Commons Sitting of 2 March 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.

QUEEN'S SPEECH: ROYAL MESSAGE.
The Comptroller of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth—
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.

  DISCHARGE OF MEMBER: NEW MEMBER APPOINTED.
  Ordered, That Sir John Mowbray be discharged from attendance on the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Ordered, That Mr. Mount be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Halsey.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz:—
  Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway Bill.
  South-Eastern Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (LORDS).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate from the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, viz:—
  Buenos Ayres and Pacific Railway Company.
  Private Bill Petitions (Standing Order not complied with).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  St. Marylebone Vestry Electric Lighting.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Crawley;—New Cross;—Chelmsford;—Hindley Green;—Runcorn;—Luton;—Widnes;—Chippenham;—Wellingborough;—Rochdale;—and Deptford; to the upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Petersfield, in favour; to the upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (MUNICIPAL TRADING).
  Petitions for inquiry by a Select Committee;—from Dundee;—and, Leicester; to the upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Croydon, in favour; to the upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour:—From Deptford;—St. George's-in-the-East;—King's Lynn;—Chorley;—Gloucester;—West Hampstead:—York;—Walworth;—Southwark;—and. Lynton; to the upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (STAFF CORPS OFFICERS).
  Return presented,—relative thereto "Address 23rd February; Sir Seymour King]; to the upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 23rd February: Sir Henry Fowler] to the upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 80.)
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Report, No. 497 (by Command); to the upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented,—of Statutes made by the Governing Cody of Trinity College of Trinity College, Cambridge, on 22iid October 1898, altering and amending certain Statutes of the College (by Act); to the upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 81.)

  LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES).
  Return ordered,
  "Of the total amount of rates in the £ raised in the several Parishes in Schedules (A) and (B) to the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, as amended by subsequent Acts, in the following form:—(Mr. Bartley.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to Amend the Solicitors Acts." [Solicitors Bill [Lords.]
  And, also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durban)." [Palatine Court of Durham Bill [Lords.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES.)
Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, and other Committees authorising the expenditure of Public Money, may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House except of Standing Order No. 5.—(Mr. Balfour.)

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
On the Motion that it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Sections 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, Part VII., of the Leeds Corporation Bill.
*MR. JEFFREYS: I have, Sir, an Instruction down upon the Paper to leave out various sections of this Bill, but I am given to understand that an agreement has been come to by all the parties, to continue consideration of the Instruction till a later date.
*MR. SPEAKER: What the honourable Member means is that he wishes his Instruction to go over.
MR. JEFFREYS: Yes.
MR. GALLOWAY: There are various Instructions down by my honourable Friend the Member for Basingstoke and others dealing with various Bills which are all of the same character, and I can quite understand that it is necessary that one decision should be come to upon all the Bills, and that we should not have several discussions upon the same subject. These Bills were put down for to-day by agreement with the parties concerned, and we all understood that the Bills should be taken to-day. I am given to understand that the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is not prepared to take them to-day, and asks that they shall stand over for a fortnight in order that the Local Government Board may make some proposal with regard to these Instructions. The Local Government Board themselves say that they will not be ready to make these proposals until the 16th March. This is a very inconvenient course to adopt if the Bills were once put off for a fortnight. I am personally interested in No. 5, the Manchester Corporation Bill, and I would ask the right honourable Gentleman if he could not manage to take that Bill at some earlier date, say the end of next week, and if necessary I would move that instead of the Bills being put off till the 16th March they should be put off till the 10th.
MR. CHANNING: Before the right honourable Gentleman replies I should like to put a further question to him. I quite concur in the suggestion of my honourable Friend as to the postponement, because it is obvious that the considerations which arise upon these Instructions cannot be fairly dealt with until the House is in possession of the new Order to be issued by the Local Government Board, dealing with cowsheds and so on. I can quite understand that that Order will very likely alter the character of the discussion on these Instructions, and I will, therefore, ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state to the House at about what time the House will be in possession of this Order, and whether the Order will be intended to deal with all the rather complicated and wide ques-
1012
tions involved in this matter—whether it will regulate the special points arising from this application, of which the right honourable Gentleman is well aware, or whether the Order will cover the more general ground to the extent of the definition of the word "tuberculosis," which is included in the Act of 1878. My only object in asking this question is in order that the House may be in possession of information which will enable it to properly deal with the consideration of these Bills.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLAIN,): The point asked is as to the intention and objects of the Local Government Board with reference to this matter. What has happened, so far as I am concerned, is this. I have endeavoured, so far as I can, to collect the general feeling and opinions of the Members of this House who are interested in this Question, and I have endeavoured to ascertain what date would be for the general convenience of the discussion on these instructions, and I had formed the opinion, from a communication which was made to me, that the 16th March would be for the general convenience, and, subject to that, I expressed my entire willingness to adopt that date, so far as the Local Government Board is concerned. If my honourable Friend behind me still adheres to that date I shall be bound to support it. With regard to the suggestion of the honourable Gentleman, the Member for Northamptonshire I am afraid it will be impossible to give him a general description of the new Order, and of the proposed Regulations which will be drawn up. I may say this, that I hope, and believe, that they will very shortly be published. I cannot give the exact date without notice, but I am under the impression that they are at the printers at the present moment, and I have no doubt that if the discussion is put off until the date named—that is the 16th March—that they will be in the hands of honourable Members.
MR. GALLOWAY: Cannot we have them before the discussion comes on?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: They are

1013
very voluminous. There are over 100 authorities to be dealt with, and I doubt whether they will be ready much before.
MR. GALLOWAY: Will the right honourable Gentleman agree to that date being put off if they are not ready by that date?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: It will be much more for the general convenience of the House if the date is adhered to.
*MR. CALDWELL: The House has already passed the Second Reading of the Bill to which this Instruction relates: and the Bill will have its precedence, in the usual way, for being taken in Committee. The mere presence on the Notice Paper of an Instruction to be Moved does not delay the consideration of the Bill by the Committee. If, therefore, a Member in charge of an Instruction asks it to be postponed for 14 days, or even for an indefinite period, the promoters of the Bill are not prejudiced by the delay. The Member in charge of the Instruction continues at his own peril, and will have himself to blame if the Bill should pass through Committee before the House has come to any Resolution on the Instruction.
MR. J. LOWTHER: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has a very considerable knowledge with regard to private business, and he has opened up a new vista altogether. He has suggested that it is possible that this Bill may be hurried on before the Instruction can be considered by the House. I can scarcely think that the honourable Gentleman is serious in that proposition, but I should like the assurance that nothing of the kind will be done. I presume that there is absolutely no chance of anything of that sort being done, and if there is it seems to me that the House will have to take steps to prevent it. If that suggestion had emanated from any Member not fully acquainted with Private Bill procedure I should have taken no notice of it, but as the honourable Gentleman occupies such a prominent position as regards particular knowledge of Private Bill procedure, I should be very glad to have an assurance that the Bills
1014
will not be rushed through Committee as has been suggested.
*MR. SPEAKER: It will be, perhaps, some satisfaction to the right honourable Gentleman to know that I am informed by my Counsel, who is present, that any such course is practically impossible.
MR. J. ELLIS: I quite agree with the honourable Member below me in his desire that we should be in possession of the Order of the Local Government Board before we discuss these Bills, and I trust that the right honourable Gentleman will endeavour to let us have it before the date mentioned. I venture to suggest that it would be greatly for the convenience of the House that a definite date should be arrived at for the consideration of these Bills, and that they should not be put off from time to time. If the date mentioned—the 16th March—can be generally accepted, then I think that the Bills ought to be discussed on that date. These Bills, and the Instructions, involve a very serious question to the country, and the House ought to know exactly when the matter is coming on, and if a date is put down for their discussion then that date ought to be rigidly adhered to.
MR. GALLOWAY: I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion as to the alteration of the date. Might I say, however, that my whole intention was that the date should be a fixed one.

  QUESTIONS.

    HONG KONG DOCK.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when Her Majesty's ship "Victorious" was sent to the China station, it was the belief of the Admiralty that she could be docked at Hong Kong; whether this has been found to be too dangerous: what progress is being made in the exe-

    1015
    cution of the plan for the addition to the Hong Kong Naval yard; and whether the arrangements with the Hong Kong Dock Company for the construction of a larger dock have fallen through?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): There is no question as to the capacity of the Hong Kong Dock. It is quite capable of receiving the "Victorious," though the margin is small. Later experience gained in clocking heavy vessels very little inferior in size to the "Victorious" has caused the Hong Kong officers to report that, in consequence of the existence of a current across the entrance to the dock at the very moment of high-water, when it is necessary to dock large ships, a certain amount of risk would be involved on account of the difficulty of managing the ship with sufficient nicety in passing her in. As there are docks in Japan which will take the "Victorious," it is not considered desirable to run any such risk. Sharps Buildings and the North Barracks have been acquired, thus doubling the size of the yard. The utilisation of the buildings thus obtained, as shops, storehouses, &c., is proceeding under the direction of the Commodore, and the arrangements made with the Colonial Government for the widening of Murray Road are being carried out. No arrangement has been concluded with the Dock Company for the construction of a larger dock. The Admiralty have now under consideration a proposal to construct a clock of their own, as part of the Dockyard Extension provided for in the Naval Works Acts.

    DEYONRORT ROYAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE.
    MR. SHARPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will have the recreation ground attached to the Royal Engineering College at Devonport put in such condition that the 200 students may have the enjoyment of it, which at present is so rough and covered with stones as to be a source of danger to those playing on it?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The recreation ground has only recently been made. Provision will be made in the Estimates for the necessary work to complete it.

    SWINE FEVER REGULATIONS IN LANCASHIRE.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Monaghan, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that rules exist in the county of Lancashire and parts of Wales preventing Irish reared swine from being kept by the people of districts mentioned for fattening; whether he is aware that the Irish Veterinary Department have promised that no pigs suffering from disease will be allowed to be shipped from Irish ports; and if he will endeavour to get the County Council of Lancashire, and parts of Wales referred to, to relax rules mentioned, which cause great loss to the rearers of pigs in Ireland?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The regulation made by the Lancashire County Council prohibiting the introduction of swine into the county from Ireland, except for slaughter, was revoked as from the 1st ult., but I believe that similar regulations are still in force in some of the Welsh counties. Doubtless the Irish authorities do all that they can to prevent the exportation of diseased animals, but there is still a danger of the introduction of disease by that means, and I am not surprised that the local authorities concerned should desire to protect their districts from it. The matter is one entirely within their own discretion, and I cannot undertake to do more than bring under their notice any representations I may receive on the subject.

    SURVEYORS OF TAXES.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the alleged existence of excessive and continuous overwork on the part of the Surveyors of Taxes, arising

    1017
    from the large increase in the number of assessments and of taxable property, the numerous changes of late years in fiscal legislation and other causes, and intensified by the quinquennial valuation made this year; and, if he is taking any, and what, steps to remedy this condition of things, and to ensure that the revenue of the country is not being prejudiced by the amount of responsible work now thrown upon the Surveyors of Taxes, and which they are not able to cope with.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): My attention has been drawn to the existence of overwork on the part of the Surveyors of Taxes, and in November last the Treasury sanctioned the creation of between 20 and 25 new Tax Districts. Steps have already been taken, by the appointment of additional Assistant Surveyors (who are now employed in rendering assistance) with a view to the creation of the new districts as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. It is hoped that this may remove any undue pressure in the ordinary work, which the Board are naturally anxious to avoid, and the matter shall be carefully watched. As regards the quinquennial valuation, it is, of course, impossible permanently to increase the staff of surveyors in order to meet work which is temporary. The surveyors are supplied with extra clerical assistance, and, in the more pressing cases, with aid from the head office. I think, however, that it should be considered whether, before the next quinquennial assessment, some better means of meeting the pressure at these particular times cannot be devised.

    MILITARY COMMANDS IN INDIA.
    COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that when the number of Lieutenant-Generals (Cavalry and Infantry) was fixed at 13 there were only two Lieutenant-Generals' Commands in India (exclusive of the Commander-in-Chief), but that now, since the new organisation of the Indian Army, there are four such commands (exclusive of the Commander-in-Chief); whether
    1018
    some vacant Lieutenant-Generals' Commands have lately been given to Major-Generals; and whether, under these circumstances, it is proposed to increase the establishment of Lieutenant-Generals by two?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer, in the absence of my honourable Friend. The answer to the first paragraph of my honourable and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. Three commands as Lieutenant-General have lately been given to. Major-Generals, not because of insufficiency in the establishment of Lieutenant-Generals, but because the officers in question were considered to be, under all the circumstances, most suitable for those commands. It is not proposed to increase the establishment of Lieutenant-Generals.

    MUZZLING ORDER IN MIDDLESEX.
    MR. W. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any (and, if any, how many) cases of rabies, have occurred within the county of Middlesex within the last six months; and 'whether, considering that the order-relating to the muzzling of dogs had been rescinded in other counties adjoining, he-can see his way to rescind it in the county of Middlesex?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: No case of rabies is known to have occurred in Middlesex during the past six months, but, for the reasons which I have on several occasions explained, I do not consider that the Muzzling Order at present in force in that county and the rest of the Metropolitan Police District could as yet be safely withdrawn.

    CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.
    MR. A. H. A. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have issued, for the information of their staff, copies of the reply of the Lords of the

    1019
    Treasury to the memorial from the Civil Servants in reference to superannuation; and whether, as the staffs of the Inland Revenue and the Post Office are large and widely scattered, arrangements can be made to issue the reply with the General Orders of the Board of Inland Revenue and the Post Office Circular?
    MR. HANBURY: Copies of the Treasury Letter of the 16th of January were circulated by the Board of Customs to their staff by a General Order dated the 28th of January 1899; and similar steps will be taken by the Post Office and the Inland Revenue Department.

    DUTIES OF BRITISH CONSULS.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will grant a return showing the increase within the last 10 years of the work which British Consuls are called upon to perform, and contrasting their duties and salaries with those of the Consular officers of other countries?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): This return, so far as it relates to our own Consuls, could not be prepared without very great labour, and we have no information as to the Consular officers of other countries which would enable us to make a real comparison of their relative duties and salaries with those of our own Consular officers.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Could not some inquiries be made?
    [No Reply.]

    COMPULSORY SICK CLUBS.
    MR. H. S. SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the departmental inquiry on the question of compulsory sick clubs?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The Secretary of State for the Home Department has not yet received the Report of the Committee to which the honourable Member refers; but the Report is in the printers' hands, and it will not be long before it is submitted to him.

    BRITISH ARMY.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Militia together, on the 1st day of January 1889, as compared.with the numbers on the 1st day of January 1895?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The numbers of the effective non-commissioned officers and men on the dates mentioned are as follows:—1st January 1895, Regular Army, 213,555; Army Reserve, 82,804: Militia, 112,541; total, 408,900. 1st January 1899, Regular Armv, 222,373; Army Reserve, 78,798; Militia, 107,753; total, 408,924.

    CAVALRY ENLISTMENTS.
    MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a Scotsman wishing to join a Scottish Cavalry Regiment can enlist especially for the Royal Scots Greys, or can only enlist for the corps of Dragoons, on the chance of being allowed to complete his service in the Royal Scots Greys?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Cavalry recruits are informed on enlistment that they are liable to be posted to other regiments of the same corps, but that every effort will be made to meet their desire for service in a particular regiment. The Scots Greys come under this rule.
    MR. JEFFREYS: May I ask whether a new arrangement has not been made by which soldiers can enlist in particular cavalry regiments?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Soldiers do enlist in particular cavalry regiments,

    1021
    and they remain in those regiments subject to the convenience of the service.

    DECORATIONS FOR THE EGYPTIAN TROOPS.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to confer any decoration on the Egyptian troops who took part in the Atbara-Omdurman operations, as was done with respect to the campaign of 1882–5?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The answer that I have to give to my honourable and gallant Friend is in the affirmative.

    WAIMA.
    MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the date on which the communication was addressed to the French Government on the subject of compensation for the families of British officers killed by French, troops at Waima, referred to by Mr. Curzon in reply to a Question on 21st July last; whether any reply has been received; and whether, if no reply has been received, Her Majesty's Government contemplate making such representations to the Government of the French Republic as may be required in order to obtain a settlement of the claims in question?
    MR. BRODRICK: A communication was addressed to the French Government on 11th July 1898. No reply has yet been received. It is proposed to deal with the claims in question in connection with others arising out of affairs in West Africa now under consideration.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is my right honourable Friend aware that that answer has been steadily given for the last three years?

    DEANSGATE (MANCHESTER) RAILWAY FATALITY.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a serious accident at the Great Northern Railway Company's goods station, Deansgate, Manchester, on Thursday last, by which Charles Kelly, porter, of Manor Street, Ashton Old Road, and Samuel Carter, of Mansfield Street, Oldham Road, Manchester, were caught by a rope in connection with a hydraulic capstan, and were seriously injured, and admitted to the Manchester Infirmary as in-patients; whether his attention has been drawn to the death of J. Cavanagh, at the end of December last, at the capstan situated in the goods yard of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, Oldham Road, Manchester, and to various other accidents which have occurred at the same place in the last few years, and would he send down a competent inspector to report on these capstans, and see if he could not suggest some improvements by applying treadles, so as to stop the revolution of the capstans, or otherwise, so as to diminish the losses of life and limbs which have unfortunately occurred at these two yards; and would he ascertain how many accidents, and their nature, have occurred during the last five years at the capstans at the two places indicated above?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade are in communication with the companies on this subject. It appears that the Great Northern Railway goods station was only opened last July, and that the machinery is of the most modern pattern and already provided with a treadle. I shall be happy to furnish the honourable Member with the result of the communications and also the number of accidents at the two places indicated.

    AIR SPACE IN COMMON LODGING HOUSES.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: On behalf of the honourable Member for Battersea I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the

    1023
    amount of cubic space insisted upon by the Local Government Board for each adult person living in registered common lodging houses; whether he is aware that the lascar seamen employed on the P. and 0. steamship "Caledonia," now lying in the Victoria, and Albert Dock, have less than 70 cubic feet of space per person alloted to them; whether this dock is under the supervision of the Sanitary Authority for the Port of London; and whether the Local Government Hoard have control over the Port Sani-tarv Authority; and, if so, whether the President of the Local Government Board will give instructions for the Port Sanitary Inspector to inspect the forecastles of all P. and 0. steamships, and insist upon the lascar crews having proper accommodation provided for them?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The amount of cubic space which should be required for each person in a registered common lodging house is a, matter to be determined by the local authority, and is not subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. I am informed that the cubic space allotted to lascar seamen on board the "Caledonia" is 70 cubic feet or upwards. The dock appears to be within the district of the Sanitary Authority for the Port of London. I have communicated with the officers of the Port Sanitary Authority, and I understand that the amount of accommodation to be provided for lascar seamen is considered to be prescribed by an East Indian Act, and that if the allotted space is less than that prescribed by law proceedings are taken by summons under the Public Health Act.

    LASCAR ACCOMMODATION ON P. AND O. STEAMERS.
    MR. MGHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of lascars employed as sailors, firemen, coal-trimmers, boys, and assistant cooks on board the P. and O. steamship "Sumatra," which is due to leave London on 3rd March 1899; whether he can state how many cubic feet of space is provided for each lascar in the forecastles set apart for
    1024
    their use; whether the said vessel is a British registered vessel, registered in the United Kingdom; and whether the lascar crew of the said vessel have allotted to them the cubic accommodation as provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of lascars employed as sailors, firemen, coal-trimmers, boys, and assistant cooks on board the Peninsular and Oriental steamship "Arcadia," which is due to leave London on the 9th March; whether he can state how many cubic feet of space is provided for each lascar in the forecastles set apart for their use; whether the said vessel is a British registered vessel registered in a port in the United Kingdom; and whether the lascar crew of the vessel have allotted to them the cubic accommodation as provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
    MR. MACALEESE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of lascars employed as sailors, firemen, coal-trimmers, boys, and assistant cooks on board of the Peninsular and Oriental steamship "Caledonia," which is due to leave London on 2nd March 1899; whether he can state how many cubic feet of space is provided for each lascar in the forecastles set apart for their accommodation; and whether the said vessel is a British ship registered in the United Kingdom; and whether the lascar crew of this vessel have allotted to them the cubic accommodation as provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: With the permission of the House I will reply to all the Questions at once. The P. and O. steamers "Sumatra," "Arcadia," and "Caledonia" are British, registered vessels. The "Sumatra" is to carry 65, the "Arcadia" 132, and the "Caledonia" 157 lascars in the capacities mentioned in the Questions. The space allotted to each lascar on the "Sumatra" is rather over 71 cubic feet, on the "Arcadia"

    1025
    70.6 cubic feet, and on the "Caledonia" 79 cubic feet. There is thus, in the first two cases, rather less, and in the third, somewhat more, space than is required under the Imperial Act. It will, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House that I should take this opportunity of explaining the position of the law as regards crew space. Under section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, each seaman or apprentice is to have appropriated for his use a space of not less than 72 cubic feet and of not less than 12 superficial feet. For each contravention of this requirement the owner of the ship is liable to a fine not exceeding £20. If this were the only section operating the law "would be clear, but it is not. Under the Indian Merchant Shipping Acts, only six superficial and 36 cubic feet are required. Under section 123 of the English Act of 1894, the master or owner of any ship may enter into an agreement with lascars, and the unrepealed provisions of an old Act of the 4th Year of King George IV, specially empowering the Indian Government to make regulations with respect to the accommodation of lascars, are safeguarded. The effect of these various enactments is, that it is by no means clear whether the direct obligation in respect to crew space of the English Act or the Indian Acts obtains in regard to lascars The exact effect of these provisions has been referred for the advice, of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Board of Trade are in communication with the Indian Government through the India Office with regard to the provisions of their law.
    MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: Arising out of that answer, I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, in the case of a vessel not providing the crew with the necessary accommodation in accordance with the law, the Board of Trade will disallow any deductions from tonnage. Was not that done in the case of the "Australia," when she did not comply with the section?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE: The honourable Member is complicating the whole Question. I have endeavoured to show that the law is by no means clear, and that there is a cer-
    1026
    tain section of an old Act of George IV. which has not been repealed, and which enables captains of British ships, even sailing from British ports, to make arrangements with lascars in accordance with the regulations of the Indian Government. It is this obscurity which prevents the Board of Trade from taking up any position definitely at the present moment; but they recognise their obligation to proceed, in accordance with the law, whatever may be the ship or the company concerned. In order to obtain the best advice they can with regard to the law, the matter has been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the right honourable Gentleman not aware that in June 1895 the Board of Trade issued a circular dealing with the crew space, and that in it they ordered their officers—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member must either accept the answer, or give notice of an additional Question in the usual way.
    MR, HAVELOCK WILSON: Then I will put further Questions on this on Monday.

    VOLUNTEER MEDICAL SERVICE.
    DR. FARQUHARSONI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory condition of the medical service of the Volunteers, more particularly to the anomalous position of the brigade-bearer companies; and whether it is proposed to so organise the Volunteer medical service as to assimilate it to the regular medical service of the Army, both as regards rank to the medical officers and the organisation of the Volunteer Medical Staff Corps and the brigade-bearer companies, and thereby render it effective as one of the departments of the Volunteer force?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: An increased establishment has been given to all companies of the Volunteer Medical Staff Corps, in order to complete the personnel for transport sections. An

    1027
    allowance will also be given to them to enable them to practise transport duties. There is no intention to make an alteration in the rank of Volunteer medical officers. The question of the reorganisation of the Volunteer infantry brigade-bearer companies is under consideration.

    TRANSVAAL TROUBLES.
    MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the policeman Jones, in the employ of the Transvaal Republic, who has just been put upon his trial for the unprovoked murder of a British subject has been acquitted; and whether any steps can be taken to provide some measure of security for the lives of British subjects in the Transvaal?
    MR. DILLON: Before an answer is given, I wish to ask whether this Question is in order. It speaks of "an unprovoked murder" of an Englishman in the Transvaal. Is an honourable Member entitled to prejudge a case in that way?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must say that it is a rather irregular expression to use in a Question.
    MR. DUNCOMBE: Then I withdraw the word "unprovoked."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer in the absence of the Colonial Secretary? My right honourable Friend has received no information as yet, but no doubt the telegram in the newspapers correctly states the fact. The Colonial Secretary cannot express any opinion on the merits of the case until he is in possession of the full report of the trial, and he is not in a position to say whether any action is called for on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. DUNCOMBE: Can the noble Lord say whether the Colonial Secretary will give this matter careful consideration?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I think my honourable Friend may safely assume that he will.

    JOHNSTOWN (KILKENNY) DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
    MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Local Government Board in dissolving, by sealed Order, the dispensary district of Johnstown, county Kilkenny, and in amalgamating it with the districts of Urlingford and Ballen; whether he is aware that there are nearly 3,000 inhabitants in the Johnstown district, and that there are almost 60 dispensary districts in Ireland with smaller populations, and 259 with smaller areas; whether, under the proposed change, no medical officer will be resident within the existing Johnstown dispensary district, imposing on the sick poor the necessity of travelling 14 miles by road to seek relief; whether, in consideration of the welfare of the poor, it has been decided upon to establish medical clubs in the district of Johnstown, as was done before the Poor Law system was introduced there; and, whether he will consider the propriety of making no change before the district councils come into operation?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The sealed Order referred to in the first paragraph was issued with my approval. There are 2,227 inhabitants in the portion of the Johnstown district which has been added to Urlingford dispensary district. There are not more than 20 dispensary districts with a smaller population than 2,227, but I cannot ascertain at such short notice the number with smaller areas than Johnstown dispensing district. Under the arrangement rendered necessary by the alteration in the boundary of the Union, the extreme distance which any sick person might have to travel to the dispensary will not be greater than that which such persons have hitherto had to travel under existing arrangements. I have no information relative to the fourth paragraph. The changes in boundaries, which the Board were compelled to make under section 68 of the Act of last year, dame into operation for the purpose of the first election, and the consequential altera-

    1029
    tion in the dispensary districts cannot be postponed to a period beyond the appointed day. There is nothing, however, to prevent the Board from recasting the dispensary districts in any Unions if the alterations can be proved to be productive of inconvenience to the sick poor.

    RUSSIANS AT TALIENWAN.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that a large number of Chinese peasants have been killed by Russian soldiers near Talienwan for refusing to pay taxes to Russian collectors; by what right, international or treaty, Russian officers exercise such powers in Chinese territory; and whether the Chinese Government have protested against such action; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will support their protest?
    MR. BRODRICK: The powers of the Russian authorities in the districts leased to them in China are detailed in an agreement between Russia and China, which is among the papers shortly to be laid before Parliament. The agreement contemplates the government of the district being entrusted to Russian officials, and it is for the Chinese Government to take action if such powers are exceeded. I fear that as to the facts of this case I can add nothing to the information already given.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The right honourable Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of this Question, and I must ask him to reply to it.
    MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware whether the Chinese Government have yet taken action with regard to these powers.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, if the Chinese Government do make this protest, Her Majesty's Government will support them?

    LONDON IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
    MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officer commanding the London Irish Volunteers declared that he had no trust or confidence in Roman Catholics, and, considering that the regiment is one of the most loyal and efficient in the Volunteer Force, largely composed of Irishmen and Catholics, inquiry will be made into the matter, with the view of assuring the men in the regiment that the commanding officer, in making such declaration, had not the approval of the War Office authorities?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The question apparently refers to an unhappily worded letter written in November, 1897, to a friend and brother officer by the officer commanding the London Irish Volunteers. The letter had reference to an individual officer, and was marked distinctly "private."

    LARNE BURIAL ACCOMMODATION.
    MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the urgent necessity for burying ground at Larne, county Antrim; and whether he will suggest to the Local Government Board the desirability of making inquiry into the matter with the view of causing sufficient burial accommodation to be provided for the people of that district?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An inquiry into this matter was held by the Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board on Monday last.

