determine what share of expenditure should go to each Service, as though it were so many spoonfuls of pudding. It should rather determine the respective parts to be played by these Services, and the distribution of the money would follow the definition of those parts. In this sense I express general agreement with the object which my right hon. Friend has in view. I entertain almost identically the opinion which has been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. When we touch the Cabinet and its organisation we get into a very ethereal region; and I am not

    501
    sure that it would not be a great innovation to have a permanent Committee of the Cabinet with the records kept and undertaking all the duties which have been ascribed to it to-night.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: Minutes are kept now, are they not?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must not answer. It would be most improper for me to do so. But, reserving my opinion as to the precise form which this more unified system might take, I am generally in sympathy with the view of my right hon. Friend.
    MR, BRODRICKsaid, that one point raised by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had been rather missed in the general review of the subject. A Committee of the Cabinet to be called together only, as hitherto, on points of dispute between the Army and the Navy was not even a large part of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He desired a Committee which would actively exert itself to see that the relations between the two Services with respect to their organisation for war were properly treated. After all, almost the greatest difficulty under which the Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty laboured at present was that presented by their relations to the Treasury in matters of detail. In matters of principle there; was a direct appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who might he trusted to exercise a fair judgment on the points laid before him: but many of the points which were raised in the House of Commons, and which seemed most unreasonable, were due to the manner in which the Treasury controlled the details of administration both at the War Office and at the Admiralty. Those details frequently involved an absolute control over the principles of administration. For instance, the Secretary for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty were not allowed either by the House or by the Treasury to grant a single sixpence as pension except under certain Rules, and yet when they wanted work done they could go and expend £10,000 or £25,000. Not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer could relieve the Secretary for War from the disabilities of that magical day, the 31st of March. On that day the money voted for the Army, if not spent, was taken to pay off the National Debt.
    502
    Thus, if certain Services which the House of Commons might have declared to be necessary were not completed by the 31st of March, they could only be carried out at the expense of the Army generally, for the money voted to those purposes would be appropriated to the payment of the National Debt. These points connected with the control of the Treasury ought not to be left out of consideration by the right hon. Gentleman when deciding upon the remodelling of the organisation of our forces. There had been Committee after Committee appointed on this subject, and there was the Report of the Hartington Commission. He hoped the light hon. Gentleman would not wait for further inquiries, but would be able to announce during the present Session that the question had at last been put on a satisfactory basis.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman had included the Navy in this pernicious Resolution he must say a word. He was glad to find that in his indictment the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had said very little but what was complimentary of the Navy. He was bound to say he had not found a single naval officer— and he had consulted a great many—who shared the views of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman bad not proved his case. He had not in his excellent speech advanced a single fact to show a want of co-operation between the Army and the Navy when an emergency demanded such co-operation. Indeed, he had run away from his guns, for although in a letter he had published he had said he wanted a Minister of National Defence, he had said scarcely a word on that proposal in his speech. Naval men were perfectly satisfied with the present system: and they would not approve any system of official co-operation between the two Services which would put naval interests in the background. They must not hamper naval men in the discharge of their duties. Lord Darlington's Commission reported that no European Power had united the administration of the two Services under one Minister, and that all the naval witnesses whose evidence they heard were unanimously of opinion that under such a system the interests of the Navy would suffer. A clever civilian might grasp

    503
    military affairs; but in naval matters, so much technical and scientific knowledge was required nowadays, the civilian politician did not exist who could properly discharge the duty of Minister of Marine alone. The Secretary of State for War had that evening alluded to this point at great length, and had shown that the Cabinet had at its command the power at any time to summon distinguished men together and to take and act upon their advice. There were many distinguished officers who by the Rides of the Service had unfortunately had to retire at the age of 65. Some of these might well be called upon to form a Council. That being so, he contended that it was unnecessary for the Government to upset the present system, and to introduce any of the newfangled notions now put forward. So far as he could gather from personal conversations he had lately had with officers holding very high positions in the Navy, the criticisms of the Service were favourable to his contention—that the old system worked well. Naval men alone were qualified to pass really trustworthy criticism on purely naval matters; and where difficulties arose involving military as well as naval questions the Government should at once appoint a Joint Committee, whose Report should be very carefully considered and acted upon by them. It was well known that this course was adopted before the Crimean War and the Egyptian Expedition were entered upon. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman now before the House might find favour among certain politicians, but it would not be accepted by those who were practically acquainted with the internal economy of either branch of the Service. It was not the business of politicians to interfere in matters relating to that branch of the Service at all. And he therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to upset a system which now worked so advantageously.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, he cordially approved what had fallen from the Secretary for War and from the Leader of the Opposition. This was by no means a Departmental question. There were other Departments of State, as well as the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury, which must be con-
    504
    sulted before taking any new steps in these matters. There was the Colonial Office, for example. In the Colonies we had an organization numbering between 60,000 and 70,000 men, including in those figures their incipient infant Navy, and he contended that in any change which would directly affect them it would only be fair—and, indeed, it would be necessary —to consult the opinion of our colonists before passing such a measure. It was impossible to put with safety all this power in connection with the defence of the Empire into the hands of one person. This fact alone constituted one of the difficulties of limiting the responsibility as now proposed to one Minister.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLANDsaid, he thought that he was right in assuming that he must couple the statements made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean before the House that evening with the expression of his views that he had set out in a letter not very long ago on the subject which appeared in The Times and which attracted a great deal of public attention and comment. In that letter the right hon. Gentleman took exception to the present system of administration with regard to both the Services, chiefly on the ground that under present conditions there was not sufficient Parliamentary responsibility in the sense that two Ministers who now sat in the House had not complete control over both branches of the Service, and did not act together. That was a grave accusation to bring against both the Army and the Navy Executive, and he thought that some very strong and cogent proofs should have been produced by the right hon. Gentleman in support of such a sweeping statement. No details had, however, been given. The right hon. Gentleman told them he was not going to discuss details, but how were they to prove any system in the world not to be good or bad if they declined to discuss details? What he personally wanted to know was whether his right hon. Friend considered certain parts only of the present system at fault, or whether he wished to contend that the whole of the present system was irreparably bad? He thought he could show that the present system was better than the one proposed. He could not see himself how the present Parliamen-

    505
    tary organisation could be improved upon. The two branches of the Service were now represented by the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty respectively, and the two jointly constituted the Cabinet Committee of Defence. The First Lord of the Admiralty had the assistance of a number of Naval Lords. The Secretary of State for War had to advise him the Commander-in-Chief. As these two Ministers were on a footing of equality in the Cabinet, and were of the same political Party, they had every incentive to work successfully and harmoniously together. No proof had been given that the system had failed. The facts, indeed, pointed in an entirely opposite direction, and he therefore objected to the idea that under the present régime these two representative Ministers did not work hand in hand, and that strong pressure, to ensure their doing so ought in future to be put upon them. An objection had been taken by that high authority the hon. Member for West Belfast that some of the field battalions were kept too long on peace strength. To keep up the effective strength of the battalions when no war was expected would be distinctly wrong, and therefore the present system could not be blamed on that ground. We already had one Army Corps, and, thanks to the Reserve, we could in two or three months raise another Army Corps, but England was not going to invade a Continental country. Soldiers were needed in this country for little wars and for a land frontier, as in Canada and India. Canada might be put out of the question; but we had one Army Corps and a prospective Army Corps to be established as in the case of a Russian invasion of India. Was it alleged that this was not sufficient? The right hon. Baronet had written a book on the subject of Imperial defence, and in it the right hon. Gentleman had stated a view with which he concurred, and what he believed was the view of the most competent military authorities, that in the event of war on our Indian frontier it would be necessary to supplement the Army of India with two Army Corps, and it was in view of that situation that two Army Corps had been fixed as the standard to be attained in our Army. The hon. Member for West Belfast said that he wanted more detailed information; but for what purpose? Was it proposed
    506
    that strategical plans drawn up by the War Office should be published to the world? The fact that the Member for West Belfast did not know of them was no proof that they did not exist. The only advantage of Inning any plans at all in connection with the Army and the Navy was that they should be kept secret, so that when war was declared the authorities might he able to act upon them and put them to practical use. The hon. and gallant Admiral who last spoke told them such plans existed at the Admiralty, and he had no doubt the same system was adopted at the Wan; Office. Reference had been made to the German Army. No doubt the Chief of the Staff in the German Army was a useful person; and though it might be of some advantage to have one official to make out plans and to work them out in practical detail, it must not be forgotten that when this was accomplished the officer did not tell everyone about those plans, but kept them as secret as he could, He did not agree with the Member for West Belfast, that Ministers of Defence existed on the Continent. Though the German Emperor was the Minister of Defence for Germany, it might equally be said that in the same sense Her Majesty was the Minister of Defence for this country, because technically she was at the head of the British Army. But below the German Emperor there was a Consultative Committee of three, and they represented practically what in the Navy were the Lords of the Admiralty. In the whole military history of the world recently there was only one instance in which a Minister of Defence, on the lines now proposed, had been appointed. That was by the? American Government in the last century. It was found to be such a dismal failure that the post was abolished. The only object in having a Consultative Committee composed of two professional officers, a military and a naval, would be for the Army officer to give his advice in naval, and the naval in military, affairs: he submitted this was preposterous and absurd. In the reign of Charles II. the mistake was made of placing a. Cavalry officer at the head of the Navy and an Admiral in charge of the land forces, and it was not likely we should repeat that error.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: As the Leader of the Opposition has taken a first step towards the attainment of the object I have in view, and the Secretary for War has expressed as clearly as official reticence renders it possible his concurrence in the view of the Leader of the Opposition,. J shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

    EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE SOLDIERS.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that in drawing attention to the Notice of Motion standing in his name he felt that he ought to apologise for calling their attention to rather an old worn subject; but as it was of such vital importance to the Army, he thought he had right on his side in doing so. He thought it was as important to find the men for the Army as to elaborate schemes such as the one they had just heard for dealing with the men when they got them into the Army. And he was the more inclined to do so because the present Secretary of State for War had shown a benevolent sympathy towards them when they had earned the right, as Reserve men and discharged soldiers, to obtain employment. If the right hon. Gentleman were in his place he should have been glad to have congratulated him on the recruiting Return that had just been issued, because he believed the condition of the recruits and the satisfactory state of the recruiting department was largely due to the right hon. Gentleman, who had greatly improved the condition of the private soldier in barracks, in regard to his clothing, his sea kit, and comfort generally, and by so doing had caused recruiting to look better this year than for a considerable time past. The question to which he desired to call the attention of the House was not one of sentiment, but purely one of business. The War Department had got to find 40,000 recruits every year; it had got to get them from somewhere, because, unlike the Continental countries, ours was a volunteer and not a conscript Army, and the result was, that in order to get recruits, they had to prepare a trap. A good deal of that sort of thing had been done during past times; but whilst the right hon. Gentleman had been in Office
    508
    matters had considerably altered, for which the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to the thanks of the Army. But one thing, and that one of the most important, had been practically omitted from the consideration of the War Office in this matter, and that was the employment of the Reserve and discharged men, which was a matter insisted upon by every Inspector General of Recruiting, from Lord Cameron down to General Fielding, who was now Inspector General of Recruiting at the War Office, and the matter had been alluded to by every man on Lord Wantage's Committee, about which they had heard so much two years ago. It was a patriotic necessity, and would have to be done sooner or later. The condition of things appeared to be that practically about 30,000, more or less, took their discharge annually; of these about 17,000 went into the Army Reserve. These figures were approximately correct, for 600,000 men during the last 20 years had been discharged from the Army. The question that presented itself to some of them was what had become of all those men. If they believed the statements of General Booth, which did not gain universal credence, they found that something like 10 per cent. of them formed the corner men in the streets, but certainly every man who kept his eyes open could see that, a very great proportion of the men on tramp and those taking refuge in the casual wards were Reserve and discharged soldiers. The condition of these men was most miserable; they could not get employment owing to the fear that employers entertained of their being called out; they could not emigrate, as that would render a Reserve man liable to prosecution, and therefore they were allowed to starve on 6d. a day, as it was not, enough to keep than in a decent condition or to get them proper food. A manufacturer, as a rule, would not take on Reserve men because they were liable to be called out on service, and there was another feeling that, if the Government would not do anything to find places for these men there was no reason why manufacturers should put themselves out of the way for that purpose. There were, however, some notable exceptions: some of the railways largely employed Reserve men, amongst them the London and North Western, and the London,

    509
    Chatham, and Dover, and some large manufacturers in London. One large firm of manufacturers in the Midland Counties, represented in this House by a gentleman sitting on the other side, was honourably distinguished in its employment of Reserve and discharged soldiers. He would ask how it was possible to carry on recruiting under favourable conditions while thousands of discharged soldiers were going about the country decrying the Army and advising their friends not to enlist? An old soldier— and nowadays a man was an old soldier at the age of about 25—went amongst his people and said, "I enlisted; I was promised a free kit and rations, and got neither. When I took my discharge I was unable to obtain employment; I am nobody's child; I am a wanderer on the face of the earth, and I would advise you not to take the Queen's shilling." They did not ask that the Government should find a berth for all these men as Directors or at the Bank of England; but they might do something, and he would point out what he thought they might do without expense, and afterwards what they might do in another way that would cause a little extra expense. They might find more work than they did for these men at Enfield and Woolwich. Something like 12,000 workmen were employed at Enfield and Woolwich, of whom about 4,000 were labourers, and these places could lie very well taken by Reserve and discharged soldiers. They all knew that a Return was recently issued—one he moved for himself—showing the number of Government Offices which might be filled by old soldiers, but which was not filled by them, these posts being occupied by the nominees of gentlemen who had no connection with the Army. There were various berths that might be filled by old soldiers at Kew Gardens, the National Gallery, and the British Museum. During the late Government the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Post Office, the Member for Manchester (Sir J. Fergusson), took a step which was cordially approved by men connected with the Service. The right hon. Gentleman gave employment in the Post Office to Reserve and discharged men. But after the retirement of the right hon. Gentleman that arrangement was allowed to lapse, and he knew he
    510
    was light in saying that during the last three months only some 5 per cent. of the Reservists had found berths in the Post Office. He believed very many of the, Postmasters wished to put their sons into the telegraph messenger service, and then promote them to postmen, but that was not the intention of the late Government and the Postmaster General at that time. He would venture to point out what he thought the Government should do. They ought to establish a central bureau at the War Office, having branch offices at all the depôt centres, where a list, should be kept of the names of these men, so that they could thus obtain work when they wanted it. It would not, cost much to have these offices all over the country, and the Government might also strengthen the hands of existing Associations that found employment for Reserve and discharged soldiers. Except for a small grant, from the Government, these Associations were supported by voluntary contributions; they had found employment for 4,000 of these men last year, and they had found employment for 12,000 soldiers during the six years they bad been established, and had enabled them to earn an aggregate of wages amounting to something like £750,000. He thought these Associations were worthy of more support than they got from Her Majesty's Government, and he failed to see why the Government should not support them more than they did by an extra grant. In foreign countries they found that, every non-commissioned officer, after 15 years' service, was entitled to a berth under the Government, and in Germany there were 70,000 berths which soldiers could obtain under the Government. In Austria-Hungary something like 15,000 soldiers were employed on the railways, and he could not understand why the Government should not adopt some system of the kind in this country. he could not understand how it, was that the House could vote large sums of money with a light heart for objects not so important as this. Only last night the House voted £60,000 for the ranges at Shoeburyness when they ought not to require a tenth of that sum. Though the Secretary for War had done much, he thought he might do more. The right hon. Gentleman was the first War

    511
    Minister who ever advised the Treasury to give a grant to an Association for finding employment for discharged soldiers, and when he came into Office again six years afterwards he increased the grant; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only use the great influence he possessed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would he able to still further increase the sum. By so doing he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not only earn the gratitude of soldiers and the men who represented them in this House, but would be giving the greatest support to recruiting all over the country, and earn the gratitude of the British soldier all over the world. At this time of the day he did not wish to detain the House further, and would simply move the Motion standing in his name.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid, he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend as to the want of employment for Reserve and discharged soldiers, and the deplorable effect the want of employment must have on the recruiting. In walking through London he was frequently appealed to by men who bad served with the Colours to get them employment—men who bore excellent characters. There was also another matter closely connected with this subject, and that was the great number of men who were employed in fatigues in their garrison towns and largo camps—men who were serving with the Colours. He did not think any hon. Member could go to Aldershot or any garrison town without finding a large number of men employed in fatigues; not military fatigues, hut in weeding gardens, looking after the wash house, and other duties that were not military but civilian, and women's duties. It was with great regret that he saw men employed in that way and taken from their military work. How was it to be expected that a commanding officer could get his men ready for inspection and field days when half his men were taken away for these duties? They did not clothe men in the Queen's uniform for these domestic purposes, but to make soldiers of them, and to train them for that purpose. It bad struck him, and he made this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that many of these unemployed men in the Reserve could he used in their large camps and garrison towns to carry
    512
    out what he might call civilian fatigues. At the present moment they were paying: men in the Army Reserve 3d. a day for practically doing nothing. A man left the Guards after three years and served nine years in the Reserves; in the Line he served five years in the Reserves: to call out all of them would take 40 years, so that it was obvious they would never all be called out; therefore, it came to this—that we were paying 6d. a day for the problematical chance of requiring their services in the event of war. He would therefore suggest that they should pay them a little more and make them do some of these ordinary garrison and camp fatigues. The advantage of that would-be that they would have the whole of the men serving with the Colours available for drill, musketry, and military duties, so that the commanding officers would be capable of turning out a proper fighting machine: and, secondly, a great number of Army men would not be travelling about the country contracting bad habits and advising people not to enlist, but who would be in touch with military life, and who could be trained in the use of the new rifle. In this way they would not have on field days and at inspection a number of what he might call amateur gardeners having in their hands a rifle of which they knew nothing. Another advantage would be that it would greatly relieve the labour market in London and our large towns. They heard a great deal about the unemployed, and these were made up in great part by Army Reserve men; therefore, if they found employment for these men in fatigue duties, they would to a large extent relieve the labour market. He begged to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words,
    "This House deplores the want of employment among discharged and Reserve men, and calls on the Government to remedy the evil by strengthening the existing voluntary institutions or forming a bureau at the War Office for that purpose,"—(Major Rasch,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    CAPTAIN BAGOTthought that in this matter

    513
    what they required was more than general sympathy. Last year the inquiries of British attachés at Berlin and Paris and in Austria and Italy showed that the Continental system worked exceedingly well. In Continental countries they had a, regular system under Government for giving employment to well-behaved old soldiers and sailors after a service of a certain number of years with the colours; and if they in this country were to do anything to popularise the Army and to induce a better class of recruit to join the Service it would be by adopting the Continental system. But he found that out of 7,860 places which the Government could fill with messengers and clerks only 417, or about 5 per cent., were filled by old soldiers or sailors of good character. In 1877 Mr. Childers's Committee recommended strongly in favour of some alteration in the existing state of affairs with regard to the employment of old soldiers and sailors, but, so far as he saw, nothing had been done to carry out its recommendations. As an example of some places that might be filled by the Government with such men, he would mention that at the British Museum since 1887 30 messengers had been appointed by the Government. In this and any other Public Department an old soldier or sailor would be well fitted for the position of messenger, but out of the 30 so appointed not a single one was either an old soldier or sailor. It might perhaps be said that the majority of the attachés, to whom he had referred, were soldiers, and might be supposed to be one-sided in favour of those who belonged to their was profession; but the Minister at Be the, Sir E. Malet, was not a soldier, and in a letter accompanying his Report he wrote that if such employment were assured in the United Kingdom to soldiers of good conduct, the general public would gain largely through the increased efficiency of the Departments, as old soldiers of good character worked exceedingly well. That was the testimony of a civilian as to the advantage the Public Departments would gain by the appointment of these men. On the Continent there was conscription, but the British forces were entirely voluntary, and if they wished to obtain good recruits they must offer them some inducement; and if the men knew that
    514
    by good character they would obtain a situation when they left the Army, it would be an inducement to them to be have well while in the Army, as well as an inducement to enter it. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them an assurance or something more definite than mere general sympathy.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend who brought forward this Motion that I am able most sincerely to repeat my expression of sympathy that seems to be thought of so little value—not by him, as he was much too kind in the way he spoke of something I was able to do, and gives me credit for a good deal more than I have been able to do. At all events, I am extremely glad to be associated with him in obtaining employment for Reserve and discharged men in the Army. I have great sympathy with all that is said as to the desirableness of employing old and discharged soldiers, but I would caution hon. Members not to press it too far. I do not think it possible to give an absolute pledge of employment; I do not believe it would be possible, and it might he dangerous to convey the idea that such a pledge had been given. It must be remembered that old soldiers—and I say it as one sincerely their friend—do not monopolise all the claims to the charitable and benevolent consideration of the public!; there are many others in the community who have to be considered. We have gone as far as we can in the way of employment under Government Departments. Some of the instances mentioned, where it is thought more might be done, do not relate to Government Departments at all. I imagine that those persons employed at the British Museum are employed by the Trustees of the Museum. Then we are shown the example of Germany and other foreign countries who provide huge numbers of places for old soldiers. Yes, but there the whole of the railway system and many other large public sources of employment are in the hands of the State, and they can employ whom they like, whereas in this country there is only a limited number of posts to which old soldiers can be appointed in the Public Departments. Allusion has been made to the Post

