Lords Sitting of 17 February 1899

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Four of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]: Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Examiners' Certificates of noncompliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
All Saints' Church (Cardiff) Bill [H.L.]; Imperial Markets and Stores Bill [H.L.]; Loughborough and Sheep-shed Railway Bill [H.L.]; Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Presented, and read the first time.
Furness Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Eastern Railway (Amendment of London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Act, 1898) Bill [H.L.]; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill [H.L.]; Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]; North-Eastern and Hull and Barnsley Railways (Joint Dock) Bill [H.L.]; Southport Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Surrey Commercial Docks Bill H.L.]; Totland Water Bill [H.L.]; Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.]; Presented; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES).
  Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates for 1899–1900.
TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS.
Additional articles to the Money Order Convention of the 10th-18th of January 1871 between the General Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the General Post Office of North Germany. Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS.
Rule for the disposal of certain documents which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland, for the year ended 31st March 1898; together with the Account, for the above period, and that from 26th July 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act), to 31st March 1898.

NATIONAL DEBT.
I. (Savings Banks and Friendly Societies)—

1. Account of the gross amount of all sums received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of banks for savings and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, from their commencement, at 6th August 1817, to 20th November 1898, inclusive;

2. Account of the several transactions which have taken place, during the year ended 20th November, 1898, in the investment of all moneys which came into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt for savings banks and friendly societies;

3. Account showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to the trustees of savings banks and friendly societies respectively on 20th November 1898, &c.

II. (Military Savings Banks)—Account of the gross amount of all moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of "The Fund for Military Savings Banks."
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the South Molton Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION: STANDING COMMITTEE.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairmen of the Standing Committee:—

  E. Halsbury (L. Chancellor).

  V. Cross (L. Privy Seal).

  E. Morley.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Kimberley.

  L. Herschell.

  And that the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee:—

  L. Archbishop of Canterbury.

  E. Halsbury (L. Chancellor).

  L. Archbishop of York.

  D. Devonshire (L. President).

  V. Cross (L. Privy Seal).

  D. Bedford.

  D. Marlborough.

  D. Rutland.

  D. Northumberland.

  M. Lansdowne.

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Bath.

  1244

  M. Ripon.

  M. Breadalbane.

  E. Pembroke and Montgomery (L.Steward).

  E. Denbigh.

  E. Stamford.

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  E. Carnwath.

  E. Cowper.

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Portsmouth.

  E. Spencer.

  E. Clarendon.

  E. Onslow.

  E. Grey.

  E. Morley.

  E. Vane (M. Londonderry).

  E. Cawdor.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Dudley.

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Wharncliffe.

  E. Selborne.

  E. Cranbrook.

  E. Ancaster.

  E. Crewe.

  V. Falkland.

  V. Sidmouth.

  V. Gordon (E. Aberdeen).

  V. Knutsford.

  V. Llandaff.

  V. Peel.

  L. Bp. London.

  L. Bp. Winchester.

  L. Clinton.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  L. Saltoun.

  L. Balfour of Burley.

  L. Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery).

  L. Mendip (V. Clifden).

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Hopetoun (E. Hopetoun).

  L. Churchill.

  L. Harris.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Ker (M. Lothian).

  L. Plunket.

  L. Rosebery (E. Rosebery).

  L. Poltimore.

  1245

  L. Kintore (E. Kintore).

  L. Leigh.

  L. Wenlock.

  L. Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine).

  L. Belper.

  L. Lawrence.

  L. Aberdare.

  L. Coleridge.

  L. Norton.

  L. Shute (V. Barrington).

  L. Watson.

  L. Rowton.

  L. Ampthill.

  L. Reay.

  L. Tweedmouth.

  L. Northbourne.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Lingen.

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Thring.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Cheylesmore.

  L. Morris.

  L. Iveagh.

  L. Kelvin.

  L. Rookwood.

  L. Shand.

  L. Ashcombe.

  L. Hawkesbury.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Welby.

  L. Russell of Killowen.

  L. Davey.

  L. Burghclere.

  L. James.

  L. Pirbright.

  L. Glenesk.

  L. Heneage.

  L. Ludlow.

  L. Glanusk.

  L. Cranworth.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

DEATH OF THE FRENCH PRESIDENT.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, before your proceedings com-
1246
mence, it is only fitting that I should take the opportunity of expressing what I am sure, must be in the hearts of all your Lordships—our deep sympathy with our great neighbour and ally across the Channel at the terrible calamity which has suddenly deprived them of a most valuable and estimable President. I think we cannot express in too strong terms how much we think the French people are deserving of our sympathy at this sudden loss, for he was a man very singularly adapted to the very difficult position which he had to fill, and he had filled it with general applause, and I think had greatly attached to himself not only the people of his own country, but the people of other countries with whom he came in contact. It will be difficult to supply his place. He had the steady judgment, that freedom from all violence of passion and at the same time from any encroaching ambition which might have marred the neutrality and impartiality of his great office, which enabled him in a singular degree to fulfil its conflicting and very often very difficult duties. I hope that we shall be able to see a continuance of his wise government in the future. The time at which he has been taken away is one which makes his loss additionally grievous, for there are difficulties both in the external relations of Europe and the internal condition and problems which France has to solve. Let us hope that the statesman, whoever he may be, to whom shall be assigned the difficult task of succeeding M. Felix Faure, may show the same high impartiality, the same passionless justice, and I may add the same friendliness to this country which always distinguished the late President.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire to associate myself and all my friends with the expression which the noble Marquess has given to the sorrow we must all feel for the loss which the French Government has sustained. In any case the