    VACCINATION.
    MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the objections felt by many medical men at having their patients visited by the public vaccinator, he will take into consideration the desirability of paying for vaccination, by the family medical attendant?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have no information to the effect that objections are felt by many medical men at having their patients visited by the public vaccinator. The duty of the public vaccinator to visit the home of an unvaccinated child does not arise until the child has attained the age of between four and five months, unless the parent requests him to visit the home at an earlier date. There is, therefore, ample opportunity for the private practitioner to perform the operation if it is desired. The suggestion of the honourable Member was fully discussed during the passage of the Bill last year, but was rejected by a majority of more than two to one, and I see no reason for altering that decision now.

    CONVALESCENT DUTIES FOR TELEGRAPHISTS.
    COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will state whether the arrangements made between the Postmaster-General and the Treasury regarding the performance of duties at seaside towns by convalescent clerks of the Central Telegraph Office and the Metropolitan districts have been completed; and, whether the Postmaster-General can make the terms public?
    MR. HANBURY: In future the practice will be limited to the following eases:—(1) Those of officers who have broken down or are in danger of breaking down from overtime performed either compulsorily or in response to a call for volunteers. (2) Cases of actual or impending illness among such officers which can be certified as being due to causes specifically attributable to the nature of the officer's duties. The Treasury have not found it practicable to sanction the continuance of the practice referred to by the honourable Member, because there is no sufficient reason for giving to Post Office servants privileges in excess of those already accorded to the whole of the Civil Service, except so far as the conditions of postal work may be abnormal, and expose Post Office servants to risks of illness from which the servants of other Departments are free.

    BISHOP DESIGNATE OF MADRAS.
    MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is responsible for advising Her Majesty to appoint the Rev. Henry Whitehead to the Bishopric of Madras, which had been previously filled by an Evangelical; whether he is aware that the Rev. Henry Whitehead w as not only a member or the English Church Union, bat is the Superior of the Oxford Mission at Calcutta, whose official anniversary sermon was preached by the Bishop of Lincoln at St. Mary Magdalene's on Epiphany Tide at a service announced in the parish magazine as High Mass, and at which banners, crucifixes, sacrificial vestments, multiplied lights, incense, sacring bells, and elevation were included, and above all there were no communicants; whether he is aware that, at the college chapel presided over by Mr. Whitehead, according to the "Tourists' Church Guide" published by the English Church Union, vestments, altar lights, incense, and other illegalities are practised; and whether this appointment may be taken as an indication of the ecclesiastical policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am responsibe for advising as to the appointment recently made to the Bishopric of Madras. I am aware that Mr. Whitehead has of late held the official position of chaplain to the Bishop of Calcutta and Principal of the Bishop's College, Calcutta, and he has also voluntarily undertaken the work of Superior of the Oxford Mission in that city. As to the details of services held in this country in connection with the Oxford Mission, I have no information; nor can I understand why the Bishop Designate, who has been working continuously for the last 15 years in India, should be held responsible for them. The ritual practised in the Chapel of the Bishop's College at Calcutta has been and is such as is approved by the Bishop for the time being. The honourable Member must be aware that the interpretation of the law on this subject is a matter of much difficulty; but I am in a position to state that the Bishop Designate regards it as a duty not to go beyond the limits laid down in the Prayer Book, and that he is prepared to

    1033
    tender all due reverence and obedience to the Metropolitan. I may add that men of all phases of religious opinion speak in the highest terms of Mr. Whitehead's ministrations in India, and agree that, by his intellectual attainments, daily life, and devotion to duty, he has, wherever he has laboured, made Christianity a living and speaking reality. The honourable Gentleman asks mo if, from this one appointment, a general indication may be obtained of the ecclesiastical policy of the Government. The honourable Gentleman must know that any generalisation from a solitary appointment must be invidious and misleading; but, if he is disposed to indulge in such conjectures, I think it would be more appropriate for him to take as his illustration the appointment of Dr. Well don to the Bishopric of Calcutta, in which capacity, as Metropolitan of India, he is and will continue to be Mr. Whitehead's ecclesiastical superior.

    READING VACCINATION OFFICER.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to a letter of the Local Government Board addressed last December to one of the vaccination officers of the Reading Board of Guardians, in which it is stated that it would be contrary to the Board's practice to advise an officer of a board of guardians without reference to the guardians in a matter in which the guardians have jurisdiction, whether the matter submitted to the Local Government Board, and touched upon in their reply, was action by the vaccination officer in prosecuting defaulters under the Vaccination Acts; whether vaccination officers are to understand from this letter that in interpreting the instructions to vaccination officers in the Fourth Schedule to the General Vaccination Order of 18th October 1898, in sub-section (d) of section 6 of those instructions and elsewhere, that it is their duty in the first place to take the orders of the guardians as to prosecuting or not prosecuting defaulters, or to abstain from prosecuting any defaulter if so ordered by the guardians; whether, for several years before the Vaccination Act, 1898, the Local Government Board has left the boards of guardians free to
    1034
    decide whether prosecutions were to be undertaken or not, and has repeatedly addressed to the boards copies of the Evesham letter urging the boards not to repeat prosecutions; and, whether he will forthwith send a circular to all vaccination officers that they are to act according to the instructions given in the Reading letter referred to in this Question, and with the admitted practice which the Local Government Board has now allowed for several years past?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The honourable Member is under a misapprehension as to the correspondence to which he alludes. No such letter as that referred to in the Question was written by the Local Government Board in December last. But in January, 1898, one of the vaccination officers of the Reading Union wrote to the Board asking for their advice in the matter of vaccination, without specifying any particular point, and the reply to that letter was to the effect stated in the Question. As regards the second and fourth paragraphs, it will be obvious that the letter had no bearing on the instructions to vaccination officers in the Vaccination Order of 18th October 1898, as it was written nearly nine months prior to the issue of the Order. As regards the third paragraph, under the regulations which were in force until the present year, it was the duty of the guardians to cause proceedings, to be taken against persons in default under the Vaccination Acts, and for this purpose to give directions to the vaccination officer to institute and conduct the proceedings. It was the practice of the board to point out to the guardians that it was their duty to give directions to the vaccination officer accordingly. It was decided in the case of Bramble v. Lowe that, notwithstanding the regulations then in force, the power of taking proceedings was vested in the vaccination officer under the Vaccination Acts without any directions from the guardians, which were held to be superfluous; and, having regard to that decision and to the opinions given by the Law Officers of the Crown, the Board have not in their new Order imposed any duty either on the guardians or vaccination officer, as regards the institution and conduct of proceedings.
    MR. CHANNING: I shall put a fur-their Question on this matter.

    SANITARY INSPECTORS.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is a fact that he has sanctioned the formation of a Sanitary Inspectors Examination Board as a limited company; if one of the objects of the Board is stated to be to prescribe courses of study and technical training; if local authorities and institutions providing instruction for those who desire to become sanitary inspectors are to have any representation on the Board; and, if so, how and to what extent; and, it he will consent to lay a copy of the memorandum and articles of association, sanctioned by him, upon the Table of this House?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: An association has been formed, with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, for holding examinations of persons desirous of obtaining certificates of competency for the office of Sanitary Inspector or Inspector of Nuisances. The association has been registered as a company with limited liability. One of the objects of the association is to prescribe such course of study and technical training as may be calculated to ensure the fitness of persons desirous of qualifying for the offices above mentioned. Several bodies, some of whom provide instruction for those who desire to become Sanitary Inspectors, will be represented on the Examination Board, and representatives may be elected by such additional bodies as may from time to time be approved by the Local Government Board. I have no objection to laying a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association upon the Table of the House if the honourable Member thinks fit to move for it.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: Is it intended to give this association any representation in the educational authorities about to be formed?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: That will be a question for the authorities themselves to decide.

    MORAY FIRTH.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that complaints are rife of illegal trawling and destruction of nets and lines in the Moray Firth; and whether, before taking steps to replace the fishery cruiser "Brenda," which has unfortunately been wrecked, he will cause full inquiry to be made as to whether the "Brenda" and "Norna" have been found in practice efficient for police work?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that there are complaints of trawling in the Moray Firth by foreign fishing vessels, and there have been some complaints of damage to lines by these vessels. The only redress for this is in the law courts of the country to which the vessel belongs, as arranged by the North Sea Convention. The "Brenda" has not been wrecked. She has been got off the rocks, and is expected to arrive at Leith to-day, and it is hoped she will be ready to resume duty soon. The Fishery Board have found, so far, their fishery cruisers well adapted for the purpose for which they were intended, but it is premature to affirm that their suitability has yet been thoroughly tested.

    HONOURABLE A. B. MORINE.
    MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state if the Honourable A. B. Morine, formerly a Minister of the Colony of Newfoundland, was dispensed from further service in his office by the Governor of the Colony on grounds appertaining to his conduct as a Minister?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (for The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES): Mr. Moraine was required by the Governor to resign office on the ground that he was the legal adviser of Mr. Reid, with whom the Colonial Government has entered into a railway contract.

    PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT.
    MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the great public interest in the proposed alterations and erections at the corner of Parliament Street, he will furnish, for the inspection of Members of Parliament and the public, a model showing precisely the form and position of the contemplated buildings, as well as their relation to the line of Parliament Street?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): To construct a model would cost more, and cause more delay, than I think the honourable Gentleman himself would think justifiable. I have already undertaken to exhibit the plans and elevations of the proposed new buildings, and with these I will exhibit a plan showing the future alignment of Whitehall from the Admiralty to Parliament Square. When honourable Members have these before them, I trust they will agree that they have all the information they will require.
    MR. MCKENNA: Where will the plans be shown?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: In the Tea Room.

    INDIAN RAILWAYS.
    MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is available any list or statement showing the Indian railway extensions already sanctioned, with the localities, aggregate mileage, and estimated cost of such extensions; whether a statement can be made at an early date of such further railway projects as are likely to be included in the forecasts for the financial year, with an estimate of the capital outlay thereon; and whether lists and estimates can also be given of the chief projects in hand and under consideration for water storage and irrigation in the different presidencies?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: At page 88 et seq. of the Administration Report for 1897–8, which has been laid before Parliament, will
    1038
    be found a statement of the capital expenditure on the various railways to the 31st December, 1897, and at page 98 et seq. of the Financial Statement for 1898–9 the proposed grants for extensions in subsequent years. It is probable that the financial statement, which will be made on the 20th March and which will be subsequently laid before Parliament, will include the programme of further railway projects and irrigation works on which money will be spent in the coming year. With regard to irrigation works, I may also refer the honourable Member to page 12 of the appendix to the explanatory memorandum presented by me last year.

    ANTI-VIVISECTION AT BRADFORD.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at an anti-vivisection meeting held at Bradford on the 30th September last, Dr. Kerr, speaking against the proposed withdrawal of licences granted to vivisectors, said the effect of the proposed step would be to increase the number of illegal experiments on the bodies of living animals, and that such experiments were performed by many of his fellow doctors at Bradford, as it was necessary in the cause of science that such experiments should be made; whether he is aware that Dr. Kerr stated that Dr. Hines, of Horton Road, Bradford, was the only vivisector in Bradford who carried out experiments in vivisection under the licence required by law, and that Dr. Hines, who was present, stated that he had performed hundreds of vivisections, and should continue to do so; whether he is aware that the secretary of the Anti-Vivisection Society produced a list of licensed vivisectors, on which the name of Dr. Hines did not appear; and whether, in view of these facts, he intends to take any, and what, steps for the enforcement of the law against the practice of unlicensed vivisection?
    MR. COLLINGS: The Secretary of State for the Home Department believes that at a somewhat excited meeting in Bradford on the date mentioned statements to the effect

    1039
    suggested were made. His attention was drawn to the matter at the time, and he caused inquiry to be made, but could not elicit any clear statement of what was actually alleged, nor any evidence of illegal vivisection being performed by Dr. Hime—not Hines. There are, therefore, no steps which he can take in the matter. I may add that it should be remembered that performing upon an animal an experiment calculated to give pain without a licence is an ordinary criminal offence which any person may prosecute.

    VIVISECTION REGULATIONS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the interpretation put by the Government inspector of vivisection operations on the effect of the Act when he states, in his preface to the last Returns, that the certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics make it obligatory on the holder not to use them even should he desire to do so and when he himself believes that the experiment could be carried on under anæsthetics; and whether he will take this interpretation of the Act by the Government inspector under his consideration?
    MR. COLLINGS: The Secretary of State for the Home Department thinks that the honourable Member has entirely misconceived the meaning of the statement to which he refers. Perhaps I may explain the apparent difficulty. The Act lays down that experiments such as those in question can only be performed without anæsthetics by a person holding a certain certificate. If the experiment is to be performed under, or partly under, anæsthetics, the certificate required is quite different. The operator referred to possessed the former, but not the latter, certificate. Therefore, by using anésthetics, in his anxiety to avoid causing even the slightest pain to the animal, he committed a slight technical irregularity, which the inspector, in accordance with the usual practice, noticed in his annual Report.

    NAVAL FUNERALS.
    MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the ceremonies used last week at the funeral of the late Rev. E. J. Vaughan, chaplain of the "St. Vincent" at Portsmouth; whether he is aware that the evening before the funeral vespers for the dead were sung, whilst throughout the night watches were kept beside the bier; and that on the day of the funeral, at eight in the morning, requiem mass was sung, whilst the usual funeral service was held in St. Michael's Church at two in the afternoon; whether this service was attended by several naval chaplains, besides naval officers, and also by a large contingent of boys from the training ship "St. Vincent"; and whether it was with the sanction of the Admiralty authorities that these ceremonies were observed and the boys brought to attend them?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: As this funeral took place from the private residence of the deceased chaplain, and not in a naval cemetery, the arrangements for the religious service and the selection of a church in which a portion of it should take place were in the hands of the widow of the deceased officer. The Naval authorities took no part in arranging the religious part of the ceremony. Naval honours were paid, as they are always paid, irrespective of the religious denomination of the deceased officer or seaman. Whether an Anglican, a Dissenter, or Roman Catholic is buried, the purely naval part of the ceremony is, and ought to be, the same. The honourable Member must surely know that in civil life too respect is often shown by attendance at a funeral service quite irrespective of religious differences.

    INCHKEITH FOG HORN.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the extreme annoyance caused to the inhabitants of Fife by the fog syren recently erected on Inichkeith; and whether lie will take immediate steps to have it cither removed or so

    1041
    modified as not to interfere, with the sleep of the inhabitants?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the Inchkeith fog syren was established by them at the urgent request of the shipping trade, and has already proved of great service. I have no power to order the removal of the syren, but the Commissioners will endeavour to mitigate the annoyance complained of by directing the horn away from the shore whenever that can be done with safety to navigation.
    MR. DALZIEL: In view of the fact that for 20 miles inland the inhabitants are unable to sleep, will the right honourable Gentleman take steps to abate the annoyance with the least possible delay?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of recommending that the syren be made less noisy than is necessary for navigation purposes.

    FOYLE SHIPBUILDING YARD.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Foyle Shipbuilding Yard at Londonderry, which was subjected to Government survey and duly certified, is now about to be re-opened for a local company under competent expert management; and whether the claims of Londonderry will be recognised in the arrangements for Admiralty orders to such degree as may be justified by the circumstances of the fitness and competency of the revived enterprise?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No communication on the subject has been made to the Admiralty. Due consideration will be given to any application for admission to the Admiralty list of the establishment in question.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether due consideration will also be given to the claim of the shipbuilding interests in
    1042
    Cork Harbour to share in Admiralty work?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Consideration is always given to all yards capable of performing the work required; and after that it is a question of tender.

    BLOOD MONEY FOR BRITISH OFFICERS.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that blood money on the authorised scale, has been granted to British officers wounded on service while employed in the Egyptian Army; and whether it is intended to extend similar treatment to those wounded in recent operations; if not, could he explain the reason; and, if so, when will such payments be commenced?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: This matter is the subject of correspondence now passing between the War Office and the Treasury.

    CHINESE RAILWAY CONCESSION.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Minister at Pekin has protested against the terms of the Niu-chang Railway Extension Loan, recently subscribed for in London; if so, upon what grounds was such protest made; and, whether the British Government intend that the Chinese Government shall regard the terms of the loan as a binding engagement?
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Minister at Pekin has protested against the control of the Chinese Northern Railway Extension Loan by British influence, against the appointment of an Englishman as chief engineer, and against the appointment of a qualified accountant; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose

    1043
    to take for the protection of British interests and British capital?
    MR. BEODRICK: We understand that the Russian Minister at Pekin has protested against certain terms of the Niuchang Railway Extension Loan on the grounds that the provisions of the agreement conflict with assurances given to Monsieur Pavloff by the Chinese Government in July last. Her Majesty's Government regard the loan as a binding engagement on the Chinese Government.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Were the points of the protest those named in my question?
    MR. BRODRICK: Substantially, they were.

    3RD BATTALION DEVON REGIMENT.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Cinder Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to disband the present 3rd Battalion, Devon Regiment, and add four companies to the present 4th Devon Regiment, and two to the Cornish Militia; whether it is a fact that the 3rd Devon Regiment is up to its numerical strength as regards men, with but two recent vacancies among the officers; and, whether either of the other two regiments have their full complement of men?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: All action with regard to the proposed reduction of the Militia in the County of Devon has been suspended for the present.
    MR. LAMBERT: When will a decision be come to?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: We have already come to a decision to' suspend all action.
    MR. LAMBERT: And when will you decide to suspend suspending action?
    [No Reply.]

    WARRANT OFFICERS' GRIEVANCES.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a Committee was appointed last year by the Secretary of State for War to inquire into certain grievances of Warrant Officers; and whether that Committee has made a Report; if so, will it be published?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: This Report has been received; it involves many details, which are at the present time under the consideration of the Military authorities.
    MR. JEFFREYS: When will the report be received?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: It has been received, but I cannot say precisely when a decision will be came to on it.

    BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the ships of Her Majesty's Navy which have received Belleville boilers, also the ships building or ordered which will receive them; whether these boilers have been made in France by the Belleville Company; and, if not, by whom are they made, and if any royalty or any charges are paid to the Belleville Company for Belleville boilers made in England; and, whether the right to make Belleville boilers is in any way patented or protected in England?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Belleville boilers have been or will be fitted in all battleships, commencing with the Canopus class; all first-class cruisers since and including the Powerful and Terrible; all second-class cruisers following the Talbot class; and six sloops of the Mutine class. Only one set of Belleville boilers, that for the Sharpshooter, has been made by the Belleville Company for Her Majesty's Navy; all others have been or are being made by machinery contractors in this country. Royalty is paid to the Belleville Company on all Belleville boilers so made. The right to make Belleville boilers is patented and protected in England.

    INDIAN BUDGET.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that a large surplus is anticipated in the forthcoming Indian Budget, the provincial governments will have returned to them the balances they had to surrender to the supreme Government under financial pressure in former years; will the Salt Tax be reduced to the rate current in 1884–5; and, can some reduction in Import Duties imposed under the plea of financial pressure be granted?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Indian Financial Statement will be made on the 20th of this month. The honourable Member must, I think, be aware that I cannot anticipate it, as I should do if I were to answer his Questions.

    ENNIS CATTLE FAIR.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have orders to prevent the cattle fair being held in Ennis on 3rd March; and, if so, what are the grounds for such action on the part of the authorities?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police have orders to take the names of any persons exposing cattle in the streets if Ennis at the fair to be held on the 3rd inst. and to have them summoned. At last Quarter Sessions the County Court Judge decided that the holding of fairs in the streets was quite illegal, and in the opinion of the local constabulary authorities the practice is a very serious inconvenience, as well as a source of danger, to the general public.

    IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the circular sent to national school teachers m Ireland, requiring children to purchase from the school teacher school books and stationery of every description used by them at school, and also requiring
    1046
    the teachers to buy the same from the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, whether he is aware of the general and serious complaints as to the unfairness and inconvenience of the adoption of this rule; whether he is aware of the serious delay in attending to the orders sent to the Commissioners; whether the teachers are obliged to remit cash with the orders, and frequently months, and in some eases even years, pass before delivery is made to the teachers; and, whether, considering the loss and inconvenience to the children and the detriment to over 1,000 small stationers and booksellers throughout the country villages in Ireland, he will have inquiry made into the matter, with the view of throwing open for competition the supplying of these books and stationery in the same way as is done in England?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The regulation that all requisites for sale to pupils in national schools in Ireland should be purchased through the Office of National Education was made in the interests of the children attending these schools, in order to secure the best articles at the lowest prices for the children who, in Ireland, have to purchase their books and other requisites. The Commissioners are not aware that complaints of a general or serious character have been made on the subject. The goods are paid for before being issued from the Education Office. In the case of some articles a delay has occurred (but not to anything like the extent implied in the question) in supplying them, owing mainly to change of contractor, the result of contract being put up to public competition; also, to some other difficulties which, I am informed, will be but of a temporary character. Every opportunity is given to publishers and traders, as well as to managers of schools, to submit, for sanction for use, any article (either books or stationery) with the view to have it supplied, if not inferior to similar articles at present on the National Board's list. I am not in a position to speak as to the system pursued in England, but I believe there are considerable differences between the English and Irish systems that make any analogy of the kind drawn in the Question inapplicable.

    BURNHAM SCHOOL CHILDREN.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Bishop of Oxford, on being appealed to by the parishioners at Burnham, Bucks., has intimated that he disapproves of non-communicants being present during the celebration of the Holy Communion, and has decided that the school children should not be taken to church for such services; and whether he will, either by a provision in the Code, or by Circular, direct the managers of such schools to discontinue the practice where hitherto adopted of taking the children to attend Children's Eucharists as a substitute for the ordinary religious instruction?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I have no reason to doubt the honourable Member's account of the Bishop of Oxford's decision. It is no part of the functions of the Committee of Council on Education to interfere with religious instruction given to the children of voluntary schools.
    MR. CHANNING: I further ask whether persistence in a practice condemned by the Bishop in a Church of England school would not be treated as provocative of trouble in the school?
    SIR J. GORST: That is a matter of opinion, upon which the Committee of Council on Education cannot possibly express an opinion.
    MR. CHANNING: I shall put further Questions, and I beg further to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has now received the report of the inquiry by the inspector into the alleged breach of the Conscience Clause at Burnham, Bucks.; whether it appears from the inquiry that Ada Lane was taken to the church to attend the Communion Service on 2nd February, although her father had objected; whether this was a breach of the 7th section of the Act of 1870; whether the schoolmaster alleged as an excuse that he was not aware that the father had objected; and, whether verbal intimations of objection and withdrawal of a
    1048
    child are recognised by the Department; and, if so, whether he will make this clear in the Code, or otherwise?
    SIR J. GORST: I received the report last Saturday. It appeared from the inquiry that, if the father had objected, his objection had not been communicated to the schoolmaster or the managers of the school. Thirty of the 36 children exempted from attendance at the religious service brought verbal intimations only. These were invariably accepted.

    SAMOA.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal relating to a partition of the Samoan Islands has been made to Her Majesty's Government by another Power; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the proposal, from what Power it emanated, and the answer made by Her Majesty's Government?
    MR. BRODRICK: No formal proposal for a partition of the Samoan Islands has been made by any Power. Negotiations are proceeding between the three Powers on the subject of recent disturbances in Samoa, and I cannot make any statement at present.

    METROPOLITAN CONSTABLE'S GRIEVANCE.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the case of James Foley, late sergeant of the P Division, Metropolitan Police, has been brought to his notice; and, if not, whether he will make inquiry as to this mail having been reduced to a constable, after 11 years' service as a sergeant and 20 years' total service in the force, upon evidence alleged to be of a doubtful and conflicting nature which the accused was not given the opportunity of refuting?
    MR. COLLINGS: The case referred to was fully investigated by the Commissioner of Police personally, and was adjourned in order to enable Foley to adduce evidence on his own behalf, which he failed to do. The Secretary of State sees no ground whatever for questioning the decision of the Commissioner.

    CONVALESCENT STATIONS FOR SOLDIERS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that a large proportion of British troops are quartered in Ireland, and that a large number of Irishmen are serving in the British Army, he can say why, of the proposed convalescent homes for soldiers, not one is to be established in Ireland; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: There is not the same necessity for establishing convalescent stations for soldiers in Ireland as in England, the Irish barracks being mostly situated among small populations and healthy surroundings. But so far as circumstances permit, arrangements will be made for the reception of convalescent soldiers in Ireland similar to those for other parts of the United Kingdom.

    RECRUITING UNDER AGE.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that William Sprowson, aged 17 years, was enlisted on the 10th November 1898, under the name of William Taylor, and as of the age of 18, in the 47th Regiment, the true facts being known to those who enlisted him; that his father, John Sprowson, in writing, demanded his discharge on the 11th February 1899; that the adjutant commanding at the depot, instead of forwarding the claim to the competent military authority, pursuant to section 100, sub-section 3, of the Army Act, 1881, replied that the recruit was so near the age of 18 that the general commanding would not approve of his discharge: whether, upon further remonstrances, the commanding officer at the depot requested a fresh claim to be sent in by the father, and, upon receipt of same on the 19th instant, interviewed the recruit and told him that if he would stay in the Army the matter would be settled, but if not he would be placed under arrest, which was immediately done; and whether inquiry will be made into the matter, and the recruit be discharged?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: If a recruit makes a false declaration of age,
    1050
    and his true age is found to be over 17 years, his retention in the service or his discharge is entirely a question under the Queen's Regulations for the general officer commanding the district. In this case the general officer saw no ground for discharging the recruit. The attesting officer was not aware that this man was under 18 years of age, nor is it correct to say that he was informed that if he would remain in the Army the matter would be settled. He was made a prisoner at large for making a false answer on attestation, and released on receipt of the general's decision.

    CREW SPACE IN THE NAVY.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to state if there is any regulation as to the amount of cubic space allotted to each member of the crew on board Her Majesty's ships in the Royal Navy; and, if not, what is approximately the amount of cubic space provided for each man?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: There is no such regulation. In warships the crew space is not definitely limited and enclosed as is usual in merchant ships. Consequently, it is difficult to give approximately the cubic space provided for each man. In practice each hammock occupies a space of about 70 cubic feet. As a rule, the cubic space per man exceeds this, as the hammock berths do not fully occupy the deck area.

    PROCLAIMED MEETING IN COUNTY MAYO.
    MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a public meeting which was announced to be held at Kilmaine, county Mayo, on Sunday last, was proclaimed and attempted to be suppressed by the police; and if he can state on what grounds this interference with the right of public meeting was sanctioned by the Government, and for what reason the official notice calling for the suppres-

    1051
    sion of the meeting was not published until the morning of the day on which the meeting was held?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The intention to hold this meeting was announced by printed placard, which was in the following terms:—

    UNITED IRISH LEAGUE.
    "Graziers and Grabbers, stand aside!
    "Knaves and Traitors, Faugh-a-Ballagh.
    "Men of South Mayo, a Public Meeting will be held in Kilmaine on Sunday, 26th February, 1899, in furtherance of the above cause, and to put an end for ever to the cursed system of 11 months' letting of land as prevalent in our midst. Assemble in your thousands, and show by your united efforts you are determined to have Ireland for the Irish and the Land for the People. God bless our Cause."
    These placards were not issued until late on Friday night. On the following day a detailed information was sworn by the District Inspector of Police to the effect that he believed the object of the meeting was to intimidate and unlawfully prevent certain persons from exercising their legal rights, namely, to bid for and become tenants of certain grass lands. Government, on the same day, gave directions that the meeting, as announced, should not be allowed to be held, and a proclamation, prohibiting the holding of the meeting, was signed by the resident magistrate on Saturday night, and posted up on Sunday morning. As I have shown, the placard calling the meeting was not issued until the last moment, and, consequently, it was not possible to give earlier intimation of the intention of Government to suppress it.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH THE P. AND O. COMPANY.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the substance of the contracts at present existing between the Government in its various Departments and the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, the dates of these contracts, and the amounts of the subsidies given by the Government to this Company?
    MR. HANBURY: The honourable Member will find full particulars of the contract between the Company and the Post Office for the conveyance of the Eastern and part of the Australian mails (including parcels) in the House of Commons Paper No. 259 of 1897. The contract is dated 25th May 1897, and provides for the payment of £330,000 per annum for seven years from 1st February 1898. All the mail contracts held by the, P. and O. were obtained, and have always been obtained, by them after being put up to public tender.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Where can we find anything as to the amount of the subsidy?
    MR. HANBURY: I think it amounts to about £11,000 for about three vessels. But, in all, we have a call on 13 or 14 vessels.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: What do they receive for carrying troops?
    MR. HANBURY: I cannot answer that.