    515
    Office and what was done by my right hon. Friend opposite, the late Postmaster General. There has been no going back from anything that has been done, and from what I have heard on inquiry not many weeks ago I am satisfied there is just the same proportion of Reserve men and old soldiers being employed in the Post Office as was the case a few years ago. One thing I confess I have an objection to—namely, that in order to encourage recruiting in the Army, Post Office messengers or boys should be promised further employment in the Department if they went into the Army and served their time there as soldiers. I do not think that is in accordance with the voluntary system of service which we have been accustomed to in this country. Though not quite a kind of conscription the practice forms really a species of practical compulsion of service, and I do not think that is a good or proper arrangement. We should remember that oven in the Post Office when a vacancy occurs for a messenger or in any other capacity the Department has to consider the claims of their own servants as well as the claims of old soldiers. From all the inquiries I have made I am satisfied that a full chance is given for employment of old soldiers in the Post Office at the present time just as existed a year or two ago. Then as to what we can do for Societies in this matter. The War Office gives a contribution towards the Society which undertakes the business connected with outside employment; but from the best advice we can get from those who are best acquainted with the matter, we are opposed to going further, and establishing a bureau at the War Office. It is thought that a bureau at the War Office would be an isolated office—that there would be very little practical acquaintance with the circumstances of each case, and that you can better employ the agencies of a private institution which would offer a chance of employment on the spot to old soldiers who sought it. I have been somewhat struck with some figures I have received on the subject. To begin with, let me quote this from a very strong advocate of the employment of old soldiers. General Feilding says that from reliable sources of information it is believed there are no large numbers of soldiers who have been discharged from
    516
    the Army with good characters and of sober habits who have not been able to obtain employment of some kind after their discharge. That is a very strong opinion coming from a General Officer who is as intimately acquainted with the subject as any one I could mention. And the figures he quotes are these. There were registered in the local registers of the Association within the year 6,775 men for employment; of those 3,824 were offered employment, and 2,914 accepted it, while 847 declined. It does not appear from that that want of employment arises from a lack of opportunity of getting it. The War Office gives a contribution towards the Society which undertakes this business connected with outside employment, and on a very wholesome plan. We give to it half the amount that the public have subscribed to it in the previous year. I think that is a very good test of the healthiness of the Society we are supporting, for it must receive considerable public support before we grant anything. That is the foundation on which we have gone and will continue our contribution. We will do all we can, and personally I will do all I can in the way of finding employment in other Departments, but we must not be too sanguine of results on a great scale. I am sure the wish of every one in the House is to see full justice done to these old soldiers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite suggests that they should be employed in connection with the camps. But that would only be for a short time in the year, and would not afford any very large amount of employment. The Government will keep their eyes and ears open, and if in any way assistance can be rendered I shall be only too ready to help. But hon. Members must dismiss from their minds the idea that in this country we can ever possess such a power as is possessed by the Governments of other countries—the power of finding places for all the men who have served their country in the ranks of the Army.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, it was evident there was a strong feeling—which he knew that the right hon. Gentleman shared—that if any step could be taken for the employment of old soldiers either in the Reserve or only partially employed, it would be of great

    517
    service to the Army and to the public. No doubt it was extremely difficult to make progress in this matter. The employment of old soldiers in the Public Offices remained practically where it was four or five years ago: and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that, looking at the subject as a whole, practically no progress had been made during the last few years. At the same time, he must urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that there was room for taking up this subject in a more active manner. My right hon. Friend had given some particulars in this matter, but whether with regard to his own administration or that of his predecessors certainly the policy was the same. As the Select Committee of 1877 had been alluded to, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite this question. Since that Committee reported 17 years had passed: and though efforts had been made by himself, as by his predecessors, to get employment for old soldiers and sailors, they had not been quite so successful as could be wished. They did not object on that side of the House to a Select Committee being appointed by this House, not to inquire into the whole question, but to inquire how far the suggestions of the Committee of 1877 had been carried out, what remained to be done by the Government which had not been done at the present time, and what had been done by private enterprise in this matter; and also to inquire into the question of the establishment of a Labour Bureau, either in connection with the War Office or in connection with the depots. He did not wish for a moment to press his right hon. Friend or to force his band. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had the subject fully at heart. He knew also that this was but one among a number of Public Departments, and that they could not control others; but a point had been reached when some further inquiry of a limited scope, which need not occupy a very long time or involve the examination of any great number of witnesses, would be advantageous to the Army. Such a step would take away from private employers great responsibilities, while enabling them to carry out a great duty, and would give an assurance to the public that employment would be found for old soldiers. Every patriotic English-
    518
    man ought to do his best in furtherance of such an object.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can only say, in the first, place, that I will turn the suggestion over in my mind, but I scarcely think the matter is pressing enough to justify such a step. Perhaps I may add that one of my colleagues has informed me that a messenger-ship having become vacant in his Office, he has declined to present an old butler, and has decided to recommend a retired soldier, and he has written to the War Office for that purpose.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, this was a question of great importance to the large towns throughout the country, and the Government Departments ought to set a much better example. In a great many large towns labour bureaux had been formed for enabling retired soldiers to obtain employment, and everything possible had been done to render them assistance. Although the right hon. Gentleman had done a great deal in this matter by doubling the official subscription to the head Society, it was hoped he would see his way to do more still. Between 1887 and 1893, out of 945 Government messengers appointed, only 324 were retired soldiers and sailors; and out of 6,915 clerks only 93 were formerly in the Army, Navy, or Royal Marines. That was a very small proportion indeed. It was not only in the War Office, Admiralty, and Treasury Departments that such appointments might be made, but the messengers about the House might also be selected from deserving non-commissioned officers and those who had retired from the Army and the Navy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman during the period that he remained Secretary of State for War would find himself able to do a little more than he had done in the past, and confer thereby great advantages upon the country and the Services. Every man who obtained employment on leaving the Services was an advertisement and an encouragement to recruiting. Seeing that good berths were obtained through the good offices of Government Departments other young men were induced to join the Army and Navy by being told by the retired men that after passing a pleasant time in the Service, and having done their duty to their country, if their con-

    519
    duct had been good the Government would take care of them.
    CAPTAIN GRICE-HUTCHINSONagreed that to further this object would be good for recruiting and for the good of the Army in general. How often it happened that the soldier realised that his years of service had been wasted, and that on leaving the Army he found himself without resources of livelihood. It was absolutely for the well-being of the Army that some steps should be taken in the matter, but he would suggest that there should be some alteration made in the system of deferred pay of the soldier in order to induce him to remain in the colours, instead of bribing him to go out of the Army. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would take this into consideration, for he felt that any alteration made in that respect would be for the benefit of the Services.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed.

    MOBILISATION.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODdesired to call attention to the organisation necessary for more rapid mobilising of the forces for home defence and the training of the Reserve. That question had not received the attention it deserved, and was well worthy of consideration by the House. Our Army was our second line of defence. Though it was small, we were spending about £18,000,000 a year upon it, and there was no reason why it should not be thoroughly efficient in all its departments. The reason why no great anxiety was shown in military matters was because the nation at large believed that all necessary measures were taken up to the requirements of the Army. He pointed out that the scheme of mobilisation existed only on paper, and had never been put to the test in any way whatever. The invasion of our shores seemed so improbable that people seemed hardly to recognise that such a scheme was essential to our safety as a nation. All the stores of clothing were concentrated at Pimlico. Could the Secretary of State for War assure him that it was sufficient for the wants of the whole Reserve force? Could he assure him
    520
    that all this clothing was marked for its destination, ready to leave the stores at Pimlico at once? To ask that all the Reserve forces throughout the Kingdom should be mobilised at once would probably be asking too much; but he asked that the scheme should be tested in one district. If the light of public opinion was thrown upon it much good would result. Mobilisation was really organisation of forces in readiness for the field—i.e., bringing up the units to war strength. No doubt our present system was a good one, and a great deal of time and attention had been devoted to it by experts. The late Mr. Stanhope had said that we had a scheme of mobilisation which we could act upon tomorrow if there was any danger of invasion. It was difficult to persuade the public that there was anything to fear in that direction, but that was an event possible at all events, and some actual working scheme of mobilisation was necessary for our national safety. Let the Secretary of State take any district he liked, give orders to the general officer commanding to mobilise at once, let the general officer issue his instructions by telegraph, and then the scheme would be submitted to a practical test, and they would be able to see how the system worked and where its failures were. They would also be able to test the system of the centralisation of stores, at Pimlico. He did not believe that they would; be able to get the stores out in time. They should always count on the possibility of mistakes. They had heard of mistakes in connection with our small wars, when a different ammunition from the ammunition required would be sent out. These mistakes showed that the centralisation of stores would hardly bear the strain put upon it in a time of great national danger. In close connection with the matter of mobilisation were the questions of the ammunition used by the Volunteers and the different patterns of machine guns in use. He would urge on the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War the necessity for taking those matters into consideration. The question of the training and exercising of our Reserve forces was also an important point for consideration. At present the training was not carried on as efficiently or on as broad a plan as it ought to be, especially when compared with the

    521
    system adopted by military nations on the Continent.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would appeal to the House that we should now go into Committee, because in the statement I intend to make I can reply to the various points that have been raised.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

      ARMY ESTIMATES, 1894–5.
      [Sir J. GOLDSMID in the Chair.]
      1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 155,347, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of treat Britain and Ireland, at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I cannot proceed to the duty of submitting these Estimates to the Committee without referring to one sad subject. We all look instinctively to the vacant place on the other side of this Table, which on the last occasion when military questions were under discussion was occupied by one who for several years had taken a prominent part in these Debates. I will not attempt to renew the panegyrics which at the moment of our loss were so truly and worthily passed upon Mr. Stanhope, but no one has better reason than I, who succeeded him in Office, to appreciate the amount of abiding advantage which the Military Service of our country gained from his intelligent administration and from his untiring zeal and devotion. The year which has passed since J last discharged this duty has been comparatively uneventful, and I am fully aware that these Estimates present few features calculated to draw attention to, or to excite a lively interest in, military administration. I remember that on the corresponding occasion last year I openly disclaimed for myself any intention of being an active innovator. I said that the Army had within the last 20 years passed through a great series of alterations, reforms, and now developments, and that, in my opinion, we, having arrived at something like a fixed system,
      522
      and a system which in its main lines commended itself to the best and most experienced men, so far as I am aware, it was now better to leave that system in the main to its natural working, while, of course, taking care to watch for every opportunity of amending it in its minor details, if the necessity could be shown to exist. Having been strongly in favour of the changes of the last 20 years, and believing in the newer Army system, I am sure that the best way of securing its success is to follow the course of confirming and consolidating it rather than to initiate at present any new departure. But I can readily believe that there is one feature in these Estimates which may seem to require some explanation. I mean the evidence which they display of growing expenditure. It may be asked why the Committee should be invited to vote tin addition to an expenditure already so great, and whether it would not have been possible to meet, by some modification of these demands, a part of the great increase in the cost of the naval strength which the circumstances of the day are generally considered to require. The first consideration which presents itself in that matter is, how far does the one branch of expenditure take the place of the other, and, secondly, does our land force in itself admit of a reduction? It is not the case that by increasing the Navy you necessarily diminish the necessity for Army Estimates. In fact, in many respects, it is the reverse, because the larger the fleet and the wider the ditties it has to undertake in the protection of trade, the heavier in some respects becomes the charge upon the Army Estimates for the protection of harbours and coaling stations, both in men and in works, as well as in armaments for their protection. In this respect one is not in the least an alternative of the other, but rather its necessary complement. But if the naval expenditure was a mere absolute addition to our defensive strength, has it been carried so far as to supersede the necessity of any part of our land force? Our land force is no longer undetermined in the way it was 10 or 20 years ago. I remember the time when practically we went by rule of thumb in these matters. There was no fixed principle as to the purposes for which or the mode in which the

