§ COLONEL HUGH McCALMONT (Antrim, N.)
I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the movement of the 7th Hussars from Natal, whether it is intended to send to South Africa another Cavalry Regiment or Mounted Infantry, as stated; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the disaster at Lang's Neck in 1881, when Mounted Infantry were employed, was in a great measure due to the want of Cavalry, the Government will consider the necessity of employing Cavalry and not Infantry for Cavalry duties.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODEICK,) Surrey, Guildford
Three hundred men of the 7th Hussars and 250 Mounted Infantry now in South Africa are, as the hon. Member is aware, under orders for service in Matabeleland. It has been decided to send a further body of Mounted Infantry from England to the Cape, Mounted Infantry being considered better fitted than Cavalry for the special work to be performed. I would point out that the operations proposed are against the Matabele, and, therefore, the parallel suggested in my hon. Friend's Question does not apply. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
asked whether the hon. Gentleman would keep an account of the cost of these troops, in order to submit the payment of the amounts to the Chartered Company.
§ COLONEL McCALMONT
asked whether it was not in consequence of the absence of Cavalry at Lang's Neck in 1881 that we lost the Transvaal? [Cries of "Order!"]
§ [No answer was given.]