    ST. CLEMENT'S CHURCH, BELFAST.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the report in "The Times" of 28th February of the disgraceful scenes in St. Clement's Church, Belfast, and the attack on the house of the Rev. Mr. Peoples; and on what grounds such proceedings in Belfast are treated more leniently by the executive than similar proceedings in the South of Ireland?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a fact, as stated in "The Times" of Tuesday, that disorderly scenes took place in the church mentioned on Sunday last. The police supplied Mr. Peoples with the name and address of a boy who was stated to have participated in the disturbance, and escorted the reverend gentleman to his lodgings. No attempt was made to assault him. At the afternoon service the disorderly proceedings were renewed, and at the request of Mr. Peoples the police cleared the church. I am informed that a stone was thrown at Mr. Peoples' house on Sunday last, and a

    1053
    pane of glass broken. The honourable Member is quite in error in assuming, as he appears to do in the second paragraph, that such proceedings are treated differently in Belfast from the South of Ireland.
    MR. DILLON: I wish to ask whether the police had instituted or meant to institute prosecutions in connection with these riotous demonstrations, as would have been the case if they had occurred on the South of Ireland.
    [No Reply.]
    MR. DILLON: I think I am entitled to an answer.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No prosecutions have been instituted by the police.

    MUNICIPAL TRADING.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to consider the clauses which appear in so many private Bills this Session authorising municipalities to enter into trading enterprises, and the resolution of the various Chambers of Commerce or the subject.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA SURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the honourable Member, I have to say the important question he refers to is one deserving further investigation, and we think a proper method of investigation would be by t joint Committee of the two Houses.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: Will the Government take steps to appoint the Committee at an early date and will the reference be wide enough to include the whole subject?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We shall proceed at once to appoint the Committee, and no doubt tin reference will be sufficiently wide to include all the subjects referred to in my honourable Friend's Question.

    TREATMENT OF THE AGED POOR.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will either propose the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the various Measures before the House for making better provision for the aged poor, or arrange for those Measures to be referred to the Committee appointed to deal with the Cottage Homes Bill?
    MR. J. HUTTON: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will permit the terms of reference to the Committee to be appointed to deal with the Cottage Homes Bill to be drawn in terms sufficiently wide to cover an inquiry into the whole question of the Poor Laws and of their administration, especially with regard to the aged poor?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think the reference to the Committee which is about to be appointed to deal with the Bill that passed its Second Reading on Wednesday week should be so wide as to include everything connected with the Poor Law. But I think it ought to be wide enough to deal with the question of the condition of the aged poor under our present Poor Law system, and if any other Bills dealing with the condition of the aged poor should pass the Second Reading in the course of the Session I think it would be desirable and convenient that they should be referred to the same Committee.
    MR. LAMBERT: Does that answer refer to Bills proposing old age pensions?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I never heard of any Bill proposing old age pensions which did not deal with the condition of the aged poor.

    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
    SIR J. MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can explain why, whilst Counsel being Members of this House are not allowed to appear before Committees of this House or to receive a, fee or reward, it is permissible for solicitors of the High Court of Jus-

    1055
    tice being Members of this House to promote Bills and receive fees for so doing by being a member of a firm of solicitors or Parliamentary agents practising in either House of Parliament?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the practice referred to by my honourable Friend is not permissible.

    LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as "Lewisham" does not appear in the alphabetical list of areas at present under the administration of Vestries known as "A Vestries" which are to be scheduled in the London Government Bill, and that "Lewisham" in fact is not one of the "A Vestries" but a district board, whether it is "Newington," the borough mentioned in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1896 as ripe for municipal government, with a population of over 120,000, and a rateable value of more than £500,000, which it is intended to include in the Bill and not "Lewisham"?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The parish of Lewisham is included among those parishes in the London Government Bill which will be constituted boroughs, while the district of Newington is not so included.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the repeated expressions of opinion by the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, British Dairy Farmers' Association, and many other representative bodies, to the effect that the questions relating to tuberculosis should be dealt with by the State in legislation for the whole country, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Bill or Bills to meet this desire, and secure uniform administration throughout the United Kingdom?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government are not at present prepared to propose legislation on this subject.

    GOVERNMENT ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE.
    SIR J. WILLOX: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a memorial adopted by the English Church Union, which body includes numerous clergymen of the Church of Engand; whether he is aware that such memorial declares that the signatories deny the right of the Crown or of Parliament to determine the doctrine, the discipline, and the ceremonial of the Church of England; and whether, having regard to the course of conduct announced in the memorial, he will confer with the Lord Chancellor with a view of guarding against any benefice being conferred on any clergyman known to be a member of the English. Church Union?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My attention has been called to the memorial in question. As far as I am concerned, and I believe I can speak for the Lord Chancellor also, I should not recommend any clergyman to a benefice unless I was convinced that he was prepared loyally to obey his Bishop.

    THE MAHDI'S TOMB.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Lord Kitchener will be invited to furnish a Report of the circumstances under which orders were given for the destruction of the tomb of the Mahdi and how the mutilation of his body occurred; and whether this Report will be printed and circulated among Members of the House of Commons before the introduction of the Kitchener Bill?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Lord Cromer has been asked to report on the circumstances of the case, and no doubt he will refer to Lord Kitchener.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are we not to have Lord Kitchener's report too?
    [No Reply.]
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will not the right honourable Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, answer?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not received from Lord Cromer the information which I have asked for, and, until have received it, how is it possible for me to say?

    COURSE OF BUSINESS.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Second Reading of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill will be taken?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answering this question, perhaps it would be convenient for me to state the general business for the immediate future. We take, as the House is aware, the Army Estimates tonight, and we will also take them tomorrow. On Monday the first order will be the Telephone Bill, introduced by my right honourable Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. As it is a money Bill, it will have to be introduced by Resolution. The second order will be the Food and Drugs Bill, and the third order will be the Colonial Loans Fund Bill. On Thursday next I hope my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to make his statement on naval matters to the House, but I do not like to give an absolute pledge on that subject as yet.

    ADVANCES TO IRISH TENANTS.
    MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much was advanced by the Irish Land Commission under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882, section 16 (tenancies over £30 to £50 valuation) upon loan at £5 per cent. per annum; how much of that has been repaid, and what capital sum is duo; and for how many tenants were advances made; how many of the tenants and landlords to whom such advances or payments were made are now living in occupation or ownership of the lands out of which the rent charges are payable; whether the Land Commission would recommend that such rent charges
    1058
    should be extinguished or abated or compounded; and whether they would recommend a reduction in the rate of £5 per cent, for repayment should be made?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The amount advanced under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882, section 16, was £27,010. The amount repaid to date is £9,000, and the capital amount outstanding is £18,010. Advances were made to 969 tenants. Payments continue to be made in the names of 814 of the tenants to whom advances were originally made. Payments are made in 66 cases in the names of the landlords for advances for which the tenants in such cases were primarily liable. In the remaining 89 cases the instalments are paid in the names of persons other than the tenants to whom the advances were made, or of the landlords in such cases.

    LEVENSHULME SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, at Levenshulme, near Manchester, out of a, number of parents who applied for free places, 11 parents applying in respect of 16 children in or above Standard II. have been directed by the Department to send their children to St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church; whether the whole of these parents are Protestants; whether the population of Levenshulme is now 10,500, and the accommodation required on the one-sixth scale would be 1,700, while the actual accommodation is only about 1,100 places; and why the Department, having regard both to the deficiency of accommodation, and to the fact that Protestant parents are seeking free places for their children, has not used its power under section 3 of the Education Act, 1891, to provide sufficient accommodation and suitable free places for the children of Protestant parents?
    SIR J. GORST: The applications for free places were sent in the ordinary course to the School Attendance Committee. A schedule was, as usual, sent

    1059
    by them to the Department, giving the names of the applicants and the schools at which there were free places to be obtained. The Department sent the information received in the ordinary course to the applicants without inquiry as to their religious tenets or the denominations to which the schools indicated belonged. The number of school places in Levenshulme is now 1,137. A new school for 200 children was sanctioned last November. The accommodation will then be sufficient. The Committee of Council has no such power under section 5 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, as the honourable Member supposes.
    MR. CHANNING: May I ask whether the 5th section of the Act of 1891 did not impose a duty on the Department to provide?
    SIR J. GORST: There is no deficiency in the opinion of the Committee of Council.
    MR. CHANNING: I shall raise this Question on the Estimates.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    ARMY ESTIMATES.
    Order for Committee read.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM,): Before moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, I have decided to make the general statement on the Army policy of the Government, which is sometimes made upon that Motion, and sometimes upon the Vote for men. I do this in the hope that it may prove convenient to honourable Members to know, before they proceeded to criticism, exactly what progress has been made with the programme explained last year to this House by my right honourable Friend the present Under Secretary of
    1060
    State for Foreign Affairs, in a memorable speech. I may perhaps remind honourable Members that by taking this course I do not in any way restrict the scope of discussion upon the Vote for men when we come to it. I shall also attempt to show what modifications—and they are very slight—in that programme have been sanctioned by my noble Friend the Secretary,' of State for War, and the additions to it. I may say at once that we propose no heroic changes in that programme. The reforms of 1897 and of 1898 are to have a fair trial, so that the task before me is a modest one, but one which I cannot hope to accomplish unless the House gives me a double measure of indulgence. My task is merely to point out how far we have got in shaping those changes then accepted towards the ends which were then in view. And, Mr. Speaker, unless we keep those ends constantly in view, it is well-nigh impossible to make a defence, or even an explanation, of our Army policy and system intelligible. There are features in our system which seem, on the face of them, open to attack. Some of our critics insist upon the youth of our men in our home battalions; the drafting of men out of one unit into another; upon the obscuring, in certain cases, of some ancient traditions; or, again, perhaps, upon the reduction of some of our six-gun batteries to four-gun batteries. Now, all these features, if considered in themselves, and apart from the purposes for which the whole of our forces are raised, may seem somewhat irrational. But that would seem true of the features of any human contrivance if you did not take into account, the purpose which it was contrived to effect. I should despair of justifying the shape of a corkscrew to the man who had never seen a bottle. The British Army is raised under certain limitations to effect certain purposes. The limitations are that our Army must be a voluntary Army, and that it must not be extravagantly dear. The purposes are four in number. They have been recited before, but I must ask leave of the House to name them once again in the order, perhaps, not of their import-

    1061
    ance, but of their imminence and their likelihood. In the first place, we are bound to provide a British Army for India, which, since India pays for it, must be up to the standard of efficiency for which she contracts. In the second place, we are bound to provide garrisons for some of our Colonies, for some foreign States that we happen to occupy for our coaling stations and our naval bases. In the third place, we must have at our command a small force to dispatch whenever a small war arises out of the impact of our civilisation with barbarism. And, lastly, in the fourth place, we must be ready against the chances of a great war involving the risk of invasion. This last purpose, unlike the others, is a remote—I hope and believe a very remote—contingency, and yet it is a contingency so dire that our Army, framed in the first place to discharge the three normal and, I might almost say, annual purposes for which it exists, must also be susceptible of adaptation to meet even that dire contingency should it at any time arise. So that we must have a Field Army adequate for home defence, and, when the command of the sea has been assured, adequate also to deliver a counter attack. Sir, I propose to take the three arms—Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry—and the other corps which are necessary to keep those three in the field, and to try to show how far they may be fitted to discharge their fourfold object. And, first, Sir, I will take the Artillery. I think it should have the post of honour this afternoon, because it seems probable that it will bear the brunt of the attack. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, quite in accordance with the most modern theory of warfare, of which he is a past master, is prepared to begin this engagement with an Artillery duel. Now, taking our Artillery, we provide for India 11 batteries of Horse Artillery, 42 batteries of Field Artillery, eight batteries of Mountain Artillery, and 27 companies of Garrison Artillery. We provide for our Colonies four batteries of Field Artillery, one battery of Mountain Artillery, and 37 companies of Garrison Artillery. Now, Sir, I have no reason to believe that more Artillery units are required for these two purposes in India and the Colonies, except in the case of Garrison Artillery. But to meet that
    1062
    need, in the programme of 1897, an increase of the establishment was sanctioned of 11 companies of Garrison Artillery. Eight of those companies have already been raised, and upon the Estimates now put before the House we hope to raise and complete the other three companies of Garrison Artillery. Nor is it urged, so far as I know, that we have not sufficient Artillery at our command for any small war. But in the case of home defence it is otherwise. I know that some honourable Members of this House are not quite easy in their minds on that point. For home defence we aim at having a Field Army composed of three Army Corps and four Cavalry Brigades. Taking the Horse Artillery first, each of these four Cavalry brigades requires one battery of Horse Artillery, and each Army Corps two batteries, making 10 batteries of Horse Artillery in all. We have 10 batteries of Horse Artillery in this country, and a depot. Turning to the Field Artillery, which, I believe, excites greater anxiety in the minds of some honourable Members of this House, each Army Corps until quite recently was held only to need 15 batteries of Field Artillery, making 15 batteries in all for the Field Army, which we are bound to keep to guard against the risk of invasion. We have 41 batteries in all of Field Artillery in the country, besides three batteries of howitzers and two depots. But I ought to tell the House that we are no longer advised that 15 batteries of Field Artillery are enough for an Army Corps) we are advised that 18 batteries are needed, which would make 54 batteries in all for the Field Army, of which I have spoken. We have 44 batteries now, and when the 10 new batteries remaining out of the 15 sanctioned by this House in the programme explained by my right honourable Friend are completed, as they will be, we expect, in two years' time, we shall have 54 batteries. We are raising them at the rate of five in each year, and I am informed by those who are in a position to know, that it is impossible to raise them any faster. But, Sir, although, as I have shown, we have the units for this purpose, I know it is suggested in some quarters that our programme for home defence in respect of Field Artillery is illusory and fictitious; it is said that we have not enough trained horses, and,

    1063
    secondly, that we have nut enough trained men in service batteries at home. I will take the question of the horses first. No doubt it is true that there were on the 1st of January this year 1,500 fewer trained horses in the Artillery than there were upon the 1st of January in 1879. Well, that is quite true, but it is no news. We have deli berately—or, rather, this House and this Government and its predecessors have deliberately—on the advice of military experts, reduced the establishment for horses in the Artillery by 1,600; so that the fact that there are 1,500 fewer now than then is precisely the fact that you would expect. But that, of course, does not dispose of the question whether that establishment is sufficient, but it does dispose of the impression which I think lurks in some minds that there has been some hocus-pocus over this business, and that we are pretending that we have more horses than we really possess. The fact is that we have 100 more than in our scheme on paper we claim to have. Well, I have gone over this ground, and have shown that in two years we shall have as many batteries of Field Artillery as are necessary for our Field Army and our three Army Corps. But now arises the question—Are there enough horses in each of these batteries? Well, Sir, among the changes authorised from time to time by this House, and which are far too complicated to enter upon in detail, it will suffice to say that the upshot of them was the reduction of the establishment by 1,500 horses, and one change was made in 1878ߝ79, namely, a reduction of 700 in the number of waggon horses. Now, that has not been a gradual reduction, but it was done at one fell swoop in 1879ߝ80. If the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had taken the end of the year 1879 instead of the beginning of it, he would have found the Field Artillery had only two more horses in each four-gun battery than they have now. It is no new discovery, but it is a part of the policy pursued during the last 20 years. Well, Sir, upon this question of waggon horses a new factor has come into the problem be the introduction of what are called quick firing guns. These quick-firing guns expend a great deal more ammunition than those which they are about to supersede, and the whole question of waggon horses
    1064
    is thereby thrown back into an experimental stage. Our military advisers, therefore, have to ascertain how much ammunition is needed behind the firing line, and they have also to ascertain what new system of disposition and distribution of reserve may be necessary, for they are of the opinion that some new plan of distribution will be necessary. They are now working at that problem, and until they have arrived at their conclusions it is quite impossible to put any accurate figures before the House; but there is no risk or danger, for it is the easiest thing in the world to lay our hands upon horses at the present time. We have now something more than 14,500 horses marked down which we could buy tomorrow if war broke out. It is not thought necessary, by those who are able to advise us, that we should keep those horses in the ranks in time of peace. Sir, there is another of these changes to which I must refer, namely, the introduction of the four-gun battery system; the introduction of lower establishment batteries with four guns instead of with six guns, and in dealing with that I should like to deal not only with the question of trained horses, but at the same time with the question of trained men. It is said that we have not enough trained horses for our service batteries, and also that we have not enough trained men, and that our service batteries have become mere training schools from which to draw men for other batteries abroad. Well, this institution of four-gun batteries is simply an administrative device and nothing more. It is a very good illustration of the system by which we are able to make the number of men voted by Parliament subserve the two classes of purposes for which the Army is raised, to which I referred a few moments ago—namely, that of finding drafts to meet the annual normal demands of India and the Colonies, and also of having a framework for the three Army Corps in the event of a great war involving the risk of invasion. I am quite content to take my stand upon this illustration of our system, namely, the reduction of batteries from six-gun to four-gun establishments. It is easier to train a, number of men with batteries on this establishment.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why?
    *MR. WYNDHAM: I will come to that in a moment. Although it is not universally, it is generally held that drafts can be better trained with the service batteries at home than they can be in the depôt. Some, I know, think the contrary, but that is the general view, and it is the settled and matured conviction of our military advisers at the War Office. Then I take the other purpose for which our Army is raised, namely, home defence; and in order to make out my case and show that there is nothing wrong with this four-gun system, I will ask the House to take an imaginary case of the most crucial and, let me add, of the most improbable character. I ask the House to suppose that all the drafts trained with those batteries at home have gone to India in the trooping season, and that they have gone without the least suspicion in any man's mind that war was going to break out. Of course, if there were any such suspicion that we were on the eve of a great war, drafts would be kept at home, and the time-expired men in India; but assume that there was no suspicion of war aroused, and no danger anticipated, and then assume that it does break out just at that most unfavourable moment, it would find us not only with all the men who are trained to perform their special function of laying guns, but it would find us with more than 100 non-commissioned officers and men in each of these four-gun field batteries, so that only 70 men from the Reservists in addition would be required in each battery to bring up the first line to war strength. That is the present position, and, of course, it will be materially improved when in a few years' time, with 10 additional batteries, the drafts from each will be less than at present; less than 30 from each battery. Now, with regard to horses, these four-gun batteries have 58 horses in all, of which 38 are trained to draw the guns; that is to say, there are enough horses to draw not four guns, but six guns, and two to spare. For the waggons we count upon the 14,500 registered horses. Even if it were thought desirable to have more than 58 horses with each of these lower establishment batteries, I do not think it would be possible to get the men to train them while we are increasing the establishment—at least, that is the opinion of our military ad-
    1066
    visers. One would think, from the criticisms made, that this four-gun system is peculiar to this country, but that is not so. In Germany 221 batteries out of 494 are also four-gun batteries. But I think we must agree that a Continental nation must, on the one hand, have its Army for home defence in a much more advanced state of preparation than is necessary in this country; and, on the other hand, they have not to find drafts of troops for an Army abroad. So that in our case there are more reasons for and fewer against adopting the four-gun system in our batteries. I think it is hardly necessary for me to remind the House that these four-gun batteries have their other two guns in existence, and that facilities are given them to exercise their horses with six guns. Each battery is exercised in turn at Okehampton in drill with its six guns. Having said so much in favour of the four-gun system, I will now ask the House to consider the alternative—namely, instead of training our drafts with lower establishment batteries, we were to send them all to the depôts. But in order to find the drafts for India alone it would be necessary to have 1,500 men at the depôt at Woolwich, men who, we are told, would be imperfectly trained for that purpose, and men who would find no place in the scheme for home defence. The depôt does not exist only for India, but it exists to give preliminary drill and training in gymnastics to all the recruits for the whole of the artillery, both for home and foreign service. Well, Sir, we had nearly 3,000 recruits for Field Artillery during last year, and the accommodation at Woolwich did not suffice for that number; 900 recruits had to join the batteries direct because there was not room for them at Woolwich. The practical question is, not whether we should abandon the present system for one involving a far larger depot, but whether it may not be necessary to extend the Woolwich depôt to meet the requirements of the system now in force. I think I ought to apologise to the House for having gone into this question at such length. My excuse, however, must be that while our critics consider this a very weak point in the system now in force, we, on the other hand, think it a very good illustration of the manner in which

    1067
    our system enables us to fulfil our annual obligations, and at the same time to provide the framework of three Army Corps for home defence. Before leaving the subject of the Artillery, I may tell the House that we propose to divide the mounted from the dismounted branch of this arm of the Service. The scheme has been approved, and is being worked out in detail. I come now to the Cavalry. Again pursuing the same order, during the year we have to find nine Cavalry regiments of the Line for India, and for Africa we have now to find three Cavalry regiments, and so far as I know we are not required to find more. But for our Field Army which we have to provide in order to guard against the risk of invasion, we have to find four Cavalry brigades of three regiments each, and two regiments for each of the three Army Corps. That would mean 12 Cavalry regiments for the four Brigades and six for the three Army Corps, making 18 regiments in all. Well, Sir, towards that at home we have 16 Cavalry regiments of the Line, and we can count upon one regiment composed out of three regiments of Household troops, making 17 in all. I am ready to admit that we fall short by one of our ideal, namely, to have 18 regiments, but that ideal is a very high one, of having four independent Cavalry brigades to the three Army Corps, and it amply covers all that we have pledged ourselves to effect, namely, to have enough Cavalry for two Army Corps which could be put on board ship to be sent abroad. In the case of the Cavalry, as in the case of the Artillery, it is the mature opinion of our military advisers that drafts are, better trained with regiments that at depôts, and we adhere to that principle all the more firmly because, having now 12 regiments of Cavalry abroad instead of nine, which used to be the number, we should have, I suppose, quite 1,500 recruits imperfectly trained for foreign service at the depôts, and, as in the case of the Artillery, finding no place in the scheme for home defence. But although adhering to that principle, we recognise that there are two difficulties in its application to Cavalry which do not exist to the same extent in its application to Artillery. In the first place, there is but one regiment of Royal Artillery, but there are 28 regiments of Cavalry of the Line, each
    1068
    with its own traditions of a glorious past; and in the second place, for "shock action" it is held that Reservists are not sufficiently trained. It is held that all the men and all the horses in a regiment which might at very short notice be called upon to take part in war as an integral unit should be trained by that regiment in times of peace. I think I should only weary the House if I went into the details of the general scheme, therefore I will simply give the upshot of it, which I hope will give to honourable Members all the information they seek. The upshot of it is this, that the eight Cavalry regiments on the higher establishment, which, unfortunately, last year were in some cases called upon to provide by volunteering, and even by compulsion, large numbers of men in drafts for India, are next year not to be required to provide any men either by volunteering or compulsion. These eight Cavalry regiments on the higher establishment to which we have to look in case of emergency are to have complete immunity in this respect in the future. We have to provide drafts for the 12 regiments abroad, say about 1,200 men. The existing three depôts for the three regiments in Africa will be maintained, and a fourth depôt will be added to meet an exceptional but temporary strain in India, which will be maintained so long as that exceptional strain continues to exist. For the balance of drafts we shall look to the eight regiments upon the lower establishment, and we shall enable them to train those men with less difficulty than heretofore. Honourable Members will recollect that this was announced in the memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, that we are adding 60 men and 20 horses to each one of these new regiments on the lower establishment. The only other step that we take in order to ease the burden which is imposed on the Cavalry is that the wish expressed by any man upon enlistment to serve in any particular regiment when his training has been completed will be gratified whenever that is possible. I hope that these modifications will go some way towards redressing the grievances from which some Cavalry regiments have certainly suffered during the past year; but they will not go the whole of the way in all cases. We

    1069
    must, however, face the facts. The new and additional burdens of empire must place new and additional burdens upon the British Army, and the shortening of the period between the apprehension of war and the actual shock of arms, precluding, as it does, the idea of leisurely preparation, has brought into being a new order of things, so that some regiments have now to put up with in each year on a small scale what in the old days some regiments had to put up with now and then on a large scale. Even to meet lesser emergencies than war, it is a mistake to suppose that there ever was a golden age for cavalry in which each regiment was able to depend upon itself and be ready to go abroad without drawing upon other regiments. I have looked up the historical records of some of these regiments from official documents, and I find that one Cavalry regiment, although it had been augmented in preparation for taking its turn in India in the year 1822, when it arrived in India took over 259 men from one of the other regiments there, and 175 from another regiment, or 434 men in all. Well, Sir, that regiment, so transmogrified, was kept in India for 24 years, and covered itself with glory during that time, and yet, when it returned, it was called upon to give up 176 men to another regiment, and it came home with only seven officers and 259 men. It picked up 12 officers and 79 men at the depot, but next year its establishment was reduced, and nine of its officers were forced to go upon half-pay. Well, that was the kind of thing that went on at the beginning of the century merely over going to India and returning, but I am glad to say that the Cavalry has not to put up with anything of that kind now. Now, under the new system, which comes in for a good deal of abuse occasionally, we can keep 12 Cavalry regiments abroad, and we can put 17 Cavalry regiments into the field at home, at the cost of asking eight Cavalry regiments out of 31 to train and supply 100 men each for India. I do not mind saying that, for my own part, I wish we could avoid even that necessity. I yield to no honourable and gallant Member of this House in my admiration for the miracles that are wrought by the esprit de corps which turns the loafer into a hero and
    1070
    enables boys in their teens to lead men whom some of us would consider unruly citizens. But I do not see how we can avoid that necessity, unless we are prepared to take one of two courses—either to curtail our Empire, or else to ask the taxpayers of this country for an insurance out of all proportion to the remoteness of the risk of invasion. Sir, I come now to the infantry. We have to supply India with 52 battalions of Infantry, and we supply the Colonies with 29 Line battalions and one battalion of Guards, which makes, in all, 82 battalions of Infantry abroad. Now, we should have in difficulty in providing for a small war except, perhaps, in the matter of clothing. In times past it has been difficult to get the clothing suited to the tropical climate ready on the spur of the moment, when we wished to dispatch a force to such a climate; therefore, we are asking in these Estimates for £20,000, so that clothing suitable for tropical climates shall be ready for a small force on the same principle as we keep mobilisation clothing ready at a moment's notice to be distributed at its proper centres. Then, at home, for the field Army of three Army Corps we should require 75 battalions of Infantry—25 for each. We have at home seven battalions of Guards and 64 Line battalions, or 71 in all, so that we are apparently short by four battalions of the ideal at which we aim. But, Sir, the House, last year and in 1897, authorised an increase of our Army by nine battalions. Five of these new battalions have been raised, and we do not anticipate any difficulty in raising the other four in a very short period of time; so that, in a very short time, with those additional four battalions, our 71 will have become 75, which is the figure at which we aim for home defence. In the meanwhile, we are able to improvise four battalions, which, I am fully persuaded, will render a very good account of themselves. For each of the four in that case we should take the double depôt of a regiment with both battalions abroad, the Reservists of the two battalions, and the affiliated Militia. In the case of the Infantry, particularly bearing in mind the speech of my right honourable Friend, which he delivered last year, I feel that there is no occasion for me to labour the argument in favour of drafting from units