      523
      strength of our military establishments should be settled, and, accordingly, when any financial pressure occurred such as that which has recently presented itself, it was deemed the easiest thing in the world to take £500,000 or £ 1,000,000 from the Army Estimates and to reduce the Army by 10,000 or 20,000 men. There was no fixed actual standard, and therefore, in a light-hearted way, a reduction was made. The establishments were reduced one year and raised another; the reserves of stores were freely drawn upon, and, as all the figures were arbitrary, this was a very easy process. But a swift Nemesis followed upon every such occasion, and Vote of Credit after Vote of Credit showed the result of this mode of treating the Estimates. I am happy to say that that arbitrary and happy-go-lucky system has been discarded. Military science has advanced immensely of late years, but there is no science which has advanced more than that of Army organisation. We know now exactly what we have got to do and what we require, and those of us who are able to look back 20 years will recognise that that of itself is an immense stride. Now, what is it we have to do? We have to defend these Islands, we have to garrison India, we have to garrison the colonial fortresses, and we have to provide for the small wars which we have periodically to undertake. The three great purposes are the defence of these Islands, the defence of India, and the defence of the Colonies; and the question has often been raised whether for these purposes we should have three Armies or one. I am strongly in favour, of having one Army for all purposes, because the variety of its service gives if experience and efficiency which it would soon lose under other conditions. We have had Committee after Committee and Commission after Commission to determine how this one Army is to be constituted, and with reference to the organisation of Infantry this one principle has at all events been laid down, that the great thing to bear in mind is that our establishments at homo should be equal and continuous. By close inquiry and calculation we have found what force is required in this country to maintain drafts in order to keep our foreign Army in a state of efficiency, and we have arrived at the knowledge of the particular
      524
      proportion which the unit at home ought to bear to the drafts which have to be sent out annually to support the unit abroad. Then, considering the strength at home, I think that I may state, as the conclusion of the most competent authorities, that it is desirable to maintain in this country a movable force of about 80,000 men, or two Army Corps, for the purpose not only of making invasion impossible, but of making the very idea of invasion impossible. I think the Committee will agree with me that, although it may be a very good thing to be able to defeat an invasion when it is attempted, it is better still to maintain such a force that no one would think of attempting to invade the country, and that is, as I understand, the available force which is supposed to be necessary to accomplish that object. I mean, of course, a force of regular troops apart from the Militia and Volunteers, who would be largely used, as is known, for fortresses. I do not think that that is an unreasonable force, and our system is to make this force, so maintained, available for contributing to the foreign force, and to rely upon a moderately short service for a reserve to fill its ranks with seasoned men. That is our system, and it does not admit of that haphazard treatment which was possible in the days when we had no fixed system at all, and when everything was dealt with as occasion arose. This same policy has been followed with regard to stores. Each fighting unit has its fixed complement of stores, which are, or ought to be, ready for use at the proper places. 1, of course, do not refer to the large quantity of stores that are easily improvised, but the others ought to be ready for use at their proper places, and storehouses have been provided for the purpose. This process, however, has not yet been completed, but towards its completion we are steadily moving. I have been asked what is to be done in case of mobilisation, and, as I have said, we are moving towards a more complete system. Mobilisation has not been confined entirely to paper; it has been tested for the first time this year. In May last the greater part of a division of the field army was brought together under the commanding officer for the South-Eastern District. The Reservists, however, were not called out, for the obvious

      525
      reason that there is no legal power to call them out in such circumstances. The Regular troops were on a peace footing, but their equipment was mustered, if not issued. The operation was not complete mobilisation, because neither in personnel nor in matériel was it on a complete war footing, but it is a beginning, and a fairly satisfactory beginning. I mention this because it is at least something to have tried the system, and how different it is from anything we were accustomed to in former years. I ask myself, therefore, are we justified, because of financial pressure, in undoing this scientific system and reproducing the undetermined provision of some years ago? If all this force is on too large a scale, if the best authorities were to say that it is unnecessary, if the Navy, for' instance, were increased and were to guarantee absolute immunity from invasion, then we might dispense with what is superfluous. But we have no such assurance, and we have no such belief: and I know too much of the subject to propose any off-hand reduction, which, because it is not based on any fixed principle, can only lead in a short time to waste and inefficiency. I hope that anyone in my place will always lie ready to watch for any opportunity for economy, but it is because I honestly believe that inconsiderate reduction would merely lead to greater expenditure shortly afterwards that I have been forced to ask the House to furnish me this year' with so large a provision, a provision greater than that of last year, in consequence of some circumstances which we hope may be temporary in their nature. I regret to say that when I speak of the fixed and reasonable system on which the Army is organised, I cannot present it to the Committee as approaching perfection. I am well aware that it is far from perfect, especially in one particular, to which I referred last year, and which, I am sorry to say, remains as great a defect now as then. I refer to the unequal distribution of battalions between home and abroad. I expressed a hope last year that in the course of the year I should manage to equalise the battalions here and abroad, but unfortunately we have not been able to bring from Egypt the additional force which we thought was only temporarily sent there in the beginning of the year. If this state of things were to remain permanent we should be forced to con-
      526
      sider the costly cure of increasing the number of battalions at home, of adding battalions to the Army; but, having regard to the natural tendency of expenditure, as exemplified this year, to swell and develop, I hope we may not be driven to so extravagant a remedy. The total net amount in the Estimates is £ 18,080,900, showing a net increase of £278,100, and the increase over last year in the number of men is 905. Let me show how this is made up. There is an increase in Infantry of 539, which has been rendered necessary by the larger depots maintained to supply more men for service with the colours with the additional force in Egypt. In the Artillery there is an increase of 100 men, caused by the dividing of the companies of garrison artillery into a smaller unit; they were doubled with a view to efficiency and economy, and the companies were adapted to particular stations with more or fewer officers as was found necessary. For the sake of convenience, in reliefs especially, it is found better to have smaller companies. There is an increase of about 100 men in the Royal Engineers, the greater part of which is for an extra company for the Ordnance Survey in order to carry on more quickly the work of the survey in England. The money effect is shown on page I of the Estimates. There is an increase in regimental pay and provisions of £56,000. The Vote for the Army Reserve, which has been steadily increasing, accounts for £5 4,900. There is a sum of £2,400 taken for the drilling and training of the Army Reserve, which will so far satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend; although a modest sum, it. is in the right direction. The Militia, which has been exceedingly flourishing, accounts for £40,000 additional. The Volunteers, who, especially during the fine summer of last year, went into camp in large numbers, are estimated this year to cost £ 18,000 more than they did last year. The rise in the price of forage and coal accounts for £88,000. There is an additional annuity for the repayment of loans under the Barracks Act of £43,000. I must call attention to the fact that these annuities will go on increasing until the year 1910, when, if any of us remain, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that this liability is liquidated. There is a decrease on small arms principally of

      527
      £20,400, and on the non-effective service of £30,000. The real cause of the total increase may be said to be full establishments and some advance in prices. I have said in my Memorandum that recruiting is satisfactory—that is to say, we obtain all the men we require. The number of men recruited in 1892 was 29,238, and last year 25,788, a number which fully met our requirements. In the earlier part of the year, as has been stated, we absolutely did away with special enlisting, but afterwards it had to be allowed, although it was laid down that there should be a reference to headquarters before recruits were passed into the Army. We have achieved something in the reduction of the number of special enlistments—that is, enlistment of men under the standard. The percentage of these to the total number of recruits, which was 30·6 in 1892, was reduced to 22·3 in the year just ended. As for the result of the recruiting, there are two passages in the Report of General Fielding which may be quoted with satisfaction. In paragraph 19 he said—
      "It is gratifying to find that, in spite of the experiments made, in reference to the raising of the standards of age for the cavalry regiments serving in India, the standards of height for the Brigade of Guards and for the gunners and drivers of the Royal Artillery, and the restrictions on the enlistment of recruits under standard, the numbers of the rank and file were, on the 6th of September, the day previous to the departure of the first drafts for India, practically up to the number voted for the British establishment; in other words, the Army was as full as it could be."
      And in paragraph 27 he said—
      "Although there were 6,464 fewer recruits passed into the Service in 1893 than in the previous year, the ranks were fuller by 1,580 men on the 1st of January, 1894, than they were on the same date in 1893. This, combined with the very huge diminution in the proportion of men enlisted under standard, and the fact of the British establishments having been practically complete on the day of the departure of the first drafts for India, shows that the numbers of recruits obtained were sufficient for the purposes of the Army."
      These passages show that we owe a great deal to General Fielding's energy and activity. By his personal inspection of the recruiting centres, by his institution of lectures on the British Army, and by other methods he has given a great impetus to recruiting. One satisfactory incident deserves mention—namely, the march of a Welsh regiment through Wales. Not
      528
      only had the march a good effect on recruiting, but the regiment was received in a genial and kindly way by all classes of the community, and thus a feeling was aroused which is likely to be beneficial to the Army in the district. But the best advertisement of the Army, after all, is contentment on the part of the soldier; and we are doing all we can steadily and generally to increase that. There is some evidence that we have been successful in the fact that the discharges by purchase have considerably diminished, falling from 3,133 in 1892 to 2,617 last year. Of course, the state of trade is partly the cause of increase in enlistments and reduction in the number of discharges; but the figures are also a sign of increasing contentment. The Army Reserve has reached the figures of 80,849 men, having increased in two years by 12,000 men. As already stated, it is provided that each man is to receive three days' training or 12 drills, those who are brought out for that purpose being men in the tenth year of their service. By this time the Reserve will have been trained to the use of the Lee-Metford rifle. Another question occurs which is often asked in connection with the Reserves, and that is —Are they to be found when wanted? Here are some figures which I think ought to be satisfactory. The absentees are diminishing rapidly. In 1889 the percentage of absentees was 27; in 1890 it was 23; in 1891 it was 21; in 1892 it was 19; and last year it was 17, so that the Committee will see it is steadily diminishing. As to the health of the Army, most satisfactory reports come of it, showing that there is nothing to be apprehended on that score. The admissions to hospital and the death-rate remain about the same. A good deal has been done for the health of the soldiers of late years, and more particularly under the initiative of my friend Mr. Stanhope. The new barracks which have been provided in themselves would account for a great difference in the health of the soldiers, and I should like that hon. Members who take an interest in this subject should pay a visit to Aldershot, because I see within the range of my vision an hon. Member of the House who did go to Aldershot last year, and knowing Aldershot in the old days, and returning to it after a considerable