    1071
    instead of keeping all our drafts for India and the Colonies at the depots. We have 81 Line battalions abroad, each of them requiring an average draft of 160 men in a year, and that would mean 13,000 men, in round numbers; but since we cannot send men to India until they are 20 years of age, and since we must allow for waste, the depot system would mean that we should have to keep a very much higher number to feed our Army abroad, who would have no place in the scheme for home defence. I think my right honourable Friend put it at 30,000 men in his speech last year. In the case of Infantry, as in the case of Cavalry and Artillery, we must use the same material for our normal annual task of finding drafts for abroad, and for providing against the remote contingency of invasion. It is an absolute necessity; but, recognising that necessity—I can almost say that the Army now recognises it also—we are not, therefore, blind to the inestimable value of regimental tradition. When the two battalions now forming a regiment were once two separate regiments, we are always ready, wherever it is possible, without introducing anything prejudicial to this system, to do anything to save and preserve every symbol of the glorious past of any regiment; we are always ready to do so. Something was done a short time ago in respect of regimental badges in every case where the two regiments have been able to agree. The case of facings, however, is a more difficult one; we have to consider questions of manufacture and supply, and also the question whether, by granting the facings asked for by one regiment, we might not be offending another; but I may say that if all the battalions of one regiment made united representations, asking for facings once worn, the Secretary of State would be willing to consider such an application on its merits. Our military advisers do not believe that any feeling of the kind exists, and no representations have reached us from the Army. But, in any case, if such a concession were given it would only apply to the tunics and not to the frock, which would be the garment worn on mobilisation, because there it is absolutely essential that we should preserve the existing elasticity. Before I leave the question of men serving with
    1072
    the colours I must, in view of the Estimates which we have to submit, say a word or two about our Colonial forces. As the House is probably aware, there are of our coloured Colonial forces officered by white officers over 21,000 men who are not under the War Office, but who are under the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office. We have now under the War Office exactly 6,565 men. That includes the 3rd Battalion West India, Regiment which was raised upon the programme of 1897, and we are now raising and asking for funds in this Estimate to raise a West African regiment, a Central African regiment, and a. Chinese regiment. That will mean an addition of 3,258 men, which will give us a total of 9,823 men under the War Office, and which will bring up the total of our coloured regiments to about 31,000 men. That is not a very large figure—certainly not large enough, in my humble opinion, to justify the gloomy forebodings indulged in the other day by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. I do not think that anyone will be able to see any sign of our decline and fall in the fact that we have 31,000 native troops as against 140,000 British troops, without counting the Reserve, the Militia, and Volunteers. In this comparison, of course, I leave out India, because we may assume that the proportion of British to native forces in India is all that we may require. I come now to the Reserve, the Militia, and the Volunteers. With regard to these forces, I feel that I need add very little to the Memorandum of my noble Friend, and to the very interesting' report of General Kelly-Kenny. The first-class Army Reserve on the 1st of January of this year stood at 78,798. It was lowered, as the House may know, because of re-transfers from the Reserve to the Line amounting to 4,488, but that lowering was a temporary and, I believe, a perfectly safe expedient, because we are able to reckon that the first-class Army Reserve will, in the course of this year, amount to the total of 83,000 men. I ought to say a word about the new Section A of the Reserve, which formed part of the programme of last year. The House knows that this class of Army Reservists are given 1s. a day, and that they are liable to be called out whenever warlike operations are in preparation or in progress. The

    1073
    number of men who have taken that additional pay and undertaken that additional obligation was, on the 1st of January, 1,360, and I may say that the figures are increasing; on the 1st of February the number had risen from 1,360 to" 1,750, so that I really think there is very little doubt that we shall reach, with little difficulty, the Limit proposed—namely, 5,000. Well, Sir, I think I will now pass to the Militia, and I cannot disguise the fact that that ancient and most useful force does suffer by being called upon to perform in this country a good deal of work which is done by the Reserves in Continental Armies. There are, in the first place, 30,000 Militiamen in the Militia Reserve, who, to all intents and purposes, are a part of the Army Reserve, and cannot be reckoned both in the Militia and in the Army Reserve. To that we must add the men who undertake the new obligations under the Act passed last year—the men whose obligations will really be heavier than the obligations of the men in the first-class Army Reserve, because they can be called out more frequently and upon lesser occasions, so to speak, than even the men in the first-class Army Reserve. I do not think it is difficult to defend all these devices; on the contrary, I think the fact is, that we must have more elasticity now than was necessary in the old days, when you had months to think it over before you determined whether you would go to war or not. We have to meet nowadays a greater number of contingencies. It is quite possible that at the time last year, when we had an expedition up the Nile and were occupying Crete, if some other burden of a like character had been cast upon our hands in some other part of the world we should have needed more Reservists, either from the first-class Army Reserve or the Militia, in order to go through with these many tasks which fell upon us. But under the old rule you could not get a man without a Royal, Proclamation and the calling of both Houses of Parliament together within 10 days; so that these devices are necessary in order that we may do by voluntary contract with the men what otherwise would have to be clone compulsorily by Royal Proclamation. The strength of the Militia on the last
    1074
    day of last year, that is, on the 31st of December, was 103,647. That shows a nett decrease of 1,884. But that decrease is not due to any slackness in recruiting; on the contrary, 40,108 joined the Militia last year. Nor is it mainly due to discharges or absenteeism. It is chiefly due to the fact that 15,167 men passed from the Militia into the Line. I do not know whether it will console some honourable and gallant Members behind me when I say that this evil, if it be an evil, of draining the Militia to feed the Army was also common in the early part of the century. Mr. Pitt linked Militia battalions to regiments of the Line, and in the year 1807ߝ8 27,000 Militia passed out of that force into the Regular Army. We have now to put up every year with burdens which, under earlier conditions, had to be borne occasionally on a much larger scale. But that is all the more reason for making the Militia efficient and attractive. In this year's Estimates we are asking for an increase of £41,200 for the British Militia: that excludes a small sum for the Militia Artillery in Bermuda. Of this sum £25,400 will be needed for the new section of Militiamen who are prepared to come out when called upon. The sum of £3,050 has been allocated to giving non-commissioned officers of Militia regiments extra training with regular troops, and £9,000 is taken to give a boon which has long been asked for, namely, field caps for the Militia. And since we know that officers in the Militia have very heavy calls made upon their private means, we set down a small sum of £3,750 to assist officers of corps in maintaining the regimental band. I come now to the Volunteer establishment which, this year, is 264,833, showing an increase of 870. Now first of all as to rifle ranges. I know that on this question a good deal of anxiety exists. Owing to the introduction of the Lee-Metford rifle, as many honourable Members are aware, a good many ranges have been closed. But after all, they are not in such a bad way as I sometimes hear they are. I have been going into the figures, and I find that whereas on the 1st of April, 1894, before the introduction of the new rifle, the Volunteers and Yeomanry had 1,172 ranges: now 667 ranges have been approved, and there are still 350 ranges which are

    1075
    being inspected, of which a fair proportion, in all probability, will pass muster. There would be very great difficulty in the Government's providing sums directly for the purchase of Volunteer ranges. We have always held that Volunteer regiments should—and ecrtainly they have shown great willingness to do so—provide ranges for themselves; but in order to assist them, some changes have been introduced into the travelling allowances for musketry, so that corps living at greater distances than 12 miles from a range may be able to reach it at less cost than was the case before. I ought, perhaps, to remind the House that, under the Loan Act of 1897, we are taking half a million of money to construct 20 new ranges, to which, of course, Volunteers will have every facility of access. We have done a little to assist the officers of Militia regiments, but the tax on the pockets of Volunteer officers, as well as Militia officers, is also very great, and we provide £3,000 to assist them in maintaining their outfit, and £2,000 to Volunteer officers whilst they are attending schools of instruction in the Regular Army. We also put down £5,000 to make a beginning in supplying Volunteer corps with regimental transport. The principle is this: the calculation is based on the scale of three waggons for every 110 men—that is known as the "transport unit." We undertake to pay a grant of £1 for each waggon shown and produced and kept in camp during eight days by any corps which shows a minimum of three waggons, and contracts to supply a maximum of waggons calculated on that scale on mobilisation. Of course, any corps that shows more than three waggons will get a grant up to the maximum limit based upon that scale, that is, three waggons to every 110 men. This brings me now to the general question of transport. Our Field Army would be useless unless it could move. For the three Army Corps composing the Field Army, it is calculated that, in round numbers, we need about 12,000 men in the Army Service Corps. But at this moment, excluding Reservists, we have 3,302 Army Service Corps men at home, so that we are asking in these Estimates for an increase in the Army Service Corps of 40 officers and 1,000 men, and we are putting down this year £34,000, which will enable us to raise
    1076
    half that force. I should like to remove a misconception which lurks in some minds as to the lessons to be learned from the manœuvres. The problem which we had to solve was to put two Army Corps in the field without calling out our Reservists and our registered horses, neither of which could be used without a Royal Proclamation in case of war. But with the Reservists of the Army Service Corps we have now enough men for the first line of two Army Corps in the field. We have 14,500 registered horses, and we have—which I think is sometimes forgotten—all the waggons and equipment for the mobilisation of two Army Corps. The only reason why we did not make use of them was, in the first place, the wear and tear of the mobilisation equipment; and, in the second place, if you take it away from mobilisation centres it will take some weeks or months to redistribute it again, and during the whole of that time you will not be ready for mobilisation. I have endeavoured to show that the British Army, under the present system, is in a fair way to effect the purposes for which it is raised. But everything turns upon recruiting. Further progress will be impossible unless the people of this country respond to the call made upon them. But I think that they are beginning to respond. If any arm has this year been more pressed by reason of the burdens cast upon it than another it is the Cavalry; yet whereas in 1895, before any of the changes made in the system had been introduced, we got 2,387 recruits, in 1897 we obtained 2,426, and last year 3,778 recruits. The total number of British recruits—I am leaving out the recruits of the Clolonial forces—last year was 38,418, as against 27,809 in the year 1896. The net gain to the Army last year, including Reservists and deserters rejoining, was 9,980 men.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Can the right honourable Gentleman give us the total number of recruits for the Colonies?
    *MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think I could give that information now, but I will look it up. There is, up to the present, no sign of the flood abating. The figures in General Kelly-Kenny's report go down as far as the end of last year, but in January last, which was not included in that report, the figures show

    1077
    that it has been a "bumper" month. Excluding 1870, when, probably owing to the Franco-German war, recruits flocked into the Army at the prospects of operations being commenced, last January is the highest total for recruiting of which we have any record at all. No less than 4,854 recruits joined in January last, and if I add to this total the deserters rejoining, and the Reservists, the number was 5,213, making a net gain to the Army for one month of 1,284 men. If anything like that is kept up in the succeeding months, we can accomplish the increase which the House has sanctioned without any difficulty at all. But this number of 38,418 recruits which we are accepting does not, however, give by any means the full measure of the country's response to our demands. I am sorry to say that, of the recruits who presented themselves, 35 per cent, were rejected on medical grounds. I think that is rather an alarming figure. It may give us just cause for apprehension, not only in respect of the welfare of the Army, but of the welfare of the people themselves. A great many of these rejections were due to bad teeth, although more were rejected because they lacked general development. It does occur to me that, in schools largely supported out of the public funds, it might not be impossible to get the children to take some elementary precautions to preserve their teeth, and it might also be a good thing to introduce into the schools that system of physical drill advocated by Colonel Fox, which has done so much for the recruits of the British Army. What it has done for the recruits may be gathered from the large percentage of recruits who were under standard, who were called "specials," but who ceased to be "specials," and who attained the standard within a very short time. This is mainly due to these exercises. Of those recruits, re-measured in January, who had joined since October, and that includes some who may have joined within a week, 43 per cent, had reached the standard; and of the "specials" who joined before the 30th June, 73 per cent, had reached the standard. Of the "specials" who had joined before 1895, no less than 90 per cent, had reached the standard, and I may tell the House that some of those "specials" are now, on account
    1078
    of their abnormal muscular development, teaching gymnastics in our gymnasia. But we must discount a little on the score of recruiting in respect of these "specials," and we must also discount in respect of the 4,488 Army Reservists who rejoined the colours. But these figures of the Army Reservists who have rejoined the colours throw a much needed light on the question of civilian employment for the men who leave the Army. Out of 3,370 Infantry Reservists who rejoined up to October, 2,596 stated that they were in employment at that time; and, of course, we may assume that those who came back to the colours were those who were in straitened circumstances. This, I think, suggests two things—in the first place, it is obvious that our men do find employment on leaving the colours; and it shows, in the second place, that many men who have tried both a military and civilian life find that they prefer a military life, and I must say that I wish we could persuade more people to try the experiment. There are certain classes in this country who seem to hold back from trying what a military life is like. The great bulk of our recruits are men who, so to speak, come from the plough. Of course, they are none the worse for that; their predecessors of a like condition won the battle of Waterloo. But I must believe that a greater number of those pursuing, or wishing to pursue, other avocations, and belonging to other classes, would do well to consider whether they would not be benefited by seven years of constant employment, sanitary lodgings, wholesome food, and opportunities for education, and for obtaining a certain physical and mental alacrity which is of the greatest advantage later on in the struggle for life. Now I think I may claim that some of the recent reforms are entitled to some of the credit for this increase in recruiting, particularly the messing allowance. I think we may take this result to show that the Army is now more popular than it was before, and that we may be encouraged to proceed along the same lines. This year we are asking in the Estimates for £11,400 in order to give ankle-boots to Cavalry soldiers. At present, the Cavalry soldier is given only one pair of ankle-boots, and he is expected to pro-

    1079
    vide himself with boots during the whole period of his service. We are also asking for £5,200 in order to give the soldiers in the Cavalry and Artillery a frock and an extra pair of serge trousers during the time of their drill, in order that they may, like other Englishmen, change their clothes after exercise, without being out of pocket. We are also asking for £18,500, so that the men, when they return to camp after a day's manœuvres, may take off their dusty boots and slip into easy canvas shoes. These things may seem small, and they are certainly cheap; but everyone who has been in camp knows that they mean a great deal. In this connection I must touch upon a larger matter—I am afraid that I am taxing the patience of the House—which will do move for the comfort of our soldiers and the efficiency of our Army—I mean the provision of better barracks and their location, with a juster regard to the requirements of the training of our troops together. Under the scheme which will be submitted shortly to this House much will, I hope, be done to raise both the standard of decency and comfort in the barracks for our men, and to enable troops to exercise together in large bodies; in infantry divisions, cavalry brigades, and artillery brigade divisions, under the leaders who will command them in time of war. I have just one word more to say. In these Estimates we are asking for £431,000, including an increase of £189,000 on Vote 9, as a first instalment of the money to be spent on arming with modern guns the more important of our military and mercantile ports. This is a matter which we can no longer postpone, and although we ask only for an instalment this year, we shall submit a complete policy based upon the report of a Committee composed of Sir Henry Brackenbury, Sir R. Harrison, and Admiral Beaumont. I thank the House for the very great patience with which it has listened to a long and a dry story. I should be very sorry to adopt a complacent tone in submitting these Army Estimates. Much, I think, has been done in recent years by the soldiers and by the civilians of the War Office, but much remains to do. Still, our Army is numerically stronger now than it has been at any time since 1860. The life of our soldiers is brighter. The op-
    1080
    portunities for training our units, in the formation and under the conditions which will prevail in a great war, are larger. Thanks to the splendid devotion of all ranks of our Regular, Auxiliary, and Colonial forces, I dare to believe that our small voluntary Army is ready to solve the double and difficult problem of keeping the Queen's peace throughout her wide dominions, and of defending our shores.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  FIELD ARTILLERY (TRAINED HORSES).
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the numbers of trained horses for the Horse and Field Artillery require the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government,'—instead thereof."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  *SIR C. DILKE: The admirable form and perfect clearness of the speech of my honourable Friend, upon which, I am sure, the House will congratulate the honourable Gentleman, may perhaps a little have concealed the fact that his speech was mainly a speech of detail and did not present to the House what might be called a general view of the results of our Military system as at present organised. At the commencement of his speech the honourable Gentleman said it was a continuation speech, as the Estimates showed a continuing policy, continuing that which was laid down last year. But I think we might have expected now from the honourable Member, and we shall certainly ask for it a little later, some statement of the main principles upon which our Army is now beginning to be based. Last year, for example—and a small example is as good as a large one, and therefore I take this small one—the Government came down here defending short service, of course, as cardinal part of the system in this scheme of modification; but proposing for the first time a three years' enlistment for the Line. Now, in the face of this new departure of the three years' enlistment, the honourable Member has never made a single statement with regard to it, that we may see how far it is gaining confidence or otherwise in the War

  1081
  Office. The system was to be commenced on a very limited scale, 50 men to a battalion, and it is only being tried in a small number of battalions. The words which accompany the report show, I tear, that that system is a failure, beta use the words suggest a desire to make the men re-engage. The reason why I mention this fact is that it is a main tact. The reconstitution of the Army as time goes on is such as to make the system really a long service system again, instead of a short service system, and I believe that the service is actually as long as it was in the days when we called it a long service Army. The way in which Reserve men are being brought back to the colours is making it a long service Army. Now, the honourable Gentleman shows it is extravagantly dear at the present time. What is the cost of the land forces of which the honourable Gentleman speaks? The cost, as the House will see, is a rapidly increasing cost, with no increase in the strength. Taking the rupee at the average rate—at the market price which it is worth today, and not as being worth 2s., because it can be spent for that amount in India—taking the rupee at its market value, we are now spending in India and at home £;38,600,000. The right honourable Gentleman has mentioned that there are 21,000 men in the military service of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, and the House must not forget that there are all these 21.000 men and all additional officers which have to be met cut of a mill ion additional to this £38,600,000. So that the expenditure upon the land forces, with the Colonies, at the present moment is over £40,000,000, and in the next year we cannot hope to get out of it under £42,000,000, which, together with £28,000,000 which will be expended upon the Navy, brings out a total of £70,000,000 for Imperial Defence. Now, when you come to consider that we lay out £42,000,000 on land forces and fixed defences, I doubt whether we get that return which we ought to get, and which we are entitled to expect, considering the enormous sum of money we expend. Now, the amount of our Military expenditure, upon which I will say only this one more word, has become something amazing. This next year our expenditure will be about £70,000,000.
  1082
  The next country in extravagance is France. That country spends £40,000,000 on its Army and Navy. And there is no doubt, on these very large figures, the War Office will feel that they must make their figures very clear if they are to be supported by this House; unless they can show that with the increase of the millions of expenditure there is an increase in Military strength. The honourable Gentleman has stated the circumstances in a particular way; we all know it, and we all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this remarkable statement, that while conscription does enter into the account it is not the main factor of the account of the War Office. The Leader of the Opposition made a statement upon this subject also. He said that the cost was appalling, but that we were "tied by traditions, prejudices, and habits, which it was hopeless to overcome." I ventured to comment upon those words of the right honourable Gentleman, and to somewhat reproach him for using the word hopeless, and not being willing to face the problem in such a manner that we may be able to overcome this fearful increase. But I am becoming as hopeless as my right honourable Friend. Here is the speech of a new and capable man, a man of great ability, and he never touches this problem; and I confess, as one who desires, and earnestly and sincerely desires, to maintain the strength and efficiency of the defence of the Empire, that I doubt whether it is possible for the War Office to justify to the country this constantly increasing expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not succeeded in overcoming the old views of the War Office, and forcing upon them a new departure last year. In spite of the temptation held out to us by the three years' system of enlistment, we did, some of us, say that, though under the new proposals of the Government the expenditure was certain to increase, the increase of strength was very doubtful. Now, what are the facts my honourable Friend has stated—that the Army now is larger than it ever was before, that the recruiting was very good, and that it was constantly being increased. Now, what are the forces upon which we should draw in time of war? What are the forces upon which we should draw for our three Army Corps, and at the

  1083
  same time be able to keep the Indian force at full numbers in time of war? The forces upon which we should draw are the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the Militia. Now, so far from there having been any increase of strength to correspond with the increase of cost, these three forces have remained stationary. The question I put to the honourable Gentleman at four o'clock brought out these facts—my own calculations appear to differ from the official calculations by three. On the 1st January, 1895, the Regular Army, Militia, and First Class Army Reserve taken together amounted to 408,903 men. The answer given to me this afternoon, given to me to-day at four o'clock, knocked off the three and gave me 408,900. And the number on the 1st January this year is almost exactly the same, the number being 408,921 men, so that the nett result is that in four years, with all your enormous expenditure, you have an increase of 24 men in the forces upon which you would have to draw in time of war. That is the number by which it has been increased in four years. Now as regards the number of those from whom you would have drawn for expeditionary forces, they have diminished. You have a much greater number in South Africa than you had before, and there 12,000 fewer men at home than there were four years ago. The number that you pay for here or in South Africa is stationary. The number of men is the same as four years ago, but you are paying a very much greater sum. Now these are facts which we have gone into before, and they are perfectly well known to the War Office, and should be equally well known to my honourable Friend; and we have this to say, that we desire a sweeping reform. We have to say the alternative is this appalling cost. There is no other alternative. You have to adopt the increasing expenditure of one million and a half sterling in each succeeding year, and you have to face the fact that constituencies are very doubtful about the return they get for the money which they give. Surely my honourable Friend, in making this first statement, must feel that the muddle on one side of Army matters, for which he is not responsible, is increasing. He stated to the House to-night very frankly that there were 21,000 men now under the control of the Foreign and Colonial
  1084
  Offices, and out of the control of the War Office altogether, and that the number was rapidly increasing. He knows of the enormous efforts that were made in India to get rid of divided command and the great and prolonged struggle that took place, and the resistance that was offered by the old-fashioned men to getting rid of the Presidency Armies. At last that resistance was overcome, and all the men were brought under one command. Here divided command is increasing by means of the Colonial Office and Foreign Office, over which you have no control at all. There is a great lack in the defence of the country, and you now show that we have nothing like a comprehensive scheme for its defence. With regard to the manœuvres last year, only half battalions were present. Lord Methuen has made a statement with regard to India—that it was only possible to have half battalions ever there. Lord Wolseley, in his report on manœuvres, states that the battalions were as strong as possible, owing to the necessity of leaving behind men under six months' service. They averaged 16 officers and 480 men out of an establishment of 881 men, but there were many battalions down to 400 men, whilst the return showed one which only had 361 men; that is a statement which ought to interest this House. It confirms the statement of my honourable Friend the honourable Member for Belfast which was first controverted, but yet had to be admitted in the end, and which led to the return which was laid before the House. The real question is, whether the country gets a return for the money which it has paid. My honourable Friend, in reference to the Army, dwelt upon the possibility which must be held in view—he referred six or seven times to the Army which had to be maintained at home against the possibility of invasion. I think the country will accept the naval view with regard to that; if we are to spend what we do spend on our Navy, then the prospect of an invasion is a subject of such remoteness that it need not be considered in the way in which the honourable Member has considered it in his speech. But the country will admit that the country needs an Army, not only for India, but for any great wars in which we may hereafter be engaged. Because if we had been brought into a

  1085
  war, as seemed likely a few months ago, it could not have been brought to an end without a territorial force. I think, as against the six or seven allusions the honourable Gentleman made to the subject of invasion should be set his single allusion to what I may venture to call a counter stroke. There is this problem: Is our Army, with all the gigantic expense which is incurred upon it, one that is available for these two ends; is it available for reinforcement of India in time of war, and for the counter stroke alluded to by the honourable Member? We still, it appears to me, starve our Army for reasons of economy on many points. That is so, for although we spend so much, we have to do some things much cheaper than other countries do. If I might give a small example, I would point to an economical country, which has an economical army, and which has had to substitute aluminium fittings for all the metal parts the army carries. That we do not do so is because of the expense; yet Switzerland, a little country, a third of whose army is ready for mobilisation at any time, can do these things that we cannot. My honourable Friend has not said a word about the manoeuvres—he spoke of the manœuvres of last year—but he has not said a word about there being any manœuvres this year. Apparently we are going to have no great manœuvres this year upon the ground of expense. We are starving the Army there, in my opinion, upon a point which is vital to its existence. Now the Question I put upon the Paper is one of the main examples of starving the Army on the ground of expense. My honourable Friend the Member for Essex, I have no doubt, will support me, because he put the same proposal on the Paper without having had any communication with me whatever upon the subject, and as we have taken this matter up, so it has been present to the eyes of many others. In spite of the able defence of the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary in his speech, I still remain under the impression that horses are a point on which the British Army is starved. I still believe that the supply of trained artillery horses is less than efficiency would demand, and I am sorry to believe so after so able a defence. I would ask him if he really believes the whole of the arguments urged
  1086
  upon him by those highly competent to judge upon this point; that there are sufficient trained artillery horses. Why is it that every officer in India believes that it is impossible to drill his men without as many waggons as there are guns? The four-gun batteries to which the Government appear to be wedded are, as I understand, only supplied by a single waggon. I have never found a Continental officer or an Indian officer content to drill under such conditions. And I do not believe it is possible to do so. The Government of this country admit that they have no guns for the Militia, although they contend that they have some sort of guns for the Volunteers; but there is a vast body of Infantry in this country for which they have no artillery of any kind; there are a vast number of troops in this country so situated, and if it is worth keeping them up—the Volunteers cost a million a year—then it is worth giving them artillery. The Secretary for War last year admitted that the artillery was insufficient, and said that the Government would increase it, and yet there are 1,500 fewer trained artillery horses now than there were 20 years ago. Twenty years ago there were 5,714, and now there are 4,174. It is admitted that in 1879 Lord Beaconsfield reduced the number of horses by 700, and, of course, we know that Mr. Stanhope reduced the Horse Artillery very largely, and made no corresponding increase. Those two diminutions were followed by a pretended increase, and the Secretary for War came down and said he was going to increase the proportion of his guns. Now, what is the present situation? As I understand the honourable Member, he, in answer to a Question the other day—he has used the same argument to-night—said the country may be quiet on this head, because we have now a greater reserve of horses than before the reduction took place. If that statement means anything at all, it means, to put it in plain language, that the guns are to be taken into action by omnibus horses.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The waggons.
  *SIR. C. DILKE: But these are not waggons going along the road; most of these waggons will be in action; they will have to retire very hurriedly over