      529
      absence, he expressed himself as not only satisfied but astonished with all that had been done for the increased comfort of the soldier, and also at the evident effect of these changes upon the conduct and well-being of the soldier himself. Before I pass from the subject of the health of the Army let me say that a scheme for the practical training this summer of the Medical Staff and the Medical Staff Corps at Aldershot and the Curragh in (he duties which they will have to perform in war has been elaborated and will be duly carried into effect. Much more is done for the soldier now than formerly, not only with regard to new barracks, but in developing better cooking and better management of canteens, which are being more carefully attended to, and with a very good double result. In the first place, there is a better quality of article for the soldier, and also there is a profit made which is expended for his advantage. On this subject I might mention that the new arrangement for the issue, of clothing which I referred to last night, and which was recommended by Lord Wantage's Committee, we found was not capable of being applied until the 1st of January of this year, but since then it has been in operation. I mean the arrangement according to which personal clothing will become the soldier's property, and by which it is issued and renewed on the anniversary of his enlistment, and not as formerly at a fixed time of the year. Another step which I am glad to mention is that provision in these Estimates is made for a contribution of £500 towards the organisation in this country of the Army Temperance Association—an Institution which has been established in India and maintained with the zealous co-operation, among others, of Lord Roberts. In view of its marvellous effects in the Army in India in promoting temperate habits and more comfortable conditions of life among the soldiers, we have thought it right to exhibit by this grant our sympathy with the object, and our sense of the practical and tangible addition such a Society as this would make to the actual strength and real efficiency of the Army at home. Turning from the Army to the Militia the increased number enrolled on December 31, 1893, over the number enrolled on Junel, 1893, was 5,042. In the previous
      530
      year the increase was 6,256. In 1891 the increase was only 212, and in the two years previous to that there had been an actual falling off. This indicates a steady improvement and increase in the popularity of the Militia. The actual increase in the training was 7,096, and the total increase in the year would have been greater—and here I must cry peccavi to the Committee—but in the end of the year I found the Militia was increasing to such an extent, and the money available at my disposal was diminishing so rapidly, that I directed several checks to be put on recruiting for the Militia, which I thought, in the circumstances, were justified. We raised the standard to 64 inches for. Infantry and to 66 inches for the Artillery, and we stopped the enlistment of growing lads between 17 and 18. I regretted having to do it, but the ranks being so full, fuller than they have ever been by 6,000 or 7,000 or 8,000 men, I thought, in the circumstances, with a, very startling condition of the exchequer, that I was justified inputting a little check upon enlistment, but it has now been entirely taken off. Of the Yeomanry, all I can say is that the new organisation is being worked apparently with success and certainly with great loyalty by the officers. Turning to the Volunteers, I have to say that their increasing desire for efficiency is shown by the spirit in which they undergo the training, especially in camps, which they are now encouraged to undergo. The numbers have increased. Although the establishment has been lower by about 500 men, 2,000 more men have made themselves efficient. The deficiency in officers, which is so often referred to, remains almost at the identical figure if was last year. The number of Volunteers who received allowances for attending brigade camps in 1893—and I think these figures will be regarded as extremely satisfactory by the Committee—the number was 68,562. In 1892 it was 15,712, thus showing an increase of 22,850 men. One hundred and thirty-two battalions attended in 1893 as against 95 in 1892. In connection with brigade camps, I can state some facts which are well worth notice. The first brigade camp was held in 1889, but the system cannot be considered to have been in full working order until the

      531
      following year. From the time of the new musketry regulations for Volunteers in 1887 down to 1890 there had been a steady decrease in the efficient strength of the Volunteers. From 1890 until now there has been a steady increase. The Returns show that from 1887 to 1890 the Volunteer force lost 10,034 higher-grant efficients—that is to say, men who could shoot; and, on the other hand, it had in its ranks an increased number of 836 of the lower-grant efficients, whom I may describe as men who cannot shoot —at all events, not so well. But between 1890 and the end of 1893 the force has gained 8,319 higher-grant efficients and 1,022 lower-grant efficients, so that the improvement has been quite astonishing. Brigade camps have not Been the only cause of this remarkable change, hut they have, no doubt, had a good deal to do with it. In addition to the increase in the brigade camps, 7,486 Volunteers attended camps with Regulars in 1893, as against 4,986 in 1892. In the regimental camps, on the other hand, which are perhaps the least valuable form of camp, there was a falling-off in the numbers, there being 48,100 in 1893 as compared with 56,277 in 1892. These facts are most satisfactory, I think, as showing the healthy vitality of the Volunteer Force. It is intended, lot me add, to adopt a new musketry course next year, which will have the effect of making the condition of efficiency higher than at present. I have a word or two to say now about the long-service decorations; which were announced some months ago, and which Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to consent to confer upon non-commissioned officers. I much regret the delay that has occurred; hut I have been most anxious to gather the views of experienced persons before taking any definite steps in the matter. I originally proposed that the decorations should be confined to non-commissioned officers, and that privates should not be eligible, as I thought at that time that there were good reasons for my taking that course. Since then, however, I have received a strong representation to the effect that there were many excellent, zealous, and efficient Volunteers of long standing, who, for some good reason, could not undertake the duties of a non-commissioned officer, but who had rendered most
      532
      useful and praiseworthy service in the ranks. I have been led to the conclusion that such men cannot fairly be denied this honourable distinction, and I propose, therefore, that it should be conferred on all men of good character, who, on or since January 1, 1893, have completed 20 years of efficient service as enrolled Volunteers. It has been impressed on me that it should be confined to men who have really rendered exceptional service, and I look very favourably on the idea; but I am obliged to regard it as being practically out of the question, because it has been found already, in the case of officers, that commanding officers will hardly take it upon themselves to refuse this honour to one of their corps who, although not very distinguished, was at least a deserving and well-conducted man. I have, therefore, been reluctantly obliged to abandon the idea. I propose to move for a Select Committee in the course of a few days to inquire into the working of the Volunteer Acts and the legal status and obligations of Volunteers. Coming to the question of materials, there is to be remarked a growing demand for two classes of stores —namely, tent equipment and barrack equipment; there being an increase under the one head of £15,490 and under the other of £44,970. For the last few years the number of soldiers trained in camps of instruction, and of Volunteers who go into camp, have been steadily increasing, and with a voluntary service such as ours, where soldiers undergo this most desirable training, money is well spent which adds to their comfort and secures their health. I should add that such exercises are not confined to places best known to the public, but small sums are allotted to our most distant Possessions in order that the garrisons may practise in peace the war duties for which they are maintained. The barrack stores, again, are necessary for the equipment of the new barracks at Aldershot and elsewhere. Among other improvements the issue of coir fibre bedding in place of straw bedding—a change greatly to the comfort of the soldier. The change necessitates an increased charge at first, although probably it will cause a considerable saving eventually to the Department. Regarding warlike stores, I would mention that a new 12-pounder gun equipment for

      533
      Horse Artillery carrying 126 rounds per sub-division, against 108 as at present, has been adopted; the weight behind teams being 30 cwt., in place of 36 cwt. The pole draught has been approved for Field Artillery, and will be carried out gradually. A 15-pound shell will be shortly adopted for held batteries, in place of the 12½-pound projectile. The Lee-Metford rifle—of which, either in the hands of the troops or in stores, we have sufficient for all the Regulars and Militia—continues to be most favourably reported on. I may mention as a proof of the penetration of this rifle that experiments show that there is no safety behind a 9-inch brick wall up to a distance of 500 yards. With regard to cordite ammunition, as to the merits of which we bad a long discussion in this House last Autumn, I am happy to be able to slate that it continues to give universal satisfaction, and we see no reason whatever to doubt its stability under all circumstances. Small-arm ammunition in future will be made up entirely with the cordite. At present, for ecomomical reasons, it is desirable that the ammunition already in store, made up with black powder, should be expended before the cordite ammunition is used for practice. In one or two districts cordite is used in order that any defects may be brought to light; but up to the present time no complaints of any consequence have been made. Field gun cartridges will in future be tilled with cordite, the existing stock of black powder cartridges being used up as in the previous case, so long as they remain in stock. Light field ammunition for all guns up to 6-inch inclusive will be made up with cordite patterns, for this class of ammunition has been already determined on, and charges for heavy guns are being worked out for new guns. This is not such a difficult problem, as the chamber, rifling, and other equipments can be modified to meet the altered conditions. But there is more difficulty with the old guns, and considerable alteration may have to be made in many of them. As to erosion, in the smaller natures of guns— i.e., the to 6 inches—it has not been found excessive or appreciably greater than with black powder. In the rifle the wear (not erosion) is considerably greater than with black powder, being due to the absence of fouling and the consequent
      534
      unchecked friction between the hard envelope of the bullet, and the barrel. We are in hopes that this may be reduced by suitable means as we get to know more exactly all the causes to which erosion may be due; but it must be remembered that, with cordite a muzzle velocity is obtained much greater than with black powder, and in any ease the rifle can fire effectively between 4,000 and 5,000 rounds before the shooting is seriously affected, and this is calculated as equal to the life of the rifle from other causes. I think that is not an unsatisfactory account of our experience at the War Office of cordite. This brings me to the question of the administration of the factories; and the principal event, of course, in regard to them is the alteration of the hours of labour, which, so far as it has gone, has been met by the men employed in a spirit of alacrity and faithfulness which promises the best results. We, and the officers immediately in connection with the Department, are confident there will be no loss to the public from the adoption of the shorter hours. In undertaking to make this change we were greatly indebted to the Member for Gorton and the Member for Gateshead for their admirable advice and the relation of their experience. Since that change has been in operation I can state confidently to the Committee now that there has been no loss to the public. At first, of course, there may be a little inconvenience in adapting ourselves to the new conditions, but the Superintendents and the Director General have no complaints, so far as I have heard, from the men, in speaking of this matter it is only right that I should pay a well-deserved tribute to the Superintendents and to the Director General of the Factories, Dr. Anderson, in reference to the changes they have introduced. Dr. Anderson, as the Committee knows, is a man of the highest scientific attainments, and of great business capacity, and he is also able to maintain the best relations with the workmen under his charge. Short hours have also been introduced at the Clothing Factory under the auspices of the new Director of Clothing. Waltham has been made an exception. The conditions of labour there are so exceptional that it is impos-

      535
      sible to deal with that establishment in i the same way as we have dealt with the others. I expect in a short time to have the Report of the Committee appointed to ascertain whether proper precautions are taken against accidents, and especially into the cause of the recent melancholy explosion there. That Committee includes Lord Sandhurst (chairman), Sir Frederick Abel, and Colonel Majendie. We have thought it desirable, by very wide terms of Reference, to make that inquiry a thorough one in order to ensure the adoption of all reasonable precautions in the factories and for the safety of surrounding buildings. Turning to the Works Note, I can say that it has been limited to the most modest demands that can be made. Under the head of Fortifications we provide for commencing or continuing certain new works at important strategic points, for the improvement of artillery ranges, and the maintenance and adaptation— always a large cost of existing works. Three large and important ordnance store establishments—at Dover, Burscough, near Liverpool, and Stirling, will be completed, which will not only make the store arrangements more satisfactory for the respective; districts, but will promote economy and efficiency in the better preservation of stores and centralisation of charge. The buildings necessary at Barry Links will be got on with. For barracks the sum devoted to maintenance is large, and our policy has been to keep it large. I do not think money can be better spent than in the proper maintenance of existing barracks; and not only is this a good policy, but we are obliged to spend more because the new barracks have many more rooms and accessories, and in every respect necessitate a larger outlay than the older type of barracks. The work under the Barracks Act is progressing satisfactorily. The cost of building has risen since the Act was passed, and, in consequence, some stations and services which wore originally included have been struck out of the scheme, but not to a very great extent.
      MR. BRODRICK: What money have you spent?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know exactly. Then, as to rifle ranges, these have been improved
      536
      or extended at various places during 1893, so as to meet the requirements, in this respect, of the 303 rifle. The most prominent of the ranges thus improved are:—Home stations: Barry Links (Scotland), Landguard (Harwich), Browndown (Gosport), and Aldershot.
      MR. BRODRICK: What about Ireland?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is great difficulty in obtaining a range for the Dublin district, but I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely how that matter stands. Under the Imperial Defence Act, £350,000 was obtained for building barracks to accommodate the increase of the coaling station garrisons. As far as it would go, works were undertaken and have been completed at Sierra Leone, the Cape, Ceylon, and the Mauritius, or will be shortly completed. At Jamaica and St. Lucia, the work will be completed in a few months' time, and at Hong Kong in about a year's time. There is but one remaining subject to which I shall seek to direct the attention of the Committee, and that is the education of officers. With us, even in greater degree than in other countries, there is demanded of our officers, on account of the varied service of our Army, a high standard of professional knowledge and accomplishment; and while I am anxious to raise that standard, I have a strong desire to secure that no undue advantage should be derived from wealth or social station. Brain and nerve are what we require, and we should attract and encourage them by appointing their possessors, in whomsoever they are found. I hold it, therefore, to be of great importance to check extravagance of living, and to see that proper opportunities of instruction are afforded, and that examinations and appointments are such as to give a fair chance to all. The question of the entrance examination I have referred to a Committee, which will soon present its Report; and I have to express my obligation to several Members of the House who have served upon it. The Reports of the Visitors upon the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College have been carefully considered, and their principal recommendations have been adopted—some of them, in fact, had been determined upon before

      537
      the inquiry look place. One great purpose of all these changes is to diminish the causes of expense to cadets. I need not give details, but the Committee will understand that as much as possible is being done in that direction. The Artillery College, graduates from which are eligible for appointments in the manufacturing departments, has been, as I promised last year, opened to other than Artillery officers, and though the number competing this year is not large on account of the short notice, it is hoped when this is known that a considerable number will compete. I have now presented to the Committee the present condition of the Army. I began by stating that I had no startling circumstances or intentions to disclose. The Committee will, however, agree with me that the gradual development and improvement in all branches of the Service is, on the whole, eminently satisfactory. It represents much patient, but earnest, labour, much self-sacrifice, much intelligent effort on the part of all ranks, from the highest to the lowest, and all that I have had to state proves at least that our military forces fully deserve the confidence and the gratitude of the country for whoso service they are maintained.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, the very kind allusion made by the right hon. Gentleman to the late Mr. Stanhope, who lately occupied his position, was, he felt sure, fully endorsed by the Committee, whose sympathetic cheers could not furnish a greater tribute to the work done by his late right hon. Friend than the speech just delivered and the evidence afforded by the right hon. Gentleman in continuing his policy that he appreciated that work. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted man of the features of the administration of his predecessors, some of which had not always been received with general consent by the House at the time they were first initiated. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly had considerable experience in carrying out reforms in Army administration: and though the Estimates showed an increase of £278,090, it was a gratification to find that in no quarter of the Committee I had that increase been challenged. He did not think that after the speech of the Secretary of State his friends on that side of the House would consider
      538
      there was anything in these Estimates which was not judicious and which was not indeed absolutely necessary, and the Commitee should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his courage in increasing his Estimates in a year which had not by any means produced a financial plethora. Three or four years ago the Secretary of State expressed in a speech he then delivered considerable doubt whether the; number of men we maintained was absolutely necessary; but this year he had added 900 men to the regimental establishments, most of them to strengthen our force in Egypt, at a special time. He approved of the increase of 990 men, which, no doubt, would be appreciated by the Member for Northampton, who was followed into the Lobby by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary in support of a Motion for the evacuation of Egypt. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear.] He had no doubt they would now have the support of the hon. Member. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No, no.] Well, he had hoped that they would have had it on this occasion. But they might take credit for this: During several years strong representations were made to the War Office; the Committee which had been appointed to investigate the matter had reported, and in almost every instance their Report had been acted upon, while economy had been practised wherever it was possible. It was most satisfactory that they had these proposals from the most Radical Government of modern times for increasing the numbers of men, horses, and arms in a year which was not too prosperous. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had told the Committee nothing about the new magazine rifle, with which they had hoped we should be able to meet any foe. Every regiment of the Line, he believed, had it, but very few of the Militia regiments; and unfortunately they were given to understand that, instead of the military carbine being adapted to the 303 bore, as was done in the case of the rifles, at a very moderate cost, the course had been adopted of simply cutting down the Martini-Henry carbine and so maintaining for a considerable time two kinds of ammunition. He noticed that there was a considerable reduction in the supply of small-arm ammunition compared with

      539
      previous years, and he would be glad to receive an assurance from the Secretary of State that he was satisfied with the present reserve, which seemed very small, being only about 4,000,000 rounds. He also hoped that the annual maintenance had been maintained without any poaching on former reserves. There was always a great temptation to poach upon reserves when large reductions were made. The late Secretary of State proposed to do that without tapping the reserves, but no such assurance had now been given by the right hon. Gentleman either in this or in other respects. The Committee would allow him, in conclusion, to congratulate the Secretary of State upon the satisfactory statement which he had laid before the Committee, and he hoped they would not grudge either the small increase in the number of men or the considerable and inevitable increase in the Estimates.
      COLONEL LOCKWOODasked for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there was sufficient clothing in store in case of immediate mobilisation; and also desired to know whether the houses for the reception of stores, which he had mentioned in his speech, were really ready and properly equipped The right hon. Gentleman said he was doing everything in his power to cut down the cadets' expenses, and upon the subject of expenditure he would refer to the dearth of cavalry officers. The number of cavalry officers was barely equal to the requirements of the Service, on account of the enormous expenses which they had to incur in addition to their pay. There were very few parents who in these days could pay what practically amounted to a fine of £500 a year for the privilege of keeping their sons in cavalry regiments, and he was of opinion that the whole tenour of life in those regiments would have to be changed if they were to obtain and keep a, proper supply of cavalry officers. It was difficult to point to particular items of expenditure, but his broad premiss was that so long as cavalry officers were allowed or compelled to spend £500 or £600 a year while their pay was but £100, the supply would be short.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, that extra expenses for cavalry officers, like the cost of saddles and everything
      540
      else, were an inevitable accompaniment of the Service. But there were much more important subjects of comment. The Secretary of State had said he had no startling announcements or disclosures to make. They had, however, made one startling discovery from his speech. From what they had been given to understand there was not sufficient machinery in case of war for the manufacture of small-arm ammunition, and this point, he thought, required very careful consideration. The Secretary of State said positively that the factories had been working up to their full power and only got annual maintenance. Again, the Secretary of State was very reticent on the subject of magazine rifles. He saw by the papers that the War Department were giving up the manufacture of magazine rifles, and that they considered there were sufficient of them at the present time. He believed the number of rifles was absolutely insignificant for a great country. When he asked a question on this subject the only answer he got was that there were enough for the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Reserve. In foreign countries two rifles were allowed to every man in the active Army: but, allowing a 20 per cent. reserve, we had barely a reasonable supply for the Regular Army and the Militia. This was a matter of the most vital consequence. It was allowed that Napoleon in 1814 failed quite as much for want f muskets as for want of men, and it was a very common thing indeed for a country to find itself hampered for the want of arms. It was the position of the Confederate Army at the close of the war. In this country there was absolutely no reserve for arming the younger men who would be called in. The Volunteers were to have the Martini-Henry, while everybody on the Continent had 3-bore rifles and the fast bullet, and with this difference in their arms, whenever the Volunteers came into the field, 5,000 of them would only be as good as 3,000 of the enemy, merely on the question of the rifle, and leaving everything else out of consideration. They were leaving the Army with a very small number of odd rifles, and if the country was by any possibility invaded they would not have proper arms to arm them with, and the men would be demoralised through

      541
      having inferior arms. There were several possible reasons for this state of things. The authorities might be experimenting with a still better rifle. With the bore reduced to ·20 they could get a better ride, but nobody would pledge their word to ·20, though they would to ·25. He thought they were putting themselves into a very serious difficulty by stopping the manufacture of rifles when every other country was going in for having 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 of these small-bore rifles. The number of rifles in the country was a matter of first-class consequence. England had been generally considered as a very hard shell with a soft inside, and they were making the shell very much softer by not having a sufficient number of rifles in the country to arm the population.
      SIR A. HAYTERsaid, he was anxious to add his congratulations o the Secretary of Stale for War on his able; speech, and on the satisfactory conditions which enabled him to make that speech. It seemed to him the golden age of the Army. We had an increase in the number of recruits, the ranks were full, and everything seemed to be going on in a, flourishing condition. As the conditions in regard to the men were so satisfactory, the small increase that there was in the Estimates was very easily accounted for. The right hon. Gentleman, however, rather failed to explain a point which he said in his speech last year was of the utmost and most vital importance for the better organisation of the Army. He understood from him that of all the recommendations of the Wantage Commission all the points on which the Army could be improved in its organisation none could equal that of equalising the battalions at home and abroad, and calling home a sufficient number of battalions to make the efficiency of those at home! compare favourably with those abroad. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to four different modes by which this equalisation might be carried out. By the Memorandum issued with the Army Estimates he saw that one of those had fallen through. Owing to circumstances over which he had no control, it was impossible to reduce the strength of the garrison in Egypt. But there was, in addition to that, a proposal that one of
      542
      the battalions might be withdrawn from the garrison at Gibraltar. They had there 5,700 men, and it appeared to him to be not only very large for the necessities of the garrison, but they could be very easily replaced in case of emergency. Then, the right hon. Gentleman had said he would put himself into communication with the Indian Government, and see whether they, too, would agree to withdraw one of the battalions from India, provided they had increased establishments to make up for the withdrawal. There was one other proposal, which was to replace a battalion of the Line to act in Egypt with a battalion of Guards. The battalion of Guards going-out, of course, would not be included in the territorial arrangements, and by withdrawing another battalion in Egypt they would benefit the equalisation of battalions, he did not know whether the Secretary for War still entertained that proposal. There was no point in these Estimates which he regarded with greater satisfaction than the initial step which had been taken of drilling the Reserves. For 10 years he had been urging this upon the attention of the War Office, and he was quite certain that if what he had done with a very small portion of the Reserves were adopted all through the Reserves they would have a more satisfactory arrangement. The Reserves now swelled to 80,000 men, and he understood that only a very small proportion of them were to be drilled at all, but still it was a step in the right direction. These men received 6d. a day, and some of them had only done three years' service in the ranks, and had been receiving their 6d. a day for doing absolutely nothing. Lord Wolseley, he believed, said these men would be absolutely required in ease of invasion, and it had been shown conclusively by the Member for Oxford that they would be called upon to go abroad; and he maintained that it was absolutely impossible to regard these men as an efficient Reserve to send abroad unless some steps were taken to find out whether they were in existence, and to have them regularly drilled. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take courage and would increase the number of Reserves. He was extremely glad to see that since the new commandant arrived at Sandhurst