  1087
  bad country, over any obstacle which happens to be in their way. Omnibus horses may be very excellent creatures, but I do not think any foreign Power would take their batteries into action with omnibus horses. They do not use them for that purpose; they use them for transport, I know, but not for actual service for the waggons in the field, and I confess that, in my belief, you must have trained horses for the waggons which are serving with the guns, as for the guns themselves. Now, Sir, of course we somewhat stretch our figures by counting the military age of a horse from five years to 13 years. Foreign countries only count from six to 13 as the military age. I doubt if we have 3,000 trained artillery horses of military age in this country; that is to say, you have no trained horses for the Militia and the Volunteers; but I believe that in the actual Army, for the purpose of the mobilisation, you have only 3,000 trained horses. Now I am convinced that in times of peace you require a larger establishment of trained artillery horses, than that. I know that India, a poorer country than this, is made to pay for horses for six guns and six waggons, in addition to spare horses; and if they are obliged to do that in India, and she is made to pay for these larger batteries, it is because they are necessary for efficiency; and if we do not keep up the same supply here, I consider that we are starving the Army upon that particular point. The honourable Member, in his defence of this point, mentioned Germany, and suggested that the Germans do exactly the same as the War Office have been doing, and propose to continue to do. I very much doubt that. If he means that the German Artillery drill under the same conditions in which a four-gun battery, with one waggon, on the lower establishment, is supposed to train Artillery in this country, then I doubt his statement. The Artillery force in every Artillery station in Germany is very large. In Germany, so far as I know, there are never fewer than 11 batteries in any Artillery station, and the advantages of the concentration of Artillery for purposes of drill and training are so great that the French hardly keep fewer than 22 batteries in any Artillery station. Drill and training under these circumstances are very different from what they can be here in our four-gun
  1088
  batteries on the lower establishment. I confess I disbelieve both that our system adapts itself easily to mobilisation in time of war, or that it adapts itself to training in time of peace. I said just now that successive Governments have begun to admit this fact and to promise an increase. Three years ago the present Leader of the Opposition promised an increase of the Artillery, and he said that, in order to bring the number of our guns into closer approximation with Continental standards, he proposed an increase of one battery of Royal Horse Artillery and seven batteries of Field Artillery—that is to say, 48 guns on mobilisation. But he reduced the depots. The training, he said, was to be at the batteries, and he reduced many batteries to four-gun establishments. At that time we pressed the right honourable Gentleman—my honourable Friend the then Under Secretary for War joined with me in pressing him somewhat severely on this point—to say whether he was increasing the Artillery by a single horse or by a single man.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Or by a single gun.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Yes. And in response to that pressure the right honourable Gentleman said—
  "The net result of these modifications will involve no appreciable alteration in the total establishment of officers, men, and horses, while, at the same time, giving us a total increase of eight batteries."
  That frank admission was taken note of, and in 1896—the following year—there was a general concurrence of opinion that it was somewhat regrettable that the phrase "increase of Artillery" had been used in that statement. What has happened now? Last year the Marquess of Lansdowne admitted all our arguments about our weakness in Artillery, and agreed that it was vital to the country that our strength in Artillery should be increased. He said—
  "We are determined that the Artillery arm shall not be deficient."
  The Government, both in another place and here, attacked the arrangements which had been made by the previous Government with regard to the depots, and made some announcement, which I have never thoroughly understood, as to a

  1089
  partial restoration of the depôt system. I regret that my honourable Friend did not make that matter clear to-night, as I think the House does not understand to what extent there has been a, reversal of the policy of the late Government on that point. In attacking the present Leader of the Opposition for applying the Infantry system to Artillery, Lord Lansdowne said—
  "You cannot in Artillery shift the men from one unit to another without serious risk to efficiency."
  In consequence of that statement the Under Secretary for War announced in this House an increase in Artillery of 15 batteries—an increase so large that it was to take three years to accomplish: live batteries in this financial year, five batteries next year, and five batteries, I suppose, the year after that. What I cannot for the life of me understand is that, though we have increased the Artillery by between four and five batteries this year, and are going to increase the Artillery by five more batteries next year, we have not increased the Artillery by a single horse. There is no change in the number of horses shown in the details of the Estimates; and I ask the Government to enlighten us on this point by issuing returns showing the actual condition and age of the horses in the four-gun batteries. If they cannot give n full return, could we be given tomorrow night some information with regard to certain batteries, such as the 44th, which has been at home for some years; the 88th, which has lately been raised; and the 17th, which a year ago came back from India, and has been reduced to the four-gun establishment? I want to know the number of horses of military age in the four-gun batteries which are fit to take the field, deducting, of course, the officers' chargers. These batteries are totally inefficient for war. They exist only for the purpose of furnishing drafts to others. I submit that from the point of view of the training of men these batteries are inefficient, and that the kind of batteries which are kept up in India for the training of men are as necessary here as they are in India. The mystery of the increase of Artillery without an increase of horses only deepens the more the Estimates are studied. There is one page in which the matter is dealt with in a general
  1090
  form, in which there appears an increase of 31 horses, but in the details the number is exactly the same. If any honourable Member will turn to one of the two pages where horses are named, he will find that every single item is exactly the same, horse for horse, as in the Estimates of last year, and that there is not, when you come to the details, an increase in the establishment of a single horse. I cannot understand how five new batteries can be raised before the 31st of March, and five batteries in next year, without an increase of horses, unless a great many batteries are to be reduced from the higher to the lower establishment, but the horses as shown for each establishment in the Estimates are the same for the two years. It has been admitted that we have an insufficient number of guns for our Militia and for our Regular Army, and that as regards horses our establishment at home is vastly smaller than it was many years ago, and is ridiculously small as compared with the establishment in India. The only point that remains: to be considered is whether there exists any other force of Artillery in this country, or whether any other force of Artillery can be created. The guns of the position batteries of the Volunteers have not been mentioned tonight, but I fear they would only serve the purposes of fortress Artillery on the North Downs, on Box Hill, and at Caterham—positions which would be taken up by the Volunteers in the event of a dangerous war. A suggestion has been made that it might be possible to establish in this country, for the purposes of home defence, for the purposes of drill and manœuvres, and for the purposes of training men and drawing upon them in time of war, batteries which would be cheaper than the batteries of the Regular Army. A Militia Field Artillery, such as the Swiss have been able to make, might be created, and it seems to me possible to adopt a system under which a portion of the men would be Regulars and a portion Volunteers, and by which some cheaper Artillery might be provided as a second line. Whatever scheme is adopted by the Government, I, at all events, submit to the House that matters cannot stand as they are in connection with the Artillery, and that a case has been made out for pressing this subject upon the attention of the Government until, in this conspicuous in-

  1091
  stance, the British Army is brought up to the standard which, in view of the expenditure which is spent upon it, the country has a right to demand.
  MAJOR RASCH: I rise to second the Amendment. The Under Secretary for War has explained the position by saying that the War Office are going to reduce six-gun batteries to four gun batteries, and in that way to in crease the Artillery by five batteries. The honourable Gentleman absolutely calls that a strong point. In my opinion it is about as sensible as the action of the Irishman who cut off one end of a blanket to sew it on to the other. During the past 20 years the Royal Artillery has been increased by 12 batteries, but, notwithstanding that, the personnel, so far as horses go, has been reduced by 900. I submit that this is absolutely incomprehensible, either to the military mind, the agricultural mind, or to any other mind in this House. A General, who is now dead, once stated that the inefficiency of the land forces of the Crown was due to the fact that the money which Parliament voted was ignorantly and futilely spent by the War Office. That remark is equally true to day. The War Office have increased their expenditure by millions year after year, but they have not improved the efficiency of the Army. In 1897 the Army Estimates amounted to £18,000,000 sterling, in 1896 to more than £17,500,000, but this year they have reached the enormous total of £20,500,000. The War Office have nothing to show for this enormous expenditure. The troops in January 1895 exceeded by something like 7,000 men the troops in January 1899. It seems to me that the War Office has had only two successes during the last 18 months. One was the Peerage which was conferred on Sir Arthur Haliburton for the brief which he held for them in the columns of "The Times" last year, and the other was the success of the campaign in the Soudan. But the success of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum was practically due to the fact that he was 3,000 miles away from Lord Lansdowne and Pall Mall. In fact, the only things the War Office did for the Soudan campaign was to send out soldiers' boots which wore out in three weeks, and to refuse, after two applications, to send out a hospital ship to Alexandria—two things
  1092
  which exceed even the incapacity displayed by the War Office during the Crimean War. I will now refer to the force alluded to by the right honourable Baronet opposite. The House will remember some four years ago the present Leader of the Opposition, when Secretary of State for War, conceived the idea that he could strengthen the Artillery by reducing six-gun batteries to four-gun batteries, and improve its organisation by suppressing the depôt batteries altogether. The same brilliant success has resulted from the treatment of the Cavalry as resulted from the treatment of the Artillery four years ago. In consequence of the drafts to regiments abroad, the Cavalry regiments have been brought to a squeezed lemon condition. The Under Secretary for War has said that recruiting for the Cavalry is better this year than last year, and was better last year than the year before. That is all very well; but the honourable Gentleman did not tell us that the Inspector-General of Recruiting stated in his report that in order to obtain Cavalry recruits the height and age had to be reduced. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the efficiency of the War Office is a war; but happily we have had no war except the one in the Soudan, with which the War Office, fortunately, had very little to do. But we have had autumn manœuvres, which cost £200,000. I should like to say something with reference to the Infantry in the autumn manœuvres. The War Office were going to put into the field 65,000 men, but, as we all know, they did nothing of the kind. They only put 53,500 men into the field. The Infantry battalions were to have turned out 550 strong, but they only turned out 460 strong on the average. The establishment paid for by the country was 881. Now, Sir, I should like to know how it is that 881 men per battalion are paid for by the taxpayers of this country, when only 460 paraded. Do the remainder exist on paper only, like the Chinese Army Corps? Nine hundred waggons and 2,500 horses were borrowed from Lipton and Whiteley. Surely the War Office, in Estimates of £20,000,000 a year, can afford to keep sufficient horses and waggons in store to supply the transport of such a force as that! The heterogeneous character of the waggons used at the manoeuvres was the laughing stock of every military

  1093
  attaché who witnessed it. If the War Office cannot keep 2,500 horses in stock, surely they can keep 900 waggons, and paint them all alike, in order to prevent a repetition of the ridiculous condition of things which occurred last year. As to the War Office itself, I think the thanks of the country are due to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who instituted and formed the Lansdowne Commission, which went into the organisation of the War Office this time last year. What do we find at the War Office? We find that an officer commanding a regiment is not allowed, without communicating with Pall Mall, to order repairs amounting to more than 3s. 6d. for each single man. A field-marshal cannot order the transfer of a gunner from one battery to another without reference to the authorities at Pall Mall. This state of things, in my opinion, is absurd. In regard to general recruiting, things, so far as numbers are concerned, look fairly satisfactory. But, of the 10,000 new recruits, no less than 72 per cent, are "specials," or men less than 5½ft. in height, less than 32in. round the chest, and less than 9Jst. in weight. I read the other day in a military journal called the "Broad Arrow," dated February 11th, that young thieves brought up before the magistrates had been let off on condition that they joined the Army. If that is true, I cannot conceive anything more calculated to lower the status of the Army. The truth is that recruiting will be more or less a failure until the War Office competes with the labour market. It is not food or barrack accommodation, but the low pay which deters young men from joining the Army. And here I venture to congratulate the honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary upon his speech at Dover. The speech which he made to his constituents at Dover, if I were an ordinary War Office official, I should call irresistible. In it he said that as far as he could see the British soldier ought to be attracted by higher pay and by the Government finding employment for him, if possible, after he left the colours. If the honourable Gentleman will only adhere to that, I can assure him that he will have a pleasant time of office, and will have done good for the Service as long as he remains at Pall Mall. Sir, I beg to second the Amend-
  1094
  ment proposed by the right honourable Gentleman opposite.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words upon this matter, and as in reply to the right honourable Baronet and the honourable and gallant Gentleman I can only refer to the question of artillery horses, it will be no discourtesy to them if I do not at tempt to cover the whole ground raised. The right honourable Gentleman asks why we seem to have stereotyped the number of artillery horses, and he finds no apparent difference between the numbers this year and last year. The explanation is this: we treated the horses on our statement last year as we treated the men in the programme for the in crease of the Army; that is to say, we put down on last year's Estimates the total limit of the number of men—
  *SIR C. DILKE: That explains one, but not the other. There is the other which shows the actual number.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The right honourable Baronet sees that point. In 1897 we had on the Estimates a net increase. Last year we put down on the Estimates a superior limit, and we stated how much we intended to take in the year. That has been done again this year, and, therefore, the numbers ought to be the same.
  *SIR C. DILKE: That is as to establishment?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, but as to the expending of money I think the right honourable Baronet will find on Vote 6, Transport and Remounts, this year we are taking some money for artillery horses. We are taking an increase on that Vote of £23,900, part of which will go to get 290 horses—
  *SIR C. DILKE: But in what you have done in the present year there is no increase shown.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: In the money? I am afraid that the Supplementary Estimates—
  *SIR C. DILKE: I mean the number.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have explained that the number is the same this year as last year, because the number last year—
  *SIR C. DILKE: No, that is the establishment. Now I mean the actual number. It is only showing 31 more than last year.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, is the right honourable Baronet speaking of the number of horses—artillery horses—in 1898–9, the financial year? The number of artillery horses in 1898–9 was 1,513 in excess of the numbers for 1897–8. Well, Sir, I am afraid I cannot answer this conundrum at a moment's notice. The broad lines are that the total establishment put down for this year is the same as last year, and that we are paying some money in this year's Estimates in order to add 290 horses to the five batteries.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLconsidered that what we were deficient in in this country was not horses, but men. In India he did not suppose it possible to obtain horses when required, and they had to keep them, but here there were plenty, and they might either be paid for or pressed into the Service when the necessity arose.
  GENERAL RUSSELLobserved that at the German Army Manœuvres four-gun batteries were employed, and, further than that, the waggons were not horsed. He believed that only the two batteries on the French Frontier had their waggons horsed, and then only to a very limited extent. It stood to reason that the expense of keeping up the waggons horsed on a war footing would be enormous. As far as his experience went, omnibus horses would be perfectly suitable for the work of the artillery waggons. No doubt, horses trained to firing would be better, but in his judgment omnibus horses would be extremely useful.
  *SIR C. DILKE: May I be allowed to say that I shall not press this Motion to a Division, but that I am certain that the honourable Member must be mistaken in saying that we have 1,500 more artillery horses than last year.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I think I can correct that. I may read out the in crease in the establishment, but I do not know whether I should be in order in going further. There was on the 1st January of this year an increase on the establishment of 1,519 artillery horses; that is to say, the numbers on the 1st January last year were 4,200, and on the 1st January, 1899, 5,719; on the strength on the 1st January, 1898, 4,271 horses, and on the 1st January, 1899, 4,787, an increase of 516 horses. The facts are, Sir, that on the 1st January, 1898, the strength was 1,000 over establishment. I have explained before that that includes the increase for the 10 batteries, and, therefore, the difference between this year and last year is really greater than it appears. There is an absolute increase, Sir, of 516; since last year we were 1,000 over establishment. We are better this year—
  *SIR C. DILKE: In horses altogether?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; 516 are in the Artillery.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am sure that we are all pleased at seeing the honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for War occupying his present official position, into which he has brought the same lucidity which distinguished his utterances as a private Member. I have heard, like other Members, the speech of the honourable Gentleman with great pleasure and satisfaction. I think there are some points in what the honourable Gentleman has said, which cannot fail to gratify all those who are interested in Army questions, and I think it would be reasonable to give full prominence to them. At the same time some of us are in sympathy with the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean on one ground—that there has been an omission of a general review of our progress. I do not know that the situation actually demands it, but I think it would, in view of the very considerable changes which have been made, have been not altogether out of place. I think that the House and the country are to be congratulated upon one very remarkable circumstance. We are now in the presence of this fact, that the system which has been so per-

  1097
  sistently attacked in this House for many years is now perishing. The Cardwell system—the system, at least, which takes its name from Lord Card well—has now very nearly absolutely perished, and I think all that has been said tonight must make us desire that it should absolutely perish. I should like to justify that statement. The Cardwell system depends upon certain broad, great principles. There was the principle, in the first place, of a short service Army. Now, Sir, the right honourable (Gentleman opposite has not exaggerated when he said that the short service Army had ceased to exist. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said last Session that there were some of us unreasonable enough to hope for a short service Army which should mainly be composed of long-service men. Well, Sir, we were unreasonable enough to hope that, and we have now the gratification of finding that we have got what we wanted. The House will hardly believe the extent to which long service has taken the place of short service. Six years' men are practically no longer enlisted at all. I find we have now, or shall have within a very short period, almost as many men serving the long service term of over six years as there were serving in the first year for which I can find the annual return, namely, 1873. I think that is a very remarkable fact, and I should like the House to bear with me while I give only one set of figures, which they may compare in this matter. There are at the present moment serving in the Army—or there were two years ago, and I would point out that this return has very largely altered in my favour at the present time—69,700 men of over six years' service; that is, nearly 70,000 long service men. There are now considerably over that number, because great progress has been made during the last two years in getting men to extend their service. When we add to that 5,000 men of the First Class Army Reserve, who are to be called back to the colours, and 5,000 men of the A Division of the Army Reserve, we have 10,000 men added to that 70,000; and, allowing for extensions and re-engagements, we shall have in a very short time considerably over 90,000 long service men in the Army—the number serving in 1873 was 96,000,
  1098
  and the number will soon be 90,000 long-service men. On the other side we have, it is true, a very considerable number of short-service men, but from these short-service men, numbering 112,000, we must deduct men under 20 years of age, because, as has been pointed out over and over again, these are not the men on whom we rely to fill our battalions in case of war. After that deduction, we find only 110,000 short-service men serving in the Army at the present time. That is a very remarkable confirmation of the prophecy that we have always made, that an advance in efficiency would be found to consist in doing away with that feature, at any rate, of the Cardwell system. But, Sir, the Cardwell system depended on other features. There was the feature of deferred pay. That has gone, and we are told by the Secretary of State that no one regrets it going; and we hope and believe that it will be found to be of very great advantage to the Army that it should go. Then we have territorial recruiting. Territorial recruiting was a great feature of the Cardwell system—we thought, some of us, a very bad feature when carried to excess, and a very excellent feature when carried out in moderation. At the present moment, territorial recruiting as a system for the whole Army is merely a make-believe. Territorial recruiting exists now, as it always did, in certain districts of the country. It does not exist, not even in name, for the larger proportion of the Army. At the present moment, the men enlisted for the territorial regiments in the different parts of the county are something like, I think, 30 per cent, of the total enlistment. In England, there enlisted in territorial regiments 8,200 men, and 9,000 for other corps. In Scotland 950 men enlisted for territorial regiments, and 1,181 for other corps; Ireland, 1,471 for territorial regiments, 1,100 for other corps. Now, Sir, those figures, I know, do not exhaust the whole of the Army, nor do they exhaust the whole of the case, because we have regiments, such, for instance, as the Lancashire Regiment, which are supposed to get some advantage from their territorial recruiting; yet they are filled, just as the London regiments are, with men from all parts of the country, and from all parts of the world, and

  1099
  these men have no more real territorial feeling in connection with that locality than if they were foreigners. The territorial system has now gone back to the position in which it was before the Cardwell system was introduced, and only the name, as far as I can see, hampers to an extent a great many things which we should like to see done in the Army. We have had a very happy announcement from the Under Secretary this evening, which, I am glad to say, is another blow to the Cardwell system. The Cardwell system made one of its great features the destruction of regimental feelings by attacking regimental history, names, uniforms, and badges. The honourable Member has given us a most welcome promise to-night that there will be some measure of relief given to those regiments, those battalions, which combine to express a desire for it. I hope and believe that that will be, if I may so put it, the thin end of the wedge, and that this wise step having once been taken, we shall see, once and for all, the end of this warfare which has been conducted against the regiments' esprit de corps for so long a period. I do not wish to exaggerate this matter. I know that every other consideration must give way to efficiency; but I want to remind honourable Members that there are many of these regiments whose traditions go back for 120 years, aye, for 200 years, who have had the whole, or a very large part, of their identity taken away from them in 1881. I saw the other day that the Hanoverian Regiments have had restored to them the distinctions they possessed before the war of 1866; and I have always hoped that the day may come when such regiments as are distinguished in our Army for the part they took in the beginning of the century, or last century, shall have restored to them the identity which will enable men who serve in them now to know that they form part of regiments so distinguished in the past. We have got rid of short service, we have got rid of deferred pay, and we have partly got back our regimental distinctions. There still remains one of the worst features of the Cardwell system, and that is the system of drafting. Now, Sir, the honourable Member has said that drafting is inevitable, and the reason he says that is, that he has got the authority of the great lights of the
  1100
  War Office for it. Now, Sir, I should like at this time of the day to exercise my independent judgment, and I think we need not be too much alarmed at the authority of the distinguished gentlemen at the War Office. I think anybody who has read the Report of the War Office upon itself last year will think that the fact that any institution is supported by the persons who are concerned in that Report is about the best evidence you have got that it is in need of some reform. I think I have done enough in quoting these four cardinal instances, in which we have abandoned schemes which have been defended tooth and nail in this House, year after year, to show that we have a right to look at things upon their merits, and not to take alarm because we have the ipse dixit of some War Office authority for their existence. We have a great many opinions about this matter of drafting. I should like to quote the opinion of so great an authority as Lord Nelson. Speaking of the kindred Service, he said—
  "The disgust of the seamen of the Navy is owing to the infernal plan of turning them over from ship to ship, so that men cannot be attached to their officers nor their officers care tuppence about them."
  Now, Sir, I think that authority is a good one. I have another authority, a very good one also. I was reading only two days ago an account of the operations of the American Civil War, by Captain Mahan. He says—
  "There is no more unsatisfactory method of getting a crew than by drafts from the commands of other men. Human nature is rarely equal to parting with any but the worst."
  That is not only true, but it is an absolute statement of what takes place in our regiments at the present time—in our batteries and Cavalry regiments. The men who are supposed to be volunteers in many and many a case are the men whom the sergeant-major wants to get rid of; and, when you have got to the end of that tally, you come then to the men whom the regiment does not want to lose, and who are its best men. But we have a third authority against drafting. We have the authority of the Secretary of State for War himself. Lord Lansdowne's words have been quoted by the right honourable Baronet with regard to drafting in

  1101
  the Artillery batteries. Lord Lansdowne said that, in the Artillery, you could not continue this system of drafting without doing injury to the efficiency of the batteries. Now, |Sir, that opinion, I believe, is absolutely universal in the Artillery. I confess I hear it from every quarter, and I do regret that we are promised a continuance of this system. I do not even admit what the honourable Member has said, that this system must go on for ever and ever with regard to the Infantry. I believe that, until we have some great organic change, there is, perhaps, no other way of providing the Infantry battalion with men, but that necessity certainly does not exist in the case of Cavalry and Artillery, and I did hope that we might have some pledge from the Secretary of State with regard to both these arms, that we should have a real establishment of depots for Cavalry and Artillery. I know some of my honourable and gallant Friends are going to speak more at length than I desire, or ought to do, with regard to this matter of drafting in the Cavalry, but I should like to say one word about it. What is happening is this? There are Cavalry regiments which, at this present moment, are being made traps for the enlistment of young men. There are certain popular Cavalry regiments and young men are being invited to enlist in them; and they enlist because they know and like that regiment, because they wish to be in that regiment. When they get to it they are told that they have got to go to some other regiment which they have never heard about, and which they do not want to go to. We are told that all these men know about these arrangements. Why, not one out of 10 Members of this House knows about them. They know they are to be transferred, it is said! I speak absolutely without fear of contradiction from any Cavalry officer when I say the men do not know, and, even if they did know, it does not make a pennyworth of difference, because when they get to these regiments they are transferred, willing or not—they go to other regiments either as volunteers or as ordered men. I know regiment after regiment, and know what is going on. Here is a case. I will not give the exact numbers, but will keep sufficiently near them, so that anybody who knows the facts may follow
  1102
  me. A regiment is asked to furnish 30 men. They are to be men of certain service and of a certain age. The regiment has, say, 40 or 50 men only on its whole strength who are available on these conditions. What happens? Volunteers are asked for. Some half-dozen or dozen men come forward and say they will go: perhaps somebody has told them they had better go. But that does not supply what is wanted. What happens? The men who do not volunteer, the efficient men of the regiment, are ordered to go. In Scottish regiments, in English regiments, and no doubt in Irish regiments, it is the same. How demoralising this is anybody with any knowledge at all of the results must see. It has actually got to this state of things, that Cavalry officers in a Dragoon Regiment receive orders from the War Office telling them that they are to send away men who are merely spoken of as "serving under their command" to a corps of Lancers, say, and a Cavalry officer has thus men put under his command who belong to some totally different regiment. That, to begin with, is very wrong in principle, and very deleterious to the interests of the Army, and, what is more, I believe it is absolutely illegal. After that matter I should like to refer to another matter. In 1881 an Army Act was passed giving a soldier an absolute right, after the first three months from his attestation, not to be liable to be transferred to any other corps without his own consent. In the definition clause of that Act the meaning attached to the word "corps" is given. That definition states that the expression "corps" was—
  "In the case of Her Majesty's regular forces such a military body, whether known as a territorial regiment or by any different name, as might from time to time, be declared by Royal Warrant to be a corps for the purposes of the Act, and was a body formed by Her Majesty, and consisting of associated bodies or battalions of regular forces, with or without the whole or any part of an establishment."
  I ask any fair-minded man what was meant by that definition. In the year in which these great changes were made in regard to territorial regiments I find that a modification of that clause appears in the Royal Warrant. The Warrant commences—
  "We hereby declare that on and after 27th of September 1881 such military bodies as

  1103
  are mentioned in the Schedule shall be declared to be corps for the purposes of the Army Act."
  Then follows a full list of Cavalry and territorial regiments. There is not the slightest doubt in the world that the intention of Parliament was, when this change was made, to stamp as "Corps" the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, and the Cavalry regiments, and to group territorial regiments not associated one with the other. Now, taking advantage of the word "corps," the War Office has taken upon itself to link together a number of regiments which have never been recognised as associated bodies, between which there is no exchange of officers, and which are not amenable to any common authority except the Commander-in-Chief. It is a very objectionable thing that, without consulting the House of Commons, the privileges conferred upon a soldier should be taken away by a side wind in order to get the War Office out of the hopeless muddle into which they have got. Before I leave this question of Cavalry and Artillery I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that these two schemes, which have now absolutely broken down, were denounced on the very day they were first mentioned in this House, and the representative of the War Office was told by many of us that they would not and could not succeed. Now we are asked to do some more patching. In 1870 the whole thing was gone through. The Cavalry Depot was done away with, and the same good reasons were given for its demolition. It was replaced, and done away with again, and now, in some modified way which I do not understand, it is to be replaced again. Surely we may exercise an independent judgment in these matters, and not accept the statements of she War Office. I should like to say one word with reference to the recruiting returns. We are congratulating ourselves upon the very large number of recruits which have come in, but there is a contra to our satisfaction in this matter. The honourable Gentleman spoke as if the number of "specials" did not matter very much. Since 1895 the proportion of "specials" has gone up from 19.9 per cent, to 33 per cent. What
  1104
  are the dimensions of a man so small that he cannot pass the ordinary Army test? They are not the class of men we ought to have. We ought not to have 33 per cent, of our regular troops so small that only by physical means can they be extended 5ft. 2½in in height and 32in. around the chest. Some of these men do develop into soldiers; a great many do not. One of the most serious features of the Army at the present moment is the waste which occurs in the first few years of a soldier's life. That waste is something alarming. In 1897, which is the latest return available, out of 12,000 men discharged from the Army, 4,411 were under 21, and when we add to that the number of desertions of men with under two years' service, namely, 3,057, we get a very large and disproportionate waste among the young soldiers. I do not think it is satisfactory that we should be told year after year that we must accept this large proportion of "specials." Many Members of the House who are not acquainted with the matter are, no doubt, under the impression that all is said and done when a regiment, when called upon, goes into action. Now it cannot be too clearly understood that not a single regiment on the home establishment goes into action, or will ever go into action, if the War Office can help it. The number of men unfit is a great grievance at present. We have splendid material, we turn out splendid regiments. What we complain of is the enormous expenditure, and the large amount of unavailable material, and material which will never be available for active service. One word with reference to the return alluded to by the right honourable Baronet, which was given last year, and refused this year. I must protest against the refusal of that return. I think I can make a good case why it should be given. It gives us particulars as to the actual composition of all the battalions at home. No other single return issued by the War Office gives any information worth a snap of the finger, and the return promised to me containing the figures en bloc will not be of any importance. The return which we now ask for, and which was given last year, is given in every country in Europe as a matter of course. The composition of every battalion is known, the number of