      543
      there had been great and important changes made. He was sure everyone interested in the education of young officers would be glad to know that one hour a day had been added to the small modicum of training which they had, in the entrance examination for the Army there were no fewer than 2,000 marks given for French and German. That was a very excellent thing, because there could be no doubt that it was most important that officers should be able to speak those languages, but he regretted that additional marks were not given for other languages.
      SIR S. NORTHCOTEthought it would be a great satisfaction to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman were able to say whether the reserve stores of guns, ammunition, rifles, and clothing were not being drawn upon unduly, and if the reserve were being maintained in somewhat the same condition, or in even better condition, than when he acceded to Office. If for any reason the War Office were anxious to effect economy, one of the easiest ways to do so would be to draw upon the reserve they found existing when they came into Office, he ventured to suggest whether it might not be possible in future Statements by the Secretary of State to say whether it would be found desirable either to augment or to reduce such stores.
      MR. WOODALLsaid, the question of from time to time making Returns of the actual state of the stores in hand had been very seriously considered. But no one knew better than the hon. Baronet who had just spoken how much inconvenience such a practice would involve. The Government was confident that no such proposals as he apprehended for depleting stores could be resorted to by anyone worthy of the confidence of that House. With regard to the question of uniformity' in the bore of small arms, that was an important consideration, but the authorities had not yet come to a definite conclusion on the matter. But, at any rate, the Martini-Henry rifle, which was still in the hands of Volunteers and of a considerable number of our troops, and the machine guns which were in the different garrisons and ports throughout the country had the same bore, ·45. But they were steadily bringing into the Service
      544
      the new Lee-Motford with its smaller bore, ·303. Attention had been called to the importance of having a sufficient number of the new weapons for all possible services liable to be requisitioned. It would be highly inconvenient to give the precise figure, but he had before him the total number of Regular troops at home, abroad, and reserve, and he had also a statement of the number of Lee-Metford rifles in the hands of the troops at home and abroad and in store. He could assure the Committee that there was a satisfactory margin in regard to any possible reserve that might be called upon in the emergencies of actual service. They were also considering various proposals for adopting the Martini-Henry so as to carry the ·303 ammunition, and they were sanguine of success. The cost would depend upon the pattern. He could not give details, because he did not know the exact process to be followed, but it would be an economical one, and a novel and ingenious one. The Committee, no doubt, would desire to know how far the War Office were ensuring for the service of the country a sufficient store of Service ammunition. The subject was one which from time to time caused a great deal of concern to those who were charged with the administration of the War Department. With every change of ammunition they seemed to come to a sort of ebb. The trade, upon which the War Office had to rely to a considerable extent, was tardy in coming forward with the new service, and they had to rely on their own Government factories; but when the trade did accommodate itself to their wants the capacity of the supply was enormous, and it was difficult to find orders to satisfy if. This was the case with cordite, which was satisfying the general requirements not merely of the small-arm ammunition, but of the large and quick-firing guns.
      MR. BRODRICK: Why, under these circumstances, has the amount been reduced since last year?
      MR. WOODALL: They were using up their store of ammunition which would shortly become obsolete, but they were not able to obtain anything like the quantity of cordite for which they had a demand. They were steadily increasing their production at Waltham, and from 400 tons

      545
      they hoped to increase it up to 600, and they were now assured that under pressure the quantity could he increased to more than 800 tons a year from their own factories. Of course, they had had to await the decision of the Law Courts, which they had desired to regard in the light of a friendly arbitration, and although he could not say what might be the future course of litigation, it was permissible for him to hope that the present result would be to bring the private trader to their relief, so that they could put into practical use the large quantity of cordite required.
      Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he wanted to say one word in apology and answer to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite, he had omitted to answer his question as to the mobilisation of the Reserve and the clothing depot in Pimlico. He himself had little doubt that the depot at Pimlico could clothe the Reserve men in ample time for the mobilisation. Having considered the matter very closely he did not think that what was called the centralisation at Pimlico was as serious a matter as was sometimes supposed.
      COLONEL LOCKWOODwished to know whether there was enough clothing now?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Report I receive is that there is enough clothing for the Reserve. As to the question put by my hon. Friend, the proposal to send a battalion of the Guards to Egypt was only part of the scheme for equalising the battalions. If I had seen my way to any scheme for accomplishing that result the battalion of the Guards would have gone to Egypt; but when that became hopeless, there was no need to depart from the ordinary practice.
      MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that nothing had been done to improve the ranges in Lancashire, and said it was a question not merely of providing fresh ranges but of making the existing ones accessible.
      MR. LABOUCHEREhaving congratulated the Secretary for War upon his administrative ability and upon the lucidity of the explanation he had given, said the increase of the Army by 905 was stated to be in great part due to the requirements of Egypt.
      546
      It appeared that there were more British soldiers there now than there were a year or two since.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are not more than there were last year at this time: but the Estimates of last year were framed before the despatch of these men, and therefore the presence of the men in Egypt was not indicated in them.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that, at all events, there were more men in Egypt now than there were during the whole of the period in which the Conservative Government was in Office. It had been pointed out that during the Conservative Administration he (Mr. Labouchere) moved the reduction of the Army by the total number of soldiers who were in Egypt. When he did that it was to show that lie wanted the withdrawal of the British troops from Egypt, and almost every gentleman now on the Treasury Bench went into the Lobby with him. If he remembered rightly, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) not only voted but spoke in favour of his proposition. He was not astonished, under the circumstances, that the Liberal Party were sometimes charged with being more factious than patriotic, and he was bound to admit that the charge almost seemed true when the Liberal Party, after having voted for the reduction of the Army by the number of men who were in Egypt, increased the number of soldiers in that country almost as soon as they came into Office. Last year a particular reason was given for the increase. Something or other had happened in Egypt, and, with that respectful deference which he always showed for his Leaders, he refrained from moving any Resolution. He said to himself, however, that on the following year he should have the pleasure of thinking that his Leaders remembered the Resolution he moved, and they supported, two or three years ago, and he expected an announcement in the Queen's Speech that they contemplated at once withdrawing from Egypt. He had not given notice to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) that he intended to bring the matter forward, and, therefore, he thought it hardly fair to bring it forward except in a cursory manner, all

      547
      the more as he would probably find several opportunities during the Session of treating it in detail. The hon. Gentleman opposite had challenged him to say whether he was as faithless to his opinions as the Government were. He did not accept that mode of putting it; but he felt bound to say that, as far as he was concerned, men might come and men might go on the Treasury Bench; but he stood to his opinions, and he should be ashamed of himself if he were to alter (hem merely because this man or that man, or this Party or that Party, occupied the Treasury Bench. He had always been opposed to the occupation of Egypt, and his right hon. Friend who had just entered the House (Mr. J. Morley) had always been with him. He remembered some excellent remarks his right hon. Friend made in Newcastle. They delighted his heart at the time. He said to himself, "I shall always have my right hon. Friend with me in this matter of Egypt." But, alas! he was afraid he had lost his right hon. Friend's support in this matter, for he was one of the Ministers who were asking, not that we should diminish our force in Egypt, hut that we should increase it by 905 men. He had intended to move the reduction of the Vote by the 905 men as a protest against the occupation of Egypt, but the hour was very late, and he thought he should be able to make the protest on a better occasion. One reason for objecting to the increase was that the Navy was about to be enormously increased. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for War had pointed out that, as a necessary consequence of increasing the Navy, they must increase the Army, as there would be more coaling stations and harbous to protect abroad, he (Mr. Labouchere) wanted the Committee to remember that for every ship by which the Navy was increased soldiers would have to be found to defend the ports it would have to enter. This was a very serious matter, considering the enormous burdens under which they were groaning owing to the vastly increased expenditure on the Army and Navy.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend has misapprehended what I said. I pointed out that to a certain extent an increase had occurred, but it does not always follow that an
      548
      increase in the Army will follow an increase in the Navy. I thank my hon. Friend for his leniency in sparing us in this Army Debate a discussion on the affairs of Egypt. As I understand, my hon. Friend wishes to point out our misconduct, or at all events our strange conduct, in having followed him into the Lobby some two years ago on the question of Egypt, and in now showing a disposition to adopt another policy. I have noticed that there are occasions on which hon. Members follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby, and afterwards rather regret having done so. We are, therefore, not altogether singular if that is the state of mind in which we find ourselves. As far as I am personally concerned, I am not sure that I did follow my hon. Friend, and J certainly never shared his views on the general question of Egypt. The fact of a small addition being made to the troops in Egypt does not alter in the least the policy of the Government in regard to that country. I rose, however, really for the purpose of thanking my hon. Friend for his kindness and leniency in lotting us off so easily, and I hope we may now be allowed to take the Vote.
      COLONEL NOLANasked whether it, was intended to convert a large number of Martini-Henry rifles into the 3–10ths bore weapons?
      MR. WOODALLsaid, experiments were being made, and he thought it very likely indeed that they would result in having a very useful weapon made out of the existing Martini-Henry. He was not in a position to say how many would be converted. If the operation was successful there was no reason why it should not be carried out on a large scale.
      COLONEL NOLAN: By the hundred thousand?
      MR. WOODALL: I am not in a position to say.
      SIR F.FITZWYGKAM (South Hants, Fareham)wished to bring under the notice of the House a very great injustice that was done to the largo and most valuable body of officers who had commanded regiments by the almost total reservation of all Staff appointments to those who had passed the Staff College. He knew that some former commanders had been admitted to such appointments, but the number was so small that it scarcely affected the question. He did