  1105
  men is known, the service of each, the date they came in and the date they go out are all known. The only reason we are given why this return is refused to us is because it is feared it would give information to foreign nations. That is an absolutely absurd reason. The only people from whom the information is withheld are those who ought to know—the House of Commons. The information can be procured by any person who chooses to give time and trouble to it, and there is not a military attaché in London who cannot obtain it without the slightest difficulty. I may say that I myself, a military outsider, have on two separate occasions given a large proportion of this return before it was published, and when we got the exact figures it was found that my only error was that I had understated the case. What possible objection can there be to giving this return? It told us more about the condition of the Army than all the speeches made in this House. We are told what is going to be done, and what is contemplated. What we want to know is the present actual condition of the Army. We learnt last year that regiment after regiment, with an establishment of 770 men, had effectives varying from 200 to 300 men, that we required in 20 regiments 700 men to complete them, and in others 800 men. Now the country did not know that before. They were deceived on that point, and the War Office knows, of course, perfectly well that by the publication of this return the country was for the first time enlightened on this matter. I want to keep that information before the country. I want to ask a plain question. Why are you refusing this return? We had a War Office Committee last year, and a remark was then made by a very distinguished gentleman in the War Office upon this question of returns. I want the House of Commons to appreciate it. The remark which this gentleman was pleased to make was this—
  "The House of Commons asks for excessively curious and minute returns … Now most of the inquiries are made about something or other that some local person has made a noise about."
  That was Sir Ralph Knox's way of describing the matter. The facts are otherwise. This House has not been at all exigeant in the matter of returns. It has con-
  1106
  tented itself with a great deal too few reports, and it is nothing less than an impertinence to suggest that the House of Commons, in desiring to know something about the Army, is simply giving effect to local prejudices. I do not know whether the opposition to giving us this return came from that quarter, but I do think the House of Commons has a right, in the first place, to resent a suggestion of that kind, and, in the second place, to insist upon having the return. We want to know this year and next year how things really stand, and I see no reason whatever why we should not have the information. I hope the Under Secretary of State will tell us the reason why this return has been refused, and what mischief was done to the nation by its publication last year, and why, when a large section of the House desires to have it this year, we should not get it? It is a return made up weekly in every orderly room in the kingdom, and there should be no difficulty about it. There are other matters of detail, which will come on under other Votes, and I do not desire to occupy the time of the House longer at the present stage. My main intention is that we should have courage and look facts in the face, and not take the authoritative statements of the War Office in regard to them, and that in pursuance of that doctrine we should consider whether the present system of drafting cannot be remedied, and whether every regiment should not be allowed to continue its own regimental life without this perpetual breaking up. I believe, with the right honourable Baronet opposite, that no effective remedy will take place until the whole system is altered. It is repugnant to our own common sense, and is against the feeling of every officer zealous for the Army. It is by no means ah imaginary grievance, and I have no hesitation in saying that those who feel most the pinch of these bad arrangements are not officers who are careless as to the welfare of their regiments, not officers sluggish in the Service, but the very best men in the Service. Day after day and week after week I hear expressions, which are painful to hear, from men who have given up the best of their lives to the Service, and I hear laments over the conditions under which they are com-

  1107
  pelled to work, and I trust, after the very satisfactory statement the honourable Gentleman has given us to-night, that we may now make some progress.
  MR. COURTNEY WARNER: I propose to ask a few questions from the Under Secretary of State for War, and I will follow him, if I may, in taking the Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry one by one. He made one curious statement, to which I take exception. He suggested that if there were war the drafts to India would be kept down. I think every Member of the House will see at once that the moment war broke out the first thing would be the strengthening of our Indian Army as much as possible, and the drafts would have to be very much larger to India than if there were no war. Artillery drafts would be drawn on most. With reference to the batteries of Artillery mentioned by the honourable Gentleman, he did not give a single battery to the 200,000 Volunteers and the 100,000 Militia. In the event of war they would not have a single battery to help them, and as they would have no Cavalry they would be really only a paper army. When the extra batteries are raised the Reserve of Artillery would not be enough to fill up at home, because the batteries abroad would continue to require drafts. The reserve of horses is spoken of as being quite sufficient to fill up the Artillery, but there is the Cavalry to fill up, and also the Army Service Corps and transports. If all these horses are to be taken up for the Artillery we should not have a single horse for the Cavalry and the Army Transport Corps, or any transport service whatever, and we all know that we must have a certain number of trained men and horses even with the Army Service Corps. Then I should like to refer to the system of drafting. It is a most pernicious system to take a man from one regiment and put him into another. The Under Secretary of State did suggest that he was doing all he could to prevent this system of drafting, and I hope it will be done away with before very long. There is one other point to which I wish to refer. We have now more Infantry, taken as a whole; that is to say, we have an increased Regular
  1108
  Army prepared for foreign service, but we have a decreased Militia and Home Reserve. The Militia is to me a very important force, and its importance has been recognised by the War Office in two ways; in the first place as a Reserve, and in the second, as a feeder for the Army. I think everything is being done to reduce the Militia to the smallest possible dimensions. If the Under Secretary of State for War would consent to a little elasticity in the area over which each regiment is now allowed to recruit, there might be an improvement. At present each regiment is tied down to its own county. In some places there are regiments which can recruit any number of men, but have not got officers up to the full establishment. In other places the Militia regiments have all their officers, but are short of men. They cannot get them in their own county, but if they were allowed to go to another county where the Militia regiment was full they would be able to keep up their full strength. For instance, in London, regiments are always full up, and some of the Militia regiments in the country who have got their officers would be able to fill up their men by being allowed to recruit in London. The same thing applies to Liverpool, Glasgow, and other large towns. In consequence of this shortness of men the establishment is being reduced to six companies in certain regiments. In answer to a Question last night by the honourable Member for South Molton, the Under Secretary of State said he would postpone the reduction of the Devon Militia. I want to point out that reduction to six companies of a Militia regiment is the worst thing you could do. It makes the expenses of the officers very much greater, and it is in officers that the Militia is short. If you reduce the regiment to six companies you reduce the officers by 25 per cent., so that you make the mess expenses 15 to 20 per cent, greater. That is not the way to get officers. I should suggest that instead of reducing these regiments, two six-company regiments should be amalgamated, making a 12-company regiment. It would be better for recruiting, much less expensive to the officers, and would not be detrimental to the efficiency of the regiment. I hope some of these suggestions may be of some use. I have to thank the Under

  1109
  Secretary for carrying out one reform that I asked for many years ago, and I am very grateful for it. It is that the glengarry is about to go. I am glad that that inconvenient head-dress is to be removed. There is one other thing everyone should be grateful for, and that is the provision of shoes for the Regular Army. The enormous amount of marching the modern style of drill requires results in the supply of boots being always rather short, and shoes will be very acceptable for use in barracks. I am glad to hear they are to be given to every man, and they are certain to be appreciated. I do hope something will be done to prevent Militia regiments, which really have had very little given to them, being reduced any further than at present. We had additional pay given to the Regular Army, but no additional pay given to the Militia. If it is a question of money there is a certain amount spent every year in counting 20,000 men twice over. The Militia Reserve is merely paid to be taken into the Army if they are required. I believe that every man in the Militia would go into the Army if required in time of war. So the Reserve is absolutely useless. I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge, because at the time of the Crimea, the Militia battalions were merely skeleton battalions, nine-tenths of the men having been transferred to the Army. Well, I think that is a very good reason for looking after the Militia as a reserve force you can draw on. Give a little better pay, better clothes, and some small luxuries, which would encourage the men to join the Militia, or, if you cannot give them more pay, give them a little better bounty. I hope that what has been said by the honourable Member for Belfast will be taken to heart by the War Office authorities. It is a very expensive way to keep a soldier for one year before he really becomes a soldier, although, no doubt, it makes a very large army on paper. I hope there will be fewer "specials" taken on in future, and that the money spent on them will be used in keeping on men who are efficient soldiers. Even if you have to pay a little more, it will be for the good of the Army. As for what has been said about small battalions, that is another thing which I hope will be taken into consideration. When last year it
  1110
  was proposed that the new battalions should be raised, I asked the Under Secretary for War whether he would not consider the desirability before raising the new battalions of filling up the old ones. It would be a very much better thing if we kept our battalions up to their full strength. It would be easier to teach them, better for their drill, and far less expensive to the country. Of course, I know the argument that you want a skeleton ready to be filled up with reserve men. But you have got plenty of skeletons, and a reserve of officers to insrease your regiments to eight-company battalions. There is one other point to which I want to direct attention, and that is, steps should be taken to do away with the small Line depôts These are very expensive, and very detrimental to the men who go there. Besides, small depots are most unpleasant to the men, who are obliged to be put in places which are very inimical to their health. The small depots should be amalgamated and made into large depots. It is very much easier to train 1,000 recruits than to train 10 batches of 100 men each. The number of recruits being trained at some of these small depôts does not sometimes exceed 50. That is an expensive way of training recruits. And when the whole depot appears on parade it sometimes does not amount to a body 200 strong. Considering the number of officers and sergeants who must be kept at these depôts, that is a most expensive way of training recruits. Instead of having a sergeant putting one or two men through the goose-step—it does not require great intelligence or skill to put recruits through the goose-step—it would be better if the depots were made larger and the recruits trained in larger numbers. That would be an enormous benefit to the country. Then, if the depots were amalgamated the rifle ranges could be placed nearer them. At present the men have long distances to go to get to the ranges at all, but if only the depôts were made larger, it would pay the country to obtain ranges closer to them. There is only one other point I would like to ask about. The right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for War mentioned that a lot of ranges had been arranged for, but I did not quite know what he meant when he spoke of some ranges that were going to be inspected, or had been inspected.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The honourable Member is putting two parts of my speech together. I spoke of half a million under the loan of 1897 being set apart to acquire new rifle ranges for the Army. The other figures which I gave were applicable to the ranges for Volunteers. In April, 1894, there were 1,172 ranges, of which now over 667 were approved of, and there were 354 ranges which had not yet been inspected, but would be inspected.
  MR. COURTNEY WARNER: The ranges provided for the Volunteers are being inspected, but the 20 new ranges for the Army are, I understand, in course of construction. I should like to know what progress has been made with the construction of these new ranges. I was given to understand some time ago that these ranges had been arranged for, but I find that the only arrangement made is that it has been decided to buy land for the ranges, but that no progress has been made in buying the land, and that, in fact, no arrangement has been made beyond the War Office sending somebody down to inspect the land, and to see whether it is suitable for ranges. I nope that these 20 new ranges which are in process of construction or inspection, or something of the sort, will soon be brought to a completion.
  SIR H. FLETCHER:: I beg to thank the Secretary of State for War and his Under Secretary for having at last been able to unearth from the pigeon holes of the War Office the great question of transport for the Volunteers. I have brought this question before the House for many years, and a Committee sat on it some years ago. Now I am informed by my honourable Friend that provision is being made in order that when a Volunteer corps produces a waggon or waggons at a, drill, or in camp, or at inspection certain allowances in the way of money will be granted. There is no doubt the question of transit has affected the Volunteer force very considerably, and we who are interested in that force have now reason to hope that the difficulty is about to be overcome. There is another matter in connection with the Volunteers which I wish to mention. I congratulate my honourable and gallant Friend and the War Office for having
  1112
  seriously taken up the question of ranges. Those who, like myself, have been associated with the Volunteer force for forty years know that that question of ranges has been a most serious blot on almost the existence of the Volunteers for many years past. I may remind the House that it is not altogether a question of the money which the War Office proposes to give in the way of travelling allowances to take them to the ranges. The great question of the ranges is that they should be in as close proximity as possible to the headquarters of the corps. I would point out that the time of the Volunteer is valuable. He is not able to separate himself from his civil employment for many hours of the day. And if the range is some hours distant, by railway even, from his business quarters, you may say a whole day is occupied by a man in going through his class-firing. Up to the present time an allowance has been made for a distance of five or six miles from headquarters. I gather from my honourable Friend that the War Office proposes that a travelling allowance should be given for a distance of 12 miles. That, no doubt, will be very satisfactory indeed. I hope the War Office will continue to use every effort to provide ranges at such distances as will enable the Volunteers to carry out their musketry course in an efficient manner. I can speak from long association with the force and all connected with it, and I say that this boon in regard to transport which is to be given to the Volunteers will be of the greatest benefit; and if the ranges question is satisfactorily dealt with, I have no fear but that the Volunteers will continue to make themselves more efficient than ever.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have very few observations to make on the general question of the Estimates, but I wish, at all events, to rise for the purpose of congratulating the honourable Gentleman not only on his appointment to the office he holds, but also on the admirable way in which he has discharged his duty to-night. He has not a very exciting or a very revolutionary programme to uphold. His principal duty was to point out how far the schemes of previous years were developed in the course of the months that are past. For that

  1113
  very reason I find there is very little to say on this occasion, because the new proposals are so few, and the original scheme which is in process of application was so fully discussed last year that I do not think much time need he spent on that question. It is very satisfactory to me to find that some parts of the scheme of last year, which I regarded with most distrust, have not turned out to have had any prejudicial effect, or, at any rate, to such an extent as might have been feared. I regarded with considerable alarm the proposal to bring men back from the Reserve to serve with the colours, but I am glad to find from the statements made either in the Reports of the Inspector-General of Recruiting, or in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, that in the first place, it appears that the 4,500 men who have come back from the Reserve to the colours were all men who came from civil employment at the time.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Nearly all of them.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Or nearly all of them. The greatest number of them were in civil employment. This appears to me to be a pretty good answer to those alarming rumours we have heard of the large number of Reserve men who were wandering about the country in a hopeless search for employment. Of course, it was thought that when a door of this kind was opened to them it would be the loose and unsettled men who would be the first to enter; but it now turns out that the largest number of the men had been in civil employment. The second fact which it is satisfactory to find is, that it is not anticipated by the War Office that this provision with regard to the return to the colours of Reserve men will have any effect in materially diminishing the number of the Reserve; that there is such a number of men changing from the establishment and passing into the Reserve that they will make up the diminution on the other head by the men rejoining the colours. Still, I deprecated that proposal last year, and I continue to do so, not only on the ground that it takes away from the very Reserve which we have been laboriously creating all those years past, but also on
  1114
  the ground that, when you take a Reservist and bring him back to complete his 12 years' service, you turn him out into the world without a pension and in a more helpless condition than he was in before. When a Reserve man of the ordinary type goes out he has his Reserve pay, or, as now, a gratuity. He has been, after all, only a few years in the service, and he enters civil life. A long-service man, serving his 21 years, or whatever term he may prefer, goes out on his pension. But this Reservist, this 12 years' man, after being brought back to complete his term, is discharged without, any prospect at all. That is of itself an unfortunate position. In the old days 13 years was considered the term of service, after which a man had the right to demand a full long service and a pension, if he chose to use his right. I do not think it is a satisfactory arrangement that a man should be so treated, and I venture to think that if some years hence we hear alarming stories of our workhouses being full of old soldiers, it will be these unfortunate Reservists, who have been discharged after 12 years' service, who will largely constitute the men so unfortunately situated. Well, the recruiting appears to have been most satisfactory during the past year. In fact, so far as I have been able to look into the returns and reports, the condition of the Army, as a whole, is most satisfactory. It has been improving in almost every particular. The number of recruits is something startling, as also the comparative facility with which they have been obtained. I know what has been always said against those who are known as "specials," that it is desirable to keep down the number of the "specials" as much as possible. But, after all, a well-grown youth, with good physical characteristics, and capable of development, is about the best possible soldier we can have. I am not sure that, although we have the trouble and expense of maintaining him for a year or a short time while he is not fully useful—I am not sure that in the end he does not make a better soldier than the other man. My honourable Friend who has just sat down referred to certain concessions that had been made to the Volunteers, which I was very glad to hear of. The Volunteers are always under the impression that they have

  1115
  been somewhat scurvily treated by the authorities at headquarters. I have never been able to say that that is true. At the same time, their own efforts have been so patriotically ungrudging, and they have done so much out of their own pockets, that they certainly deserve every concession that can be made to them, consistently with maintaining their perfectly voluntary and unpaid character. The honourable Gentleman is to be congratulated on having found something to be done for them which will not have any evil effect on their character. The honourable Gentleman does not refer to what, I think, is after all one of the most remarkable features of these Estimates, and that is the total sum of them. The Estimates are over a million larger than last year, and last year's were greater than those of the year before. And so we go on. This is not the time or the occasion on which to discuss that, I am fully aware. I always bear in mind the fact that your Army and your Navy Estimates depend upon the policy of the country. It is not the War Minister or the Marine Minister who is to be either blamed or praised for heavy Estimates. It is those who direct the policy of the country who are responsible. If you undertake great obligations in all parts of the world, if you extend your Empire in, no doubt, a very pleasing and gratifying manner, and with a great deal of approbation on the part of the masses of the people of the country—if you go on doing that year after year, you have, and you must have, an increased expenditure on the Army and Navy. It cannot be too often repeated and pressed on the mind of the country that our Army is now almost at the extreme limit of its powers to bear and discharge those great duties which the honourable Member referred to. These constant duties consist in garrisoning stations in unhealthy climates, duties exceeding anything imposed on the armies of all the other countries on the face of the earth, besides being ready for the great emergencies to which the honourable Gentleman referred. When Her Majesty's Government, on their responsibility, declare that this large increase of money is required, I am not one who ever refuses these grants of money when so demanded by the responsible Ministers of the day. But I hope it will be observed in the
  1116
  country and in this House that the Estimates and the charges for military defences and for the guarding of the interests of the Empire are constantly increasing, and that the only way to prevent such increases, if it be desirable, is by modifying in some way or other the general policy of the country.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I really do not in the least intend to intervene in detalied Debate on the Army Estimates, but the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at the close of his speech has implied that the great and growing Estimates, naval and military, have some special connection with the Foreign Policy pursued by Her Majesty's present advisers. That, I think, is not the case. No doubt it is true, and I think my honourable Friend in his interesting speech referred to the fact, that the responsibilities of the Empire are growing; but the main responsibilities of the Empire must be the same under this or any other Government. They are the responsibilities of preserving our great Colonies, our great outlying dependency of India, and our great trade routes. These are the inevitable responsibilities of Empire, and the fact that you add a few square miles here or there does not affect the total of these responsibilities to any practical extent whatever. In order to carry out these responsibilities, you must have undoubtedly an Army and a Navy capable of meeting any army or navy that may be brought against them, and by which those Imperial responsibilities may be imperilled. The amount of our armaments depends not in the least on the Foreign Policy the Government may pursue, but partly upon those considerations, those allocations of responsibility which I have referred to, and still more upon the military and naval policy pursued by other nations. It is from that policy our dangers arise. It is to meet these dangers that we have to ask the House to vote these vast sums. Nobody regrets more than Her Majesty's present advisers the magnificent sacrifices we have to ask the taxpayers of the country to undergo, but so long as our Imperial responsibilities remain what they are, and so long as we have to contend against the forces which may be arrayed against us, so long is it absolutely neces-

  1117
  sary that we should ask the country to make those sacrifices. It has nothing whatever to do—as the right honourable Gentleman would lead us to suppose—with our action, say, in the Soudan, or here, or there. It depends on far larger considerations, which no modification of the Foreign Policy of the Government could, so far as I can see, materially diminish or materially increase.
  *MR. WEIR: There are certain matters connected with recruiting expenses to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. Last year these expenses amounted to £22,100; this year the amount is £28,000, an addition of £5,900—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is going into the details of the Estimates. That can only be done in Committee.
  *MR. WEIR: I want to call attention to the expense of recruiting, and to the importance of not spending money in the Highlands of Scotland—in sending men round there to seek recruits. On page 10 of the Report on Recruiting it is stated that a battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders marched through Argyllshire and the Western Highlands for the purpose of getting recruits. I am sure every Member of the House who has a desire to see that the money of the nation is not spent foolishly will agree with me that to send down this battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders for the purpose of obtaining recruits at a cost of something like £100 for each recruit is foolish. I can tell the honourable Member the Under Secretary for War that it is simply throwing money into that sea to spend it like that. The Highlanders will not enlist as soldiers, although you may get some of them for the Navy, so long as their grievances are unredressed. That is shown by the result of this experiment of sending down kilted men with flags flying, ribbons streaming, and pipes skirling. They only managed to get six recruits, at a cost of £100 each recruit. And one of these was released from his engagement, for he was the only support of his widowed mother. It is a wicked expenditure of public money, and I think it ought to be stopped. I shall not go
  1118
  into the details of this question, but will deal with the matter when the Vote comes on in Committee. There is a diminution in the Scottish Militia of 1,285 men. In 1895 the Scottish Militia numbered 13,281, but in 1899 they are only 11,996. The War Office officials ought to open their eyes to the fact that it is a difficult matter, especially in the Highlands, to get men to join the Army. They get their Highland regiments filled, not from the Highlands of Scotland, but from the slums of the cities. I deplore the fact that our Highlanders are not joining the Army; I should be only too glad to see them do so. What the Government should do is to encourage the men to live in their native glens, and in that way you would soon find the material to draw from to fill up the ranks of the Army. Then, again, there is the exependiture of money at Fort George. I shall not deal with it now; but I call the attention of the Government to the fact that sums are provided in this year's Estimates for barrack accommodation throughout the Empire. Well, at Dingwall, the capital town of Rossshire, there are barracks for the men, but there is no accommodation for the staff. The result is that the staff have to go to Inverness and to Fort George, and the men have to follow them. Now, Dingwall is the county town and the headquarters of the Rossshire Buffs, the Seaforth Highlanders, and the Militia, and they ought to be located there. Men are far more likely to join the Army if their depot is in their own county. You must remember that the men love the Gaelic. Notwithstanding that the Government discourages the language, the Highlander loves his Gaelic, and if the depot of the regiment is where there is Gaelic speaking, there is a far better chance of getting a larger number of recruits from the county. I am sure every military man will agree that it is far better for a regiment to be composed, if possible, of men from one county, speaking the same language, knowing each other, and standing shoulder to shoulder on the field of battle. They will do their work with far more spirit, and face death, if needful, more courageously side by side with their fellows. But these men are taken away from their county town to Fort George. I visited that place last autumn, and

  1119
  found that the men were treated in the most shocking manner. They were put in the casemates to sleep—foul, damp holes, not fit for dogs. There is a tendency to treat Scotland in the matter of barracks with parsimoniousness. If you want men to join the Army they must be properly housed and cared for. It was arranged the other day that the Rossshire Militia should go up for the annual training, not in the month of April, as formerly, but in the month of July—the very time that these men are engaged at the fishing. If they are taken away from the means of earning their livelihood, it spells starvation and misery for them and their families. They go to the east coast fishing in the spring and summer, and do not get back to their homes till the autumn. I am informed that the officer, for his own convenience, wants the men to be drilled in the month of July—the very time the men are absent at the fishing. Such want of thought and consideration for the people of the far north I cannot understand. Is it because they are so far removed from the capital? Highlanders ought to have every consideration from the War Office. Look at General Macdonald, the hero of Omdurman, look at Dargai, and many another field: Highland regiments are always in the forefronts I say that it is a, shame that any one officer should arrange for the drill of a whole regiment of Militia to suit his own convenience regardless of the men's interests. That is not the way to encourage enlistment. I should rejoice to see Highlanders join the Army. They are brave, sober men, and they should be taken care of. Since I am unable to go into details until the respective Votes are dealt with, I shall refrain from making any further observation on them. But these points I hope will be considered by the War Office. It is an unpleasant thing to come here and rate Ministers for neglecting the Highland people. But I say it is in the interest of the country and of the Army that every care and consideration should be given to these brave men who have done such noble deeds and rendered such noble service to their country. Until you give them more consideration, I tell the Government it is no use to send to the Highlands detachments of kilted men—fine fellows no doubt—to recruit.
  1120
  Highlanders will not be attracted by the skirl of the pipes or by banners and ribbons and fine talk. I am glad to say they are not to be captivated by a glass of whisky or a pot of beer like some of the men in the towns. They are not so foolish. Why the last detachment only got six recruits—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the House to the fact that the honourable Member is repeating the same arguments over and over again.
  *MR. WEIR: I shall not proceed further. I only wanted to impress on the Government these two points about the barracks and the manner and expense of recruiting. I shall speak on the details when the Estimates come on.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  *CAPTAIN NORTON: Mr. Speaker, as the remarks which I desire to make in connection with the Debate would perhaps be more appropriate in Committee of Supply, I waive my right to speak at the present moment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  FIELD ARTILLERY (TRAINED HORSES).

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk), in the Chair.]
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 184,853, all ranks, to be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900."
    *CAPTAIN NORTON: The aspect of this Question which I propose to treat is that of finance. I do not desire to repeat the various arguments which I

    1121
    brought forward on the Estimates of last year, pointing out that the present system had hopelessly broken down, but I desire to show that for years past the expenditure, not only upon the Army, but upon the fighting forces generally, has been on the increase, and that, in spite of that fact, we are in no better position at the present moment than we were several years ago. Mow, Sir, I do not contend that there has been particular extravagance in any one direction; I strike at the whole system. I say that the present system under which we obtain men is a system which, out of the mouths of the authorities themselves, has proved a failure. I should like to refer to a few of the points which the honourable and gallant Member the Secretary of State for War has himself brought forward. Amongst other things, he referred to the garrisoning of the coaling stations. Now, Sir, we have over and over again pointed out that in the garrisoning of these coaling stations and naval bases there was an immense waste. Battalions and fighting units have been broken up for this purpose. By a very limited increase in the Royal Marines, who are much better adapted for this work, many valuable battalions would have been saved for active service. We have heard something of the chances of a great war, but it is always spoken of as very remote, or as next to impossible. Sir, surely the authorities should not look at things from this point of view. This nation is paying a sum for the maintenance of our Army Services out of all proportion to that paid by other nations, and the people have a right to expect that they shall have an Army upon which they can absolutely depend. France and Germany and other great military nations make a vast expenditure it is true, but then they are almost always absolutely prepared for war. I am assured on the best authority that if a war were to break out at a moment's notice between France and Germany, a complete army corps could cross the German frontier fully and thoroughly equipped within 24 hours. We have heard over and over again that we are in a position to place two army corps in the field. I think I showed conclusively last year that in many details even these two army corps are deficient. I showed that as re-
    1122
    gards the medical arrangements they are most defective; that, in order to thoroughly equip the medical service for two army corps, it would be necessary to draw upon the reserve of medical officers, a large proportion of whom are absolutely unfitted to take the field, and that it would be impossible to withdraw the medical officers from all the principal medical centres, and place those medical centres in the hands of other practitioners, because they have had no training whatever as regards administrative duties. Then, Sir, the honourable and gallant Gentleman referred to the proposed new batteries. Of the proposed 11 new batteries it was, however, acknowledged that only eight were completed. Now, Sir, if there is one branch of the Service which you cannot complete in a hurry, and which it is absolutely necessary to keep in effective strength, it is the Artillery. The greatest deficiency exists in this branch of the Service. It may not, perhaps, be generally known that artillery horses are most difficult to train to a high state of proficiency, and yet we find that we are three batteries of Artillery short. When we brought our case—and I speak on behalf of the majority of the Service Members—before the House last year, the demand we made was far greater than that which the Government conceded. The increase in the Army was less than that which we considered necessary to properly defend the Empire. Now, it may be said that I am paradoxical, and that I am arguing that while we should have a larger number of troops our expenditure should be smaller. I say that with a perfectly clear conscience, because I condemn the whole of the present system, root and branch. I say it is breaking down, and that you will never have an Army in this country capable of satisfying the requirements of the Empire until you have definitely decided to have a long-service Army for India, and an Army for home defence on an absolutely different basis. I am aware that the great difficulty is the recruits. I am, however, satisfied that that difficulty will be removed if any Government will place before the country the fact that if the present system continues they must be content to go on adding one, or two, or three millions a year to the expenditure, until the expenditure becomes

    1123
    almost prohibitive. If, in other words, the Government will, vulgarly speaking, take the bull by the horns, and, taking the people of this country into their confidence, point out to them that it is absolutely impossible, under the present system, to carry out the idea that the Government desires, viz., to be thoroughly well defended at a fairly moderate cost, I am satisfied that they will get the support of the country. Now, Sir, it may be asked, how is this to be done? If we are able to procure a voluntary Army at the present time almost equal to our requirements, we can certainly get a voluntary Army of old soldiers sufficient to defend our Indian and Colonial Empire. Then, it will be asked, what steps do I purpose taking for home defence? Well, Sir, I am sure that Englishmen will be fully prepared, provided they see, not an increase, but diminution in their expenditure, to adopt some system under which every man in the country shall be called upon to serve for some limited time in order to obtain sufficient military experience to be able to act in defence of his country. I may be told that I am only advocating conscription. Sir, I am advocating nothing of the kind. It is not generally known amongst the public in this country that under an old Act of Parliament every man in this country is liable to serve; but by an Act which we pass annually in this House, that particular Act is annulled. I am perfectly confident that a system could be evolved which would bring our Militia force up to such a point that invasion would become absolutely impossible. I know it may be said that this may work very well in so far as the Infantry troops are concerned, but will not touch the question of officers and non-commissioned officers, nor the question of Cavalry and Artillery. I maintain, Sir, that we should save many millions if we had a force composed largely of Infantry, but with a sufficient nucleus of Cavalry, and, above all, of Artillery. This Artillery would, moreover, be of immense value in the event of expeditions. Again, it may be suggested that we should fail in our supply officers to command the whole of these home troops. We have seen an advance in that direction by the appointment of retired regular officers to Militia regiments,
    1124
    but, Sir, it is becoming daily more difficult to get officers for the Militia service. As regards the men, the Militia is never kept up to its standard. The troops are troops upon paper. That is a point which the people of this country do not understand. Large numbers of men in the Militia serve over and over again in other regiments. This is always denied by officers commanding Militia regiments, who tell us that their sergeant-major goes down to the other regiments and that he invariably is able to detect any man who happens to belong to his own corps. Why, Sir, we know that the idea is preposterous. There are sergeant-majors of Militia regiments who, when they see their men out of uniform, immediately after the training, would be unable to recognise them, and it is a well-known fact that if you were to attempt to call out the Militia to-morrow there would certainly not be more than 75 per cent, available. I say that, in this respect at least, the people of this country are relying upon a broken reed. Now, I do not wish to say one word against the Militia force. It is a force in which I believe every man in this country would be prepared to serve for a limited time. We see the system in vogue in Switzerland and other countries where there is no idea of Imperialism. We have no desire to turn this country into a great camp like France or Germany; nothing would be more distasteful to the British people—of that I am confident. But, Sir, it would be distasteful to the British people if you put before them the fact—as my right honourable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean has pointed out—that if you include the Indian forces, the Colonial forces, and the forces employed by the Foreign Office, there is a total expenditure of something like £40,000,000, a monstrous sum as compared with that expended by any other nation. If, I say, you officially put before the British public this fact, coupled with the fact that there is no prospect of that amount being decreased, inasmuch as the standard of living in all ranks and amongst every branch of the Services is increasing, and that, as regards war material of every kind, the cost, as the familiar expression is, is increasing by leaps and bounds, and,

    1125
    furthermore, that as long as the present system lasts no War Minister could place before the country an assurance that the Estimates of the Army shall be smaller in amount than they are this year. I am quite confident that the people of this country will rise to the occasion; and if everything is done to make the road smooth and easy for every man to serve, once between the ages of 17 and 22, or 23, for a limited time, say, some six months during the summer, the people will not be found wanting. Rut as long as the people are led to believe that they are in absolute security, as long as they are led to believe that they have so many hundreds of thousands of Militia and Volunteers to defend our shores in case of need, necessarily they will not be prepared to make those sacrifices. Now, Sir, perhaps the honourable and gallant Gentleman in reply will state whether he conscientiously believes that within the next two or three years he will be able to obtain men necessary for our battalions and batteries without depleting both the Army reserves and the Militia reserves. The present system seems to be that of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and this is what the people of this country do not realise. The honourable and gallant Member has spoken about the horses. It has been stated that 11,500 artillery horses are immediately available. I should like to know if he can give us any information as to how, in the event of mobilisation, we are to become immediately possessed of those horses, and at what cost to the State. I should also like to know how long, in his opinion, it would take to train those horses, in order that they may be suitable for drawing the guns. Because, after all, the honourable and gallant Gentleman did not say that there were sufficient horses to draw those guns. I should also like to know what proportion of these 14,5000 horses would be immediately available for waggon purposes, and how long it would take to train them. With reference to the Cavalry, I think the remarks made by the honourable Member for Belfast were very much to the point. A man has a right to soldier in the regiment in which he elects to serve, and to transfer him from a regiment in which he has a desire to servo to a regiment in which he has no desire to serve is not only straining the law but sailing very close to the wind.
    1126
    We have been told that no drafts would be taken from the Cavalry. Now, Sir, I am very anxious to know, if no drafts are ever taken from the Cavalry regiments when we have any of our little wars on, how thoroughly efficient drafts of men would be supplied to regiments on active service. We have 21 battalions under the Colonial Office, and I should just like to say a word upon that subject. It seems to me to be a very bad principle to have troops for whom, in a certain measure, the War office are, or ought to be, responsible placed, under the Colonial Office You create a sort of dual system; surely nothing could be worse for the efficiency of the Service than this division of responsibility amongst the heads of the various departments Now, Sir, I come to the first class Army Reserves, and I notice a certain number of makeshifts. I do not blame this Government one whit more than former Governments in this matter. For years past the whole question has been upon a wrong basis. It has been a case of tinkering with the ship from top to bottom, and we all know what happens in the end. You have to throw the whole vessel away, and go to immense expense to build a new7 one. In other words, you are throwing good money after bad. If the whole facts of the case were put before the people of this country I am perfectly satisfied that they would adopt the principle of buying an entirely new vessel. We have heard something about the payment of an extra shilling a day to a certain number of men. Now, Sir, if you go in for this system you will gradually deplete the Army Reserve to such an extent that, in the event of a great national disaster, and of your having to call out the entire Army Reserves, there will be practically no Army Reserves left; for we all know that the men who take the extra shilling a day are the élite of the Army Reserves. But, you not only deplete the Army Reserves but at the same time the Militia Reserves, and you are left in both cases with simply the dregs of these Services. I am satisfied that the breakdown of the entire system is not far distant. Now, I come to the Volunteers. We are the only country in the world which has ever been able to maintain a force such as the Volunteers are, because in Switzerland and other countries the

    1127
    forces which there exist are more in the shape of Militia; but an absolute Volunteer force such as we possess is unknown in any other country, and we are necessarily very proud of the fact. I do not wish to say one word against the Volunteers, but I would ask any Service Member present whether the Volunteers, destitute as they are of any arrangements which would enable them to take the field, and destitute as they are of artillery, in the event of one single army corps of a foreign nation landing upon our shores would not be absolutely valueless, and whether, through no fault of theirs, they' would not be in precisely the same position as those gallant Dervishes when they came in front of Lord Kitchener's guns.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No.
    *CAPTAIN NORTON: An honourable and gallant Member says No. I have no doubt they would fight with equal bravery; but the honourable and gallant Member must know, as well as I do, that an army would be worthless without its guns If we look to the breakdown of the arrangements on Salisbury Plain last year, when 50,000 men assembled, I think he must admit that before the Volunteers had been in the field a week they would be destroyed or be in a state of semi-starvation. Without transport and without artillery our Volunteer forces are weak, and the sooner the War Office knows it the better. The honourable and gallant Member spoke of a boom in recruits. Well, Sir, that is exactly what has happened. Owing to the gallant deeds of our Army in Egypt a great wave of sentimentalism as regards the Army has swept over the country, and recruits were never more numerous than they are at the present moment. There is also a certain wave of Imperialism. Men are proud to be Englishmen. Although I am no Little Englander—(I firmly believe that trade follows the flag, and that when we endeavour to press our trade in a country where there is another flag, that country takes very good care to put such prohibitive tariffs upon us that our merchants are unable to do any business there)—I do not wish it to be inferred for a moment, because I make these remarks, that I am a Jingo. I am nothing of the kind. I am one of those who
    1128
    strongly favour arbitration and deplore the necessity for war; but, on the other hand, I say that if you wish to avoid war there is nothing like taking a firm stand, as we saw upon a recent occasion. Moreover, the people of this country ought to feel, in paying the enormous sum they do, that they can, as the expression is, "sleeps comfortably in their beds at night." I do not wish to say one word against the Navy. The country cannot be absolutely safe without its Navy. But if we should be drawn into war with a neighbouring country, as seemed highly probable some time ago, every honourable Member in this House who has considered the question knows that we should never be able to get the enemy's fleet out of port, unless we landed a powerful force on their coast, or in one of their Colonies. Should we have been in a position to do that recently? Manifestly not. There was a large proportion of our best troops in Egypt. We could not have withdrawn a single man. We should have been obliged to send out drafts in order to bring the force in India up to its maximum strength. Under these circumstances, I say that we should have so depleted the whole of the battalions that Ave could not have sent a force of any magnitude to one of the Colonies, and, at the same time, have had at home sufficient troops to defend our shores. Now, Sir, in view of these facts, I hope the honourable and gallant Gentleman will say whether he thinks he will be able to obtain sufficient men to keep the position of the troops up to the requirements of the Empire.
    *COLONEL BLUNDELL: I should like to say a few words upon the Cavalry reorganisation. I do not like it, but we must recollect that the officers who formed it did so to avoid cutting off the list of the Army several historical regiments; I would urge that if a man is transferred from the regiment in which he enlisted to another, even though liable to be so transferred, he should receive £1 for disturbance. The recruiting is not really satisfactory on account of the great number of "specials." Something ought to be done to use men above 25 years of age in the Service abroad. I venture to submit for consideration that

    1129
    a man after three years' service should have the opportunity of commuting his Reserve service for a number of years' general service in India and elsewhere for a pension, and that the present value of his future pension should be paid by the War Office to the Treasury each year, so that each year shall bear its own burden. There was one remark made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean with which I entirely agree. He suggested that part of the garrison Artillery at home should be Militia, and but for the necessity of relieving the garrisons abroad the greater part might be Militia. The garrison Artillery should not compete with the active branches of the Army for the youth of the country, but should consist of older men. I think one of the most important matters for consideration, though I am aware it does not apply to the War Office, is that all boys in the elementary schools should be drilled as a compulsory subject of instruction. In the first place, I think such a training would improve the physique of the country generally—that is the experience in Germany; secondly, it would increase the labouring capacity of the workers; and in the next place it would be of great advantage in the event of a serious emergency coming upon the country. The next point I wish to touch upon is that of the Marines. At the present time, I venture to say that they are not sufficiently utilised. They might, I think, garrison our small coaling stations, and I think there ought to be a battalion located in Australia and also in Halifax to supply the needs of ships in those waters. As to the question of expenditure, I venture to think that the cost of our Army is one which can be really only compared with that of the American army. I think everyone who wishes to curtail our expenditure ought to be able to put his finger upon the particular direction in which it is to be done. Lord R. Churchill's and other Commissions have gone into the whole question. The next point I wish to speak upon concerns the Volunteers. In my opinion, the Volunteers are not under sufficiently good discipline and control; they are placed under Brigadiers who, however excellent they may be, have left the Service and cannot be expected, therefore, to have a thorough knowledge of the latest military require-
    1130
    ments and tactics. I would venture to urge that there ought to be some officer of experience—one for instance who has been in command of a brigade at Alder shot—on the staff of the general officer commanding a district, in arranging the system of the drill of Volunteers in camp and supervising it. With the present staff it is not possible to do this. I would strongly urge that something should be done to place the Volunteers in some way under the very best officers you have in the Army. That is the proper way to make them thoroughly fit for their work.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: There is, I think, considerable weight in the last remark of the honourable and gallant Member who has just sat down, that everything that can be should be done to increase the efficiency and perfect the discipline of our Volunteers. I should like to refer to a few of the points upon which he has touched. In the first place, he spoke about the drill in elementary schools. I think he will find—I know it is the case in Scotland—that it is possible under the Code for school managers to introduce physical drill in the schools. Everything, however, should be done with a view to the health and welfare of the people, rather than with the view of encouraging any military spirit amongst those who are of so tender an age. Then the honourable and gallant Member referred to Cavalry drafts. That is a subject which has been taken up and explained with great force and clearness by the honourable Member for West Belfast. But, as a matter of fact, all Cavalry officers have always lamented the necessity for these drafts being made. I do not think there is any difference of opinion on that subject. As, however, the Under Secretary said this evening, you have to weigh the advantages and the disadvantages of any particular evil of that kind. And you have furthermore to remember that it is part of a large system, and you must, therefore, submit to occasional and constitutional inconveniences, which are inseparable from a system which has hitherto secured the approval of the country. It is, I think, desirable that we should be able to take a fuller and more comprehensive view of our military forces and of our responsibilities throughout the Empire. We cannot separate the increase in our military forces

    1131
    from the increase in our naval forces. I do not think that sufficient emphasis has been laid in this Debate upon the cost to the country of what we are now doing. Everything seems to be accepted as if it were for the best, and there is an entire absence of criticism or reference to the great sacrifices the country is called upon to make in voting such large sums of money, and devoting such large numbers of our fellow-countrymen to the military service. We have to increase, or recruit, this year 10,000 men, which means taking 10,000 men from productive employments in the country. We cannot doubt the fact, and it is much better that we should regard it from the point of view of a sacrifice than as a duty lightly undertaken. This additional strength has not been obtained without extraordinary efforts, and yet, even this year, after every possible expedient has been adopted in order to bring the recruiting strength up to the proper limit, the result is that we fall far short of our requirements. Now, Sir, I believe that the true feeling that prevails in the country is to regard this as an extreme sacrifice—made willingly, I have no doubt—but to regard it as a sacrifice, more especially when one reflects that it is a sacrifice made in times of peace, which leaves very little margin when we are actively engaged in any serious complications with Foreign Powers. Then there is another point which appeals to me very strongly, and that is the sacrifice which you call upon the men to make in the Service. You take a large number of men and boys not only away from home, but away from civil life; and you cannot, without calling upon us as a country to face very grave moral and social evils, adopt the system of sending large bodies of men abroad, or even to defend the shores of their country, without demanding a very great sacrifice from them personally in times of peace as well as from the country itself. There is, in recent times, a very marked difference of opinion in the prevailing sentiment with regard to the expansion of the Empire. I am by no means one of those who desire to shelve our responsibilities, but the change of policy will strike anyone who institutes a compromise between what went on in India and other parts of the world in times gone by and what takes place to-day. Never before in the history of the world has there
    1132
    been such expansion and territorial aggrandisement; never before has that sentiment been supported by such a strong body of opinion as it is at the present time. There are some who go so far as to say that all this inevitable militarism is a good thing. Well, Sir, I wish to combat that view from beginning to end. It may be necessary, I admit, to incur responsibilities, but do not let us take the view that we accept them gladly, but rather as a burden which we only adopt under necessity and compulsion. I must say I fail to distinguish, when I compare the two great political Parties, the difference between the general attitude of the Unionist Party as expressed by the Leaders in this House and by the Party to which I belong. It has been stated—and, I think, not too soon, that those honourable Members on this side of the House, while they are willing to do their best to carry out such responsibilities as have already accrued to this country with reference to this expansion, think we have gone far enough; and we do not mean to give any support in any further attempt in the same direction. I was astonished to-night to hear the First Lord of the Treasury, before the House adjourned, lay down the dictum that Foreign Policy has nothing to do with this expenditure. It seems to me that it has everything to do with it. And I will quote the authority of Mr. Disraeli, who said, "Policy does depend upon armaments." Ever since the present Government has been in office, there has been some development which has demanded an increase in the British forces. There have been British troops in almost every part of the world—East Africa, West Africa, Uganda, Wei-hai-Wei, and Crete, while, in South Africa, you have what would have been considered in former days huge and unnecessary garrisons of troops. Now, the honourable Member for West Belfast has criticised what has been done, and declared that some great organic change is needed. I must say that I have listened to the honourable Member for West Belfast for several years in his criticisms on the present Army system, but I have always failed to find precisely what he would substitute in its place. He talked tonight of a great organic change. Now, if a great organic change means, as it

    1133
    seems to me it can only mean, conscription—
    HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No!
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: What does it mean, then? A long-service Army.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have constantly opposed conscription. My view is that we ought to have a long-service Army for Imperial Service, and a short-service Army for exclusively home service.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Whatever the views of the honourable Member are, when reduced to figures, and whenever the practical working of his scheme is put to the test, either in money or men, I must say he has failed to convince me that any improvement on the present system would be gained by adopting what he proposes. Of course, if that is what he meant by a great organic change, I fully admit that I ought not to have alluded to it in those terms. But there is one point he took to-night about the Cardwell system, one point he has got rid of, and that is this. The House will remember that one of the cardinal points of the reforms instituted by Lord Cardwell was that he brought home large bodies of regular troops from abroad: he brought home, if I mistake not, something like 24,000 or 25,000 men, whom he withdrew from Colonial garrisons. Now, I do think that when we consider, as we are bound to do, when we are face to face with, what has been done this year and last year, when we are faced with the foreign policy of the country and the foreign responsibilities of the country—I do think we are bound to ask ourselves, Where is this all leading to? The honourable and gallant Member on my left discussed the question of sacrifices, and said what, I think, is perfectly true, and what I should like to emphasise, that there is no country in Europe which has conscription for an army which has to fulfil the duties which our Army has to fulfil. It is perfectly unreasonable, no matter what the opinion of the country is about it; it would be a fatal mistake of policy that I do not think any Government is likely to commit to suggest conscription for an army, one-half of whose duties at least lie abroad—perfectly out of the question! Sir, what we must ask ourselves is, From
    1134
    what direction is relief to come? I say relief may come, and in my opinion it should come, if it can possibly come, from the idea contained in that part of the scheme of Lord Cardwell. I do not see in the least why even now the Government should not use their influence and do all they can to increase the contribution in men and' money that the Colonies should provide. If it is good for us—I do not admit it, that is, on its merits, apart from the necessities of the case—to have an Army as an integral part of the population here, it is equally good for the Colonies to do so there, and it seems to me that it is most desirable that the attention of the country should be directed to working out the problems which undoubtedly must be worked out in these connections. I think that it is desirable to try and think a little of these things. I do not believe myself that we sufficiently admit in this House, or that it has been sufficiently recognised recently, that there are limits beyond which this country cannot go, either with benefit to itself, or with benefit to other countries, or with benefit to humanity at large. There are sacrifices which we cannot make, sacrifices which we call Quixotic, which can do no good to us or anybody else. I really think, just as we are in sight of having geographically consumed the whole of Africa, we are perilously near utter exhaustion of our recruiting resources in this country; that our Army, as it is at present, is bearing an excessive strain—because, as a matter of fact, it will not be for two or three years that we shall be able to see the result as to whether or not the contemplated addition of 25,000 men is possible—and in face of these facts we should be working out some possible relief, and endeavouring to find out from what sources relief can be got. I do not think there is any direction so hopeful as that of calling upon the various Colonies of British-speaking peoples which we have over-seas, of telling them that it is their duty—and it should be impressed upon them that it is their duty—to provide for their own home defences. As for the influence of this country abroad, as for the influence which has gone to build up the Empire—why, Sir, I remember very well that the Under Secretary of State for War, on the last occasion when he brought forward the statement

    1135
    on the Estimates, pointed out that of the men who reached the age of 18 in this country, one in four goes into the military or naval service of the country. Now, that is a very important fact. But British influence abroad is not due to our Army; it is due to men of intelligence and enterprise who have gone abroad; and if we go on subtracting these men we destroy rather than build up the influence we have exerted abroad. Again, if this country is called upon to make too great sacrifices, to overburden itself, to overweight itself with disproportionate sacrifices in keeping up a large Army in these islands, we must inevitably affect the social conditions and the social arrangements of the country here. And just as the intelligence and enterprise of the country has been one factor in building up British influence, so, I think, another great factor is in maintaining, and insisting upon maintaining, just conditions of government here, that men may grow up with a sense of justice and fairness, that their faculties may have full scope and freedom. I thank the House extremely for having allowed me to draw attention to what I consider to be an important characteristic of the Army Estimates this year, and that is that they give fresh and confirmatory evidence of the enormous self-sacrifice that this country is now being called upon to make in this direction, and no further proof is needed of the duty which lies upon our Government at the present time to seek some method of relief to the country from the burdens which this policy has imposed upon us.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Sir, I take it that I am not the only Member of this House who is somewhat puzzled to know what deductions to draw from the speech just delivered from the opposite Bench. I confess that I am unable to understand the honourable Member, either in the fears which he expressed or the conclusions—entirely illogical as I think, and ill-founded—which he has attempted to put before the House. The honourable Member who has just spoken has one panacea. He seems to think that the right way to assist the recruiting system is to draw upon our Colonies for the recruits which are necessary: his panacea seemed to be to draw on the Colonies
    1136
    for the recruits we wanted. A few sentences previous to giving utterance to that I hear that he had been regretting, as far as I can understand, the outbreak of the military feeling in this country which attracted so many recruits to the flag. Now, Sir, I want to know what are the feelings which he thinks induces our Colonial brethren to join the flag?
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: If the honourable and gallant Member will allow me, all I meant to suggest was for home defences—that is to say, for Colonial homo defences—it was not unreasonable to look to the Colonies themselves.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Sir, I again cannot follow the honourable Member. If the Colonists are to be regarded by the mother country as a part of the Imperial whole, we are not likely to call upon Colonial soldiers to defend only their country and have no interest in the Empire. I think I am interpreting the honourable Gentleman rightly when I say he expresses considerable regret at the immense sacrifice which, he said, was put upon the people of this country by the fact of the withdrawal of a certain number of men from the ranks of civil life into the ranks of military life. Again, I entirely fail to agree with him. On the contrary, I believe that the temporary abstraction of a certain number of men from civil life into military life is a good thing for the country. I think that these very men, by the fact of their training and their discipline, return to civil life much better citizens than they were when they left civil life; and if I was speaking even without any reference to the necessity of carrying on military operations, I would still advocate, as far as possible, the introduction of civilians into military life. The honourable Gentleman also introduced questions of Foreign Policy, which, I might have thought, were rather too large for a Debate such as that we are indulging in now; and I confess that I am entirely unable to see how he can at one moment give out that you are to consider it a sacrifice and an evil for men to join the Army, and at another moment point out that the consequence of the extension of the Empire, which we all rejoice in, is a matter for regret. Sir, I am perfectly confident of this, that the honourable Member is in a very small minority in

    1137
    the country on that line. The country has endorsed and has welcomed the action of the present Government in these directions, and it knew perfectly well when it endorsed and approved that action that it entailed a considerable increase of military expenditure, and the necessity for having a larger army to secure our possessions. I do not think, therefore, that the suggestions of the honourable Member are very likely to be taken into serious consideration by the Government, and I do not think that the country at large is likely to share either his apprehension or his general attitude upon this subject. But, Sir, I should like to turn from the speech of the honourable Member to one or two points which have been alluded to in this Debate; and I think I am only saying that which all military Members of this House feel, that we are very glad to welcome the honourable Gentleman who is now the Under Secretary of State for War, and we feel that the presence of a statesman who has made such a good beginning as he has to-night, and who has put before us a statement on Army affairs at once so clear and so straightforward and honest, gives us some assurance that in him, in all rational requests, Service Members will have a sympathetic friend and adviser. Now, I think it has been alluded to by honourable Members on both sides that the right honourable Baronet has suggested very large and sweeping reforms. It may be so. But if that is the case, if the ideas of the right honourable Baronet are based upon some very sweeping reform, it does not seem to me that this is the occasion upon which to discuss large and sweeping reforms of Army organisation; but such reforms, if contemplated, must be preceded by elaborate precautions, such as were taken when Lord Cardwell introduced his reforms. Any very sweeping reforms in Army organisation should be preceded by the same elaborate precautions. This Committee has not sent a report, but has issued a statement that the question is under consideration. It is rather beside the question to be indulging in visions which have not the slightest possible chance of being realised in fact. There is one point, amongst others, in which I do agree with the honourable Baronet on the opposite side of the House—in his criticism of the Government policy. He
    1138
    found, and I think with reason, a little fault because my honourable Friend the Under Secretary of State for War had seemed to lay paramount stress on the fact of our home Army being available for defence, and defence chiefly. I do not think it can be too widely recognised both in this House and in the country that one of the first considerations in regard to the home Army is this: that it should be available not only for home defence, but available for delivering a swift, rapid and effective blow wherever such a blow might be dealt in furtherance of the policy to be carried out. It is absolutely a mistake to conceive that it is only necessary to be ready to defend ourselves if attacked. I believe that it is of greater importance that we should be able to put a plaster on a foreign nation on any place where it would have most effect. That is one of the weak points of the statement of my honourable Friend, and I do believe that the necessity for such action as that is recognised by the War Office and by the chiefs of the Army at present, and that there is far more preparation in that direction than is dreamed of either by this country or by those against whom action would be directed in case of need. Now, I would like to make one or two remarks on the recruiting question, which underlies the whole efficiency of the Army. From my point of view, the most important question connected with recruiting is the question of the proper employment of the men when they have done their term of service. I have read with interest the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting, and I think we cannot but be struck by the great stress which he lays on the employment of the men when they have done their term of service. I do not think it is satisfactory, considering how strong the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons was, to find that so comparatively few old soldiers and old sailors find employment among the different institutions and Government offices which require the services of such men. The Inspector-General of Recruiting gives a long list of institutions and Government offices in which comparatively few old soldiers and sailors are employed. I think it is quite clear that the attention of the Government could not be directed to a