      549
      not wish to say a word against the Staff College, but merely to protest against the system of excluding former regimental commanding officers from Staff appointments. Those who had commanded regiments formed a most valuable body. The position of a regimental commander required a great deal of tact, training, and nerve, and it should be the object of the Secretary for War to give the utmost encouragement to good commanders. There were 250 battalions, and, such as the commanding officers were, such would be the battalions, and, such as the battalions, such would be the Army. If the regiments were good, as they would be if their commanding officers were good, we should have success in war, although we had a very untrained Staff. Regiments had been known to fight out a battle to a, successful issue in spite of mistakes made by the Generals. If, however, our regiments were not properly trained, the best Generals in the world would not prevent us having reverses. As matters stood at present, a Colonel might do the best he possibly could and might turn a bad regiment into a good one, but there was no reward and no future for him. He wished to ask the Secretary for War if he would re-consider the request made to him a short time ago with regard to Chelsea Hospital pensions? It was no! a good thing for the Army that about 80,000 men should go about saying that they had been deprived of their just rights. All he wanted was a, Select Committee or a small Commission to inquire into the claims that were put forward.
      DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether there would be an opportunity on a future Vote of discussing general questions relating to the Army?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; it is quite understood that there will be a, discussion on the next occasion when the Army Estimates are taken.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      2. £5,981,000, Pay, &c. of the Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), agreed to.
      3. £100, Ordnance Factories.
      COLONEL NOLAN: What is the meaning of this Vote? Why do you take such an absurd sum as £100?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It seems absurd to ask for £100, but it has been the practice to have such a Vote in order to bring the operations of the Ordnance Factory within the cognisance of the House of Commons. It is merely to show the way in which the money voted on the Army Estimates is expended at the Ordnance Factories.
      MR. JESSE COLLING'Ssaid, the Vote very much interested his constituents. There were two small arms factories, one being at Enfield and the other at Sparkbrook. In the current year the Wages Vote for Enfield had been reduced only 25 per cent., while that for Sparkbrook had been reduced no less than 42 per cent. The amount was formerly £60,000 for Sparkbrook, but during the current year it had been reduced to £35,000. When the Estimates for 1894–5 were issued it was seen that the £35,000 had been practically reduced to £14,000, for although the amount stood at £36,000 a sum of £22,000 was to be expended in repairing the shops. The proposed reduction amounted to a practical extinction of the small arms factory at Sparkbrook, which was described as one of the best equipped factories in the world. In the interests of the Public Service his hon. Friends and himself thought it inadvisable to practically destroy a factory of that kind. They were therefore glad to find that the Secretary for War had somewhat modified the Estimates by consenting to produce at Sparkbrook the rifles that would be required for the Navy during the coming year. They thanked him very much for this concession, which would, of course, keep the factory going during the coming year. At Enfield, so far from there having been any reduction, the wages bill had been increased by £78,000, making a total for the coming year of £198,000. He thought he would best consult the convenience of the Committee if he did not on that occasion deal with the general question as between Sparkbrook and Enfield, especially as there would be an opportunity of going

      551
      into the question at a later period of the Session. Hon. Members must, however, know that a factory placed in the centre of the Kingdom in the midst of an unlimited supply of men and material of the very best quality and at a place where the railway facilities to all parts of the country were excellent was in the best possible place. Sparkbrook was, undoubtedly, the best place, especially in the case of emergency. He was aware that Enfield was the pet so far as official influence was concerned, and it was time that the question should be brought before the House as a practical one, so that that official influence might not be allowed much longer to spend such enormous sums year after year on what could only be termed an exotic. They had never raised any question about Enfield until they were in a measure challenged by the extraordinary way in which it had become the pet not of successive Governments, but, he believed, of the officials connected with this branch of the Public Service. He would therefore conclude with again thanking his right hon. Friend for the kind manner in which he had received the representations placed before him, and for having gone so far, at any rate, as to allow this factory to be continued as a going concern instead of being dismantled and being practically reduced to a position of uselessness.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for a short time. The Vote raises, or might raise, a question of the very greatest importance, which I hope may some time be brought to the attention of the Committee, and that is the continual growth of Government establishments for the manufacture of arms. That is not a question as between two rival Government establishments, but as between Government establishments and private firms. Now, I entertain the opinion which, I believe, was entertained by those who originally created the Government establishments at Enfield, that such a manufactory ought to be in the nature of an experimental factory, that it ought to be created and maintained for the purpose' of making experiments, for the purpose of testing inventions, and for the purpose of controlling prices, so that prices might not be left entirely to what might
      552
      become a ring of private manufacturers to the disadvantage of the public. But it is not in accordance with the original idea under which the factories were created, and it is not in the public interest that they should have grown to their present enormous extent. The effect of creating great Government establishments of the kind is to discourage private manufacturers, and in a great war it is upon private manufacturers that you have to depend. You will then find that they have been very largely discouraged and prevented from taking their proper rank, owing to the growth of these Government establishments. That matter, however, must be postponed to another occasion. To-night the only question raised is the question of the way in which the Government has dealt with the two Government establishments at Birmingham and at Enfield. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has regarded this matter with absolute impartiality, and that it is his desire and intention to do perfect justice as between the two establishments, but neither my right hon. Friend nor any Secretary of State is absolutely his own master in a matter of this kind. He has to deal with an old official vested interest which has grown up at Enfield, and which is, I am afraid, too strong for almost any temporary head of the War Department. I think that that is proved by the way in which the Estimates are prepared on the present occasion. The very fact that the moment these Estimates were brought to the knowledge of my right hon. Friend he endeavoured to make some kind of satisfactory arrangement shows that he himself must have been astonished by the Estimates which were prepared for him by his official advisers. What is the state of the case? Here at a time when the Government thought themselves unable to continue the manufacture of arms, and when accordingly they withdrew all their orders from the two Government establishments, we actually find one of those establishments—the greater, the more powerful, the one with the more established vested interest—is able to come to Parliament actually with an increase of £78,000 upon its wages, whereas there is a reduction of something like 60 per cent. in the

      553
      wages of the other factory. As I say, the contrast has boon to a considerable extent redressed by the action of the Secretary of State, and it would be ungracious in us not to accept very gratefully his intervention in the matter. There is only one other question I want to put, and that is, whether, under these circumstances—which involve the continuous employment of, as I understand, at any rate the greater part of the Spark-brook establishment at full time during the year—it is desirable to proceed with the intention announced by my right hon. Friend of dismantling a portion of the machinery at Sparkbrook in order to make room for the manufacturing establishment at Bagot Street. I believe that if this proceeding is carried out there will be a very serious additional and unnecessary expenditure involved, because what will happen will be this: The machinery will be dismantled at a great cost, and if, hereafter, there be a demand for that machinery, it will have to be replaced, also at great cost. I am convinced that the cost of dismantling it and replacing it would more than pay for an addition in the shape of temporary or other sheds which might be added to the existing establishment at Sparkbrook. The only cost would be the building of a shed, which would not, I am convinced, cost more than the expense of removing and again replacing the machinery. I still hope that my right hon. Friend, in view of the altered circumstances, may be willing to reconsider or even to postpone his determination: but whatever is decided, I desire to thank him for his reconsideration of the Vote on the present occasion.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,who was indistinctly heard, said: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley for the kindly way in which they have spoken of my action in this matter. I have done no more than my duty in listening carefully to and inquiring most minutely into the view of the question which they have put so moderately and so reasonably before me. With regard to the question of maintaining Bagot Street, or transferring it, as my right hon. Friend has just suggested, to some temporary building, leaving the Sparkbrook factory intact,
      554
      I have looked carefully into the matter, and the conclusion I am driven to is that there would be great economy and great increased efficiency in having a repairing establishment under the same management as Sparkbrook, and, therefore, it is proposed to discontinue Bagot Street. There would be great additional expense in the erection of additional buildings to Sparkbrook, and I am informed by those who have gone carefully into the matter that the removal of the machinery would not be so costly as my right hon. Friend seems to anticipate. Into the general question regarding the rivalry of Enfield and Birmingham I am not disposed to enter at present. I have, on more than one occasion, expressed my views on that subject. I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is with us no favouritism for one over the other; on the contrary, we are most anxious to encourage the manufacture of rifles in that which is the natural seat of manufacture—namely, Birmingham; and as a proof of our desire to do that, I may say that we have just made an arrangement which will practically imply a considerable extension of eiders from the private trade in Birmingham for another year than that which is immediately before us. My right hon. Friends have pointed out that the Estimate as it stands shows a great increase at Enfield and a, diminution at Spark-brook for the coming year. But the Estimate is arranged on the understanding that the two factories are to be worked as parts of our Government establishment, and, therefore, there will be no difficulty in removing from one to the other any part of the work, and, accordingly, within the last two or three days I have been able to arrange that an order for new rifles, which we expect to receive from the Admiralty within a short time, shall be transferred to the Sparkbrook account from the Enfield account, and that will keep the establishment going. I have tried to meet the reasonable anxiety of my right hon. Friends in this matter, and I hope that, after all, there may not be so much, as they imagine there is, of a desire on the part of the officials of the Department to favour Enfield. It must be remembered that at Enfield the machinery is capable of manu-

      555
      facturing a large number of weapons of different kinds which are not manufactured at Sparkbrook. The machinery at Sparkbrook is applicable to the manufacture of the Lee-Metford rifle, but Maxim guns and machine guns and a large number of weapons of different descriptions cannot be manufactured thereat all. I am very glad, however, that my right hon. Friends are so far satisfied, and I can only say that we have done no more than our duty in making the arrangements we have made.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has made a statement which is of very great interest to the private trade. Can he give us any further information as to that matter? Are orders to be given which will employ the private trade next year as well as the present year?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I mentioned it to show the desire we have to encourage and keep going the private trade in Birmingham.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If prices are satisfactory to my right hon. Friend there will be work to give employment for another year?
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that in previous years orders had been given at Birmingham for Maxim guns and other kinds, which he believed were executed in a satisfactory manner and at somewhat lower prices than elsewhere.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, some of his hon. Friends desired to raise certain questions in regard to eight hours, wages, and other matters, and he wanted to know whether the Chairman would consider such discussion allowable on the Stores Vote proposed to betaken in April or May?
      THE CHAIRMANwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
      Vote agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [15th March] reported, and agreed to,—[Seepage 351.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 81st day of March, 1894, the sum of £577.222 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  2. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, the sum of £5,981,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next: Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House: and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are affixed:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to Report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Mr. Benn, Mr. Biddulph, Colonel Bridge-man, Mr. Byles, Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, Mr. Crombie, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leake, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Mulholland, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Tollemache, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir Charles Dalrymple.)

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  First Report, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 34.]

  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), 1892–3.
  Copy presented,—of Statement of Sums required to be Voted in order to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1893 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 30.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next