    1139
    better or more useful quarter than that of striving to increase as largely as possible the employment of old soldiers and sailors in those positions. In the Army Estimates we are considering tonight I find many Votes of money taken for the employment of civilians. I know very well that there are certain cases and certain positions in which civilians must be employed; but still, when I see that the pay of civilian subordinates amounts of £30,000 a year, I think there is some room for putting away some of the civilians and paying that money to old soldiers and old sailors instead of to civilians. I maintain that the list of civilians in Vote 10 is not justified. I think that with the higher and better class of recruits we are now supposed to be getting, the attention of the War Office should be turned immediately to the filling of these posts as much as possible by old soldiers and old sailors. Then there is the question of the cavalry recruiting which has been dealt with by previous speakers. It is quite clear that the present system cannot possibly continue. An instance came under my own notice which seems almost too ludicrous to be true. But it is a fact. A certain man, with that feeling which is so common and so commendable, enlisted in the cavalry in order that he might join his brother in a certain distinguished cavalry regiment in India. But he was shunted from one regiment to another till, I understand, he was twice in one regiment of Lancers, twice in another regiment of Lancers, once in a Dragoon regiment, and twice in a Hussar regiment. He had no fewer than seven different changes, and, finally, he became so muddled that he did not know to what regiment he belonged. That is a state of things that cannot possibly be continued, and I have no doubt that measures will be taken by my honourable Friend the Under Secretary of State for War which will go in the direction of reform. Another point which has been alluded to and which I hope my honourable Friend will take into consideration is the Return showing the length of service and the age of the men in each regiment. Pressure has been put forward in Parliament to induce the Government to render to us that Return—a Return which we had before, and which we want again. Most of the Service Members in the
    1140
    House think that the rendering of this Return is due to us. It was very useful to us before. I cannot see how the Return is to be withheld from us this year. It has been said that it would give information to foreign countries which ought not to be given, but I am sure that any military attaché of a foreign Government could get, and I know that they do get, that information without this Return. Such a Return enables us to see more accurately the progress of improvement which has taken place in the various branches of the Service, and I think my honourable Friend will be well advised to meet the wishes of the military Members in this particular, and allow us the Return. My chief reason for rising this evening was to urge particularly the question of the employment of old soldiers and old sailors when they have done their term of service. I am sure my honourable Friend is in hearty sympathy with the matter. I may congratulate my honourable Friend on the statement he has made. He will forgive me if I say that there are many things which we shall have occasion to criticise and ask for, and I am sure we shall find from him fair consideration of any arguments we put forward. Speaking largely and generally, I consider that the honourable Member has made good a great deal of the ground he has taken up.
    GENERAL SIR FITZWYGRAM: As the cavalry depôts have been abolished, it is necessary to have men for India, and my impression is that the best way to obtain them would be to add 800 men to the cavalry, and distribute them among the regiments at home. No man should be sent out to India until he is thoroughly trained, but the fact is that untrained men are at present sent out. When it becomes necessary to send out reliefs to India, volunteers should be called for from men who have not less than three years' service, and who are thoroughly trained. I believe that in every cavalry regiment at home you would find a considerable number of men who would be only too delighted to volunteer for India. In that way, without, expense, you could recruit the Indian Army without the slightest injury to the Army at home.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War in his speech to-night spoke mainly about men, but there is another matter quite as important—money; and it is on the money aspect of the Estimates that I want to make a few remarks. We have, of course, a very large increase in the Army Estimates this year. The honourable Gentleman has placed before us the views of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who in a recent speech, pointed out how largely the Army and Navy Estimates depended on the policy of the Government of the day. The honourable Member himself, in his speech introducing his Estimates, in deal-in with the Cavalry used the expression that three Cavalry regiments were now permanently in Africa, and nine Cavalry regiments permanently in India, find that the exigencies of the policy of Her Majesty's advisers depended on these Cavalry regiments. Very similar language was made use of by the Secretary of State for War in his Memorandum. Now, I entirely agree with that, and I am sorry that the honourable Member for Montrose is not here to-night, for I think if he wanted to make any effective protest against what he objects to, he ought to make his protest against the growing expenditure. If he wanted to put an effective check on the Government policy in Africa, he ought to come down here and move the reduction of the Totes for the Cavalry regiments in Africa. That would be an effective way of going to work, and the best way of checking the policy of the Government. There are one or two minor questions I should like to ask the honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War. He alluded to a new scheme of defence for our outlying stations, which the honourable Gentleman told us had been recommended by a Committee, of which General Brackenbury was chairman. And for that £431,000 was in the Estimates for the current year. Tart of that sum, I understand, is to be paid by loan and part by estimates. Could he tell us what the total cost of this scheme of defence will be, how few or many years it is to be spread over, and how rapidly it can be undertaken and carried into execution? I should also like to ask him about the new loan indicated in the Secretary of State's Memorandum.
    1142
    Part of the expenditure under this new scheme of defence is to be defrayed by loan and part by estimates—the works to be defrayed from loan and the guns from the Estimates. Well, I should like to ask if he can state now the total amount proposed to be borrowed under the New Barracks and Military Works Loan Bill. I assume it to be a fact that the Government are now embarking on a new barracks scheme, but have they exhausted all the money which was raised under the Barracks Loan Act of 1890? At the end of the previous year, 31st March 1898, there was a sum of £180,000 at the credit of that loan fund.
    *MR. WYNDHAM: It has been appropriated.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Then we may take it as a fact that the accounts under the Loan Act of 1890 are closed, and that we shall not have two Barracks Loans Acts going on at the same time. Will we be told what the amount under the new Loan Act is to be? I should like also, if the honourable Gentleman will tell us, to know what is the total military expenditure for the year just closing, and as far as possible, the total of the military expenditure of the year about to begin. The worst of it is, in the Army Estimates we do not get the total military expenditure of the year. There are several omissions in the Estimates and in the statement of the honourable Gentleman which he might supplement, so as to give the House the total military expenditure. What has actually been spent in the year under the Military Works Loans Act? He ought to be able to tell us roughly what has already been spent. We have heard, I may remind him, in reply to the honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, a statement by the right honourable the First Lord of the Admiralty of what was spent under the Naval Works Act, and, therefore, we ought to be able to get from the honourable Gentleman an estimate, at arty rate, of the amount spent under the Military Works Loans Act. I gather from what was said a moment ago that the outstanding balance of the Barracks Loans Act fund of 1890 has been ex-

    1143
    pended. Well, we have got to add that to the military expenditure of last year. There is another point on which we might fairly get a little more information from the honourable Gentleman, and on which a little more information might be put in the Estimates. The honourable Gentleman told us that besides the men borne on his Army Estimates there were other forces raised by the Crown which were of great service in Imperial defence. Of course, there is the Indian army. But there is a Colonial force of 21,000 men. I think we ought to get from the honourable Gentleman what the cost of these 21,000 men is. I am not aware whether the whole of it is borne by the Imperial Exchequer. There are certain grants in aid, in certain Colonial Votes, towards that expenditure. I think we ought to have a note of the amount that comes from the Imperial Exchequer for the maintenance of these Colonial Forces, for I find, on page nine of the Estimates, we have set out various sums of Army charges which appear in Votes other than Army Votes. We know from other sources the amount of total expenditure that falls on the Indian Exchequer, but I do not think it is clearly brought out anywhere in the Army Estimates that the Imperial Exchequer gets considerable assistance from the Indian Exchequer—not merely direct, but indirect, aid. As a matter of fact, there are two Indian regiments in Africa which are doing Imperial work there and which are being paid for either from Colonial funds or Imperial funds. And there is also a British regiment in Mauritius. It is there, I understand, by some arrangement with the War Office, and I presume it is paid for out of Imperial funds. I think there ought to be some notes in the Army Estimates to show us what all these various charges are and what the total military expenditure really is. There is another point I alluded to the other night. It is the ambiguity of the estimates of expenditure from year to year. In order to get at the real Army expenditure of the year we have not merely to work through the Army Estimates of the year, and the various funds, like the Military Works Loan Fund, but the Supplementary Estimates of the current year and the Supplementary Estimates
    1144
    of the previous year. You will observe that for the year just ending no less a sum than £760,000 was voted for the service of the year 1899, while in the Supplementary Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1898, there was a sum of £331,000. It is very obvious what difficulty and trouble anyone has in his attempts to compare the expenditure of one year with another. One is obliged to take a great deal of, trouble in order to get some explanation of the figures from, year to year. At page seven it is pointed out that there are two particular Votes—the Clothing Vote and the Vote for warlike stores—for which sums of money were voted in the Supplementary Estimates of last year. In both of these cases it is impossible, on the face of the Estimates themselves, to understand the difference between the two years. The honourable Gentleman shakes his head, but here is what Lord Lansdowne himself says—
    "The real increase under the Clothing Vote, taking into account the Supplementary Estimates of 1897–98 and 1898–99, is £166,000."
    But that can only be made out by looking for what was in the Supplementary Estimates of the year following. His Lordship goes on to explain that
    "the real increase on the Vote for warlike stores, as compared with 1898–99, taking into account the Supplementary Estimates of 1897–98 and 1898–99, is £299,000, which is mainly due to the programme of armaments."
    What I would like to ask the honourable Gentleman is whether, in view of the peculiarities on the face of the Estimates, and which I venture to think is an irregularity, he will take steps so that this irregularity shall not occur in future Estimates, or that, if it is a necessity that it should occur, there will be a note on the Estimates of the year pointing out that certain amounts have been already voted in the Supplementary Estimates of the present year. My purpose will be served if under these two particular Votes a note is appended showing that in order to arrive at a true comparison of the Votes, allowance must be made for the Votes in previous Supplementary Estimates.
    *MR. WYNDHAM: I shall endeavour to answer some of the questions put to me by the honourable Member for Aberdeen, East. I am afraid he will be somewhat disappointed with the reply, because I am going to say a great number of his questions should be addressed to some other person than myself. His opening remarks were specially addressed to the honourable Member for Montrose Burghs, but I cannot discuss the dissensions in his Party. The honourable Member asked me if I could give the House the total amount which we intend in the long run to take for armaments—that is to say, for guns of modern construction and for emplacements. I could give him what I think the sum will probably be, but I do not feel myself at liberty to do so. It is a speculative sum, and the question ought to be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All that we can say on the part of the War Office, and all that falls within our province to know, is that we know how many guns we want, where we want them placed, and, of course, approximately, the cost. Then the honourable Member has invited me to give him the amount which we shall ask under the Loans Bill for barracks in this country, and for the emplacement of guns. I feel I must defer that statement. It will be much more convenient for everyone that we should deal with that question as a whole when it arises at a different stage of our proceedings. The honourable Member has asked me how much—if I understood him aright—the Colonial forces cost the country every year. He quotes correctly their numbers—21,376—but I can only give approximately the cost. This matter does not arise in the Army Estimates, but on the Colonial Office Votes. I think the cost is about a million, but I speak from memory. After all, it is quite enough for a man to take his own estimates. Then the honourable Member asked me to explain the position of the British regiment in the Island of Mauritius, or whether that was on the Army Estimates. There is only half a battalion in Mauritius from a regiment at the Cape.
    MR. BUCHANAN: There is an Indian battalion also.
    *MR. WYNDHAM: Half a battalion of British troops and an Indian regiment. For the defence of Mauritius the scheme was that there should be one British battalion and two battalions of coloured forces there, but they are not all there yet.
    MR. BUCHANAN: My question is whether the War Office pays for the Indian regiment that is at Mauritius now.
    *MR. WYNDHAM: The Indian Exchequer pays for it, and we repay India. It is an Imperial charge in the long run. The question of Mauritius raised by the honourable Member is an illustration of the great difficulty of laying down general principles for all cases. The general principle is that all Colonial Governments pay for the troops that we send them. In the West Indies, where we have put up certain guns on naval grounds, we do not expect the Colony to pay for garrisons. The amount of the Imperial charge has been arrived at on the very best advice. Passing from the Question asked by the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire, I come to that of my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, and I thank him very much for the kind words he had to say about our Estimates this year. He took exception, however, to one point in my statement. He thought I had laid too much stress upon home defence against the risk of invasion, and not enough stress upon the desirability of being able to deliver a counter attack. If I did that I did not convey my meaning aright. I would suggest that, in reading my remarks, it should be remembered that the greater includes the less, and if we are in a position to put into the field three Army corps and four Cavalry brigades a fortiori we are in a position to put two Army corps on board ship and send them abroad. I am glad to have this opportunity of

    1147
    making it explicit that that assumption underlies my statement. I should like to make another remark. I think the very fact that the contingency of a great war, involving risk of invasion, is re mote, justifies us in depending on the Reserves in order to fill up our home battalions. A number of other subjects have been dealt with in the course of this evening's Debate. My honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Newport spoke in terms to which no one can take exception of the great necessity of finding employment for men who leave the colours. General Kelly-Kenny in his Report has dealt in an interesting manner with that subject at some length, and he proves conclusively that almost all soldiers who leave the Army with exemplary or good character can get employment. I am prepared, however, to go further, and to agree with my honourable and gallant Friend in saying that that is not enough. I venture to think with him that it would be much more satisfactory if it were in our power to hold out such prizes after service with the colours as would induce men of other classes than now join the Army to enter the ranks. I live in the hope of seeing the day when service in the Army and Navy shall be the doorway to positions of trust in later life for all ranks, as it is now to a remarkable extent in the higher ranks, as witness the number of honourable and right honourable Members of this House who have graduated in the Army and Navy. The honourable Member for Newington, W., in reference to my statement that we had two Army corps ready for the field, has inquired whether we have an Army Medical Corps for them. We have not, and that is precisely why we are taking a sum of money in the Estimates in order to make up the deficiency. We are taking £9,100 in the expectation that the officers of the Army Medical Corps will come up to the establishment during the present year. We are also taking a further sum of money, because we are adding a number of men to the establishment. A very interesting question has been put across the floor of the House by the honourable Member for Forfarshire, who, with other
    1148
    honourable Members, has criticised the short service system. It has been suggested that there ought to be a long-service army for India and a short-service army at home. But anybody in this House who has listened to my attempt to defend the steps we have taken to get rid of that which militates against esprit de corps must realise that no such proposition can possibly be entertained. How can you preserve esprit de corps if you have two armies? What regiment with a proud history extending over 140 years would exile itself for ever in India, and what regiment would be content to vegetate at home without taking its share of the risks of war? I do not think that that is a practicable scheme until the cult of esprit de corps, in which I share, has departed from this country; and I trust it never will. The right honourable Baronet has referred to the cost of our Army, and he suggested that it was very extravagant. But I do not think that we can admit of any comparison between the cost of our Army and the cost of Continental armies. I admit that the fact that we have no conscription does not account for the great difference. Take, however, the question of staff alone. Our Army is spread all the world over, and at every place where we have an Army we are obliged to have an expensive staff. We have to have a man in command, who not only is a general in the Army, but who also, in some sense, is a viceroy, who has to determine grave questions of policy at a moment's notice without advice from home. We have to pay our men more highly for undertaking these responsible duties of a semi-diplomatic character, and we also have to pay larger salaries, because our Army is so widely scattered. In Continental armies with compulsory service there is this great advantage, that they have experts in the ranks; they have artificers, tailors, and even doctors in the ranks, and the doctors take their turn in looking after sick comrades instead of shouldering rifles and doing other laborious duties. Then the question of transport must be taken into account. I am reminded by an honourable Friend that Germany has sunk

    1149
    capital to the extent of hundreds of millions in Government Railways which are part of the plant of the army, and may I point out that no other nation in the world has to ferry its troops backwards and forwards over the ocean as Great Britain is compelled to do. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has asked me some questions about the three years' men, and I will make this general observation, not merely upon the three years' men, but also on the point introduced by the Leader of the Opposition as to accepting retransfers from the Reserve to the colours. The right honourable Gentleman said he viewed with some anxiety anything which tended to deplete the Reserve. Well, we must keep up the Reserve, and I believe we shall be able to keep it up, but I may point out that having a variety of terms of engagement saves us from having a huge overflow into the Reserve in any one year. The right honourable Baronet asked me whether the German four-gun batteries had, like ours, one wagon?
    *SIR C. DILKE: I said they never had fewer than 11 batteries in one place, and that they, therefore, had greater opportunities for drill.
    *MR. WYNDHAM: The right honourable baronet said, in the first place, that they had more horses and more waggons than our lower establishment. As a matter of fact, ours have 58 horses and one waggon, and the German lower establishment field batteries have only 45 horses and no waggon, and when they mobilise they have to call from the Reserve 66 men, 92 horses and eight waggons, so that upon that point I think we compare favourably. It is true, as stated by the right honourable Baronet, that the German batteries are exercised together in brigade divisions; and the War Office fully recognise the necessity of exercising our troops in large formation. I may say that under the Bill which will be submitted to the House a large sum of money will be taken to allow of being exercised together on Salisbury Plain Cavalry brigades and brigade divisions of Artillery. I will not
    1150
    say anything in respect to the argument that has been used against drafting from Cavalry regiments, because I shall deal with that subject in a Motion later on. I think, Mr. Lowther, that I have endeavoured to reply to all the points raised.
    MR. JEFFREYS: Mr. Grant Lawson, we have had a very interesting discussion, but I should like to say a word or two in regard to the private soldiers, some hundreds of whom are my constituents at Aldershot. It has been said that recruiting this year has been better than usual, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that a great many of the men who have been engaged are "specials," and, therefore, undersized, but the War Office have been obliged to take them because they could not get better. The reason that a better class of recruit cannot be obtained is that the condition of the private soldier is not as good as it ought to be. I have often urged upon this House the necessity for improving the barrack accommodation, and I am glad to say it has been improved, but it is not as good as the accommodation which the ordinary labourers have in the country. If you want to get the best troops, you must make the accommodation equal to that which the men leave on joining the Army. It is a common thing in the country to hear parents bewail the fact that their sons have joined the Army. And why is this? It is, as they say, because their sons have to go into such bad company. I think if the recruiting sergeants were a little more particular as to the character of the men who join we should not only get more recruits, but a better class of recruit. I cannot understand why the War Office do not give their attention to this matter. Men are now allowed to join the Army absolutely without any character at all. Men can now join the Army however bad their character may be, and even if they are undersized, which is a very bad thing indeed. It prevents other men of good character joining the Army, and so becoming useful soldiers of this country. I do not want to dwell now upon the accommodation provided in barracks, but it is very bad. The men have one common room in which they sleep, and they

    1151
    are put to all sorts of inconvenience. There is an arbitrary law that the lights have to be put out at a certain time at night, usually at a quarter to 10 o'clock. Men of good character are allowed to remain out in the town till 11 o'clock, but when they return to barracks they have to find their way into bed in the dark. Their comrades are all sleeping in the same room, and I have heard from the soldiers themselves that the defective lighting gives rise to all sorts of disorders and disturbances in the barrack room. I cannot help thinking that if the men are allowed leave till 11 o'clock, some sort of moderate light ought to be allowed them in order that they may find their way to their beds. It is a very difficult thing for a number of men who sleep in the same room, and between whose beds there is no division at all, to find their way to their own beds in the dark. I am sure no honourable Member in this House would like to be compelled to find his bed under such conditions. The private soldiers are put to all sorts of similar inconveniences. I should like also to say a word with regard to the superior class of private soldiers—the warrant officers, who have had grievances for a long time. They formulated those grievances last year, and sent them to me and other Members, and we forwarded them to the Secretary of State for War, who promised to have an inquiry made into them. A Departmental Committee was appointed, which presented its Report in November last. Sir, you will hardly believe that the Under Secretary of State for War, in answer to a question put by me, admitted that the Committee had presented a Report, but that the Secretary of State for War had not considered that Report, and that, therefore, no answer could be given to the warrant officers or this House. I think, when an important class like warrant officers have grievances, and when those grievances are formulated and considered by a Departmental Committee, the least that could be done by the Secretary of State for War would be to give them an answer as soon as possible. I do not wish the time of the House to be taken up on this subject, but I do contend that the war-
    1152
    rant officers are entitled to have an answer, and also to have their grievances, or some of them, remedied as soon as possible. Another matter deserving notice is the treatment of the soldiers who were invalided during the manœuvres last year. A number of these soldiers—the House will hardly believe it—were sent sick and injured from Salisbury Plain, but without any medical officer, to Aldershot Station, where they remained four hours before they were taken to hospital, and these men, one of whom had his leg broken, had to depend on the private help and sympathy of civilians. That arose, I believe, through their not being accompanied by a, medical officer, and through their being sent, by some mistake, to Aldershot, when they ought to have been sent to Farnborough. It is almost incredible that these men should have been left lying in the station at Aldershot when the hospital was only a quarter of a mile distant. What I want to point out is that if you desire to get the best class of men to join the Army you must make the conditions under which they live as good as possible. When we discuss these great Army questions, although I have no doubt it is very important to pay attention to the guns, the horses, and the material which form the Army, it is still more important to discuss the condition of the men, without whom the Army would be nothing at all. I hope we shall always do our best to improve the condition of private soldiers. We did so last year by giving them certain allowances, which were highly esteemed by them, but I think my honourable Friend the Under Secretary of State for War world be wise in paying attention to the present grievances of the private soldiers arid in taking care that the character of the troops is improved. If this is done we shall get more men, and a better class of men, to join the colours.
    MR. CHANNING: Mr. Grant Lawson, I think the soldiers at Aldershot are to be congratulated on having such an admirable Member to represent them in this House. He has stated some of their grievances with great force and ability, but there is one portion of his speech to

    1153
    which I should like to refer—that portion relating to the recruiting of very young men. It will be fresh in the recollection of the House that the honourable Member for North-East Manchester asked a question this afternoon with regard to the carelessness or intentional mismanagement of recruiting sergeants in enlisting young men under 18 years of age. That case spoke for itself, but I should like to mention that among my own acquaintances I know a similar instance, where the son of a manufacturer who had got into some boyish scrape was induced to state that he was 18 years of age and to join the Army. I think that is a grave abuse, and I wish to express my opinion on that matter. We have had man interesting points brought before the House. I must say I listened with very great pleasure to the speech of my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar. The honourable and gallant Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire said he could not see what logical deduction could be drawn from the speech of my honourable and gallant Friend, but it seemed to me there was a very broad, plain, and wise conclusion to be drawn from that speech, and that was, that the future of this country does not depend so much upon guns and bayonets as it does upon the just and strong administration and character of Englishmen in this country and abroad. We have heard a good deal said about the conditions under which the Colonies can take their share in the defence of the Empire, and I must say I was surprised at some of the remarks which fell from the honourable Gentlemen opposite as to the Colonies being so bound to this country that we can move Colonial troops, like pawns in a game of chess, at our will and at the pleasure of the War Office. I think that is an unwise policy to adopt with regard to the Colonies. We welcome the action of the Colonies when in any emergency they volunteer to stand by the mother country, but I do not think it would be wise to endeavour to cement our relations with the Colonies by forcing upon them some general military com-
    1154
    bination. I must say that I dissent from many of the remarks which fell from my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for West Newington. He spoke about the Volunteers with a considerable amount of contempt. He alluded to them as a shadowy force which could be of no value. I have been a Volunteer in a small way myself, and I am proud of the Volunteers. I deprecate the disparaging remarks which have been passed on the Volunteers, and I would like to see a portion of our enormous Army expenditure devoted to the development of the Volunteer force, so that it may be a really effective weapon of national defence. The real question, Mr. Grant Lawson, which I wish to speak for a few moments upon, is the enormous increase in the expenditure on armaments, for it seems to me that if that increase is insisted upon much longer it will do the country irreparable injury. No set of Estimates is complete. We have Supplementary Estimates to such an extent that the whole thing is brought into confusion, and I venture to say this House and the country are left in considerable doubt as to what the real expenditure of any year is on the Army or the Navy. I think we ought to have some explanation why in the Memorandum an in crease of only £1,091,000 was stated, while in the Estimates we find the in crease is no less than £1,396,000. I do not speak as a financial expert on this matter, but I do think we ought to have some explanation. If this year follows the precedent of last year, we are likely to go on to an expenditure of 22 millions or 23 millions instead of 20 millions, before we come to the last of these accounts. This increase of expenditure is a very grave and serious fact for this country to face, and the country has a perfect right to know why it is necessary. The income-tax payers feel this heavy burden in a time of pro found peace, and, on behalf of my constituents, I protest against this continually increased demand on the public purse for the purpose of increasing the armaments of the country. I think we ought to consider the principles acted

    1155
    upon by Sir Robert Peel and the older school of English statesmen, and the principle which led Mr. Gladstone to frame his Budgets in a way which conferred so much happiness on the country. Lord Randolph Churchill, too, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed his strong dissatisfaction at the great increase of armaments. I desire to protest against the spirit of militarism which has of late been deliberately spread through the country. That spirit has been responsible for the extinguishing of the love of liberty and the stamping out of freedom of opinion in Germany, and may be accompanied with similar results in this country.
    *COLONEL WELBY: Mr. Grant Lawson, may I be allowed to add my congratulations to the new Under Secretary of State for War, not only on his appointment, but on the straightforward and soldier-like manner in which he has made his statement. There were times in the course of his speech when I thought that the interests of the Army would come first, and the interests of the War Office second. But, unfortunately, the dark shadow—the dead hand—which grips so tightly at the heart of the Army has proved too strong for the honourable Gentleman. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, in one of his usual able and lucid speeches, drew attention to the great want of horses in the Artillery, and if the right honourable Gentleman had divided the House on that Question I should have felt it my duty to have voted with him, and against the Government and the War Office. The right honourable Baronet showed his great knowledge of modern warfare and modern arms, and also a wonderful acquaintance with the details. I only wish he could be one of the military advisers of the Crown. There has been a great deal of criticism of the transport waggons used in the autumn manœuvres. The Under Secretary of State for War defended the position by saying that it was inadvisable to
    1156
    draw on the Government waggons from the Mobilization Depôt, because it would be expensive in wear and tear, and that if war were declared, the fact that they were out of store would be a hindrance to the preparations. Such a statement is startling. If the manœuvres were really a rehearsal of preparation for war, they should, instead of delaying us in mobilising, be a help. I would urge the Under Secretary of State for War to make a thorough study of the mobilisation tables which exist at the present time, and he will find, on examination, that the areas overlap in a strange way. If there was an invasion there would be a most terrible confusion. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider whether he could not simplify these areas, make a South British Army Corps, a North British Army Corps, and an Irish Army Corps, and allow the mobilisation of each to take place in its own area. I know this is a large question, and one which cannot be carried out at once, but is it not possible for the two Front Benches to come to some arrangement, as they have done about the Naval programme, and definitely settle that they should have an Army Corps system, and then, no matter what Government was in power, the same policy for the good of the country would be carried on. At the present time the country is, for military purposes, divided into districts, many of them dating from the last century. These districts should be re-arranged, given new areas, and turned from districts into divisions forming part of these different Army Corps, and in each of these divisions there should be brigade areas. Turning to the question of Army organisation, although I have an Amendment on the Paper for the reduction of 580 Cavalry men, I need hardly say that I am not actuated by any inherent dislike to the increase of our forces, whether Cavalry or Infantry or any other branch of the Service. But my feeling is that this increase of 580 men under the system which now obtains is of infinite harm to the Army, and especially that it would be harmful to the branch of the Service

    1157
    to which I have the honour to belong. I do not think it necessary to delay the Committee by pointing out how very important it is that a Cavalry soldier should remain in the regiment in which he is trained. If a man feels that he is likely to be transferred from one regiment to another against his will it goes a long way towards making him discontented with the Service. Let me instance what has happened in my own regiment, the Scots Greys. Sixty-nine men have been transferred since April last year to other regiments. This number may seem small, but I can assure the House, and the honourable Member, that these transfers take the heart out of a regiment, especially one with such ancient traditions as the Greys. There is no Cavalry regiment in the Service which is more strictly territorial than we are, and it is owing to the fact that this regiment is held in such favour all through Scotland that we are able to get plenty of recruits. I submit that the War Office has strained the letter of the Army Act in grouping regiments together and calling them corps simply to enable men to be transferred from one regiment to another. It is a distinct breach of Parliamentary faith. On 12th February 1897 the honourable Member's predecessor used these words—
    "Let me make it perfectly clear that there is no intention to do away with the identity and historic associations of the present regiments. We are well aware of the importance attached to these distinctions, and Lord Lansdowne believes, in sanctioning this scheme as a most effective organisation for the Cavalry both, in peace and war, he has fully safeguarded the regiments in these respects."
    The late Under Secretary of State for War said it was the intention of the Government in no way to interfere with the regimental system, but I contend that this transfer is the greatest possible interference with that system. Unless the Government can give some satisfactory explanation I shall be compelled to divide the House on my Amendment. If the Under
    1158
    Secretary of State for War cannot give a distinct pledge that his predecessor's promise to the House of Commons in 1897 shall be observed, and that no man shall be transferred from one regiment to another in a corps or out of it without his own voluntary sanction, there is no other course for me to take, in the interests of the Service and of Parliamentary faith, than to ask for a Division on the Question. I beg to move the reduction standing in my name.
    Motion made, and Question put—
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Captain Jessell.)
    Agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday nest.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  MEROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th February],
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the powers of charge conferred by Parliament on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, and to report as to the method in which those powers have been exercised, having regard to the differences of price charged by the various Companies.—(Mr. Cohen.)
  Question again proposed.
  And, it being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed this day.

  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  OYSTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT AMENDMENT (1879) (No.2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 15th March.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
    CLAUSE 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION ((CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Committe to consider of authorising the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums for the improvement of Telephonic Communication (Queen's Recommendation signified) To-morrow.—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  House adjourned at Five minutes past Twelve of the clock.