1247
loss would have been a very serious one on account of M. Faure's excellent qualities which the noble Marquess has described to you, but at the present moment it must be obvious that the loss of the head of the State of that country, and the necessity of electing another, must cause the calamity which has befallen the French nation to be more acutely felt than it would have been at any other time. Our good wishes, I am certain, all go with our great neighbour, and there is nothing we desire more than that any difficulties which they have to meet in their internal affairs may be met successfully, and that the new President may be enabled to continue the peaceful course persued by the late President, and that the French nation, under him, may continue to occupy a strong and respected position among the great nations of Europe.

SANDHURST AND WOOLWICH.
LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to the recent appointment of a General Officer of Artillery as Governor of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst; and to ask the Secretary of State for "War whether the appointment of Governor of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, will in future be open to general officers of Cavalry and Infantry. The matter I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to is one which has caused no little surprise to all who are interested in this question. Everyone I have met, whether connected with the Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry, or Engineers, have viewed this appointment with universal disapproval. It has been severely commented upon by the Press, and is one which I think I may venture to call your Lordships' attention to without being considered as showing any disrespect to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. As no doubt your Lordships are aware, the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst have quite distinct offices. The one is entirely for the education of cadets who will eventually join the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery, and the other is for cadets who will join the Cavalry and Infantry. The
1248
Governorship of the Military Academy at Woolwich has never, so far as I am able to ascertain, been filled but by a Royal Engineer or by a Royal Artillery Officer, and the Governorship of the Royal College at Sandhurst, in the same manner, has been filled up by an. Artillery or Infantry officer. There is one exception, however, which proves the rule. In 1858 Sir Harry Jones was appointed Governor of the Sandhurst Military College, and since that time—a period of 40 years—the position has been invariably filled by officers of the Cavalry or the Infantry, until the present occasion. Of course, if there had been exceptional circumstances which showed-that there was no General Officer belonging to the Cavalry or Infantry who was fitted to fill that important place, my question is answered at once, and I should be the last to dispute it; but I challenge the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to state that this is the case. If he looks down the list of generals he will see that there are 20 or 30 officers who are absolutely fitted to fill the post of Governor. There are also peculiar circumstances connected with the appointment of Sir Edward Markham, who is the present Governor of Sandhurst, which I think necessary to bear in mind. Sir Edward was filling the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey in 1895, and would have retired as a major-general, having reached the age of 67 in March of that year. The day before he would have reached that age he was made a Supernumerary Lieutenant-General, which, of course, gave him another five years of active employment. A month after that he was transferred from the Lieutenant-Governoirship of Jersey to the important post of Inspector-General of Ordnance. It is presumed, of course, that Sir Edward Markham was considered the fittest officer to fill that important post, and he has remained or did remain in it for three and a half years, when, to the surprise of all the officers who talked over the matter, he was transferred from a superior appointment to an inferior one—inferior in pay and inferior in position—to that of Governor of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. The emoluments of the Inspector-General of Ordnance amounted to £2,100. The pay of the Governor

1249
of Sandhurst Royal Military College is £1,500. One does not understand, why, if Sir Edward Markham was fitted for the post of Inspector-General of Ordnance, he should have been removed just at the very time when you would suppose his services would be most valuable. But there are other circumstances connected with the appointment which I think I ought to bring to your Lordships' attention. I do not see Lord Harris in the House, but he was Under Secretary for War in the year 1887, and was the chairman of a Special Committee which was appointed to inquire into the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and the Sandhurst Military College with a view of seeing whether any alterations should be made for the governing of those two institutions. The report has never been published so far, in the Parliamentary Paper, but it has been printed as a confidential document. The changes which were recommended then were made. It was also understood that there was to be a new departure. Hitherto a very old general officer had been appointed to the governorship so that he could end his career in comfort and peace, but it was decided to appoint a young major-general, who would be more in touch with the old regiment instinct and the manner of preserving discipline, in order that lie may be able to control cadets at Sandhurst in a proper manner, and make them understand what kind of discipline and administration they would find in the regiment to which they would go. The first appointment after that recommendation was that of General Clive, of the Grenadier Guards, who had only recently left the command of the Grenadiers, and Who was an ideal officer because he carried with him the old instincts of regimental command. Ever since that time, up to the present, that principle has been adopted, and all the subsequent Governors since General Clive's time have been younger officers. Now an officer has been appointed who ought to be retired next year on reaching the age of 67, and I wish to know—and I should be obliged if the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would inform me—whether Sir Edward Markham will be retired next year on reaching the age of 67, or whether he has had a special permission that he shall be allowed to retain his
1250
appointment for five years, which will mean that he will not retire until he reaches the age of 70. Now, my Lords, great injury is being done by this appointment of an Artillery officer in the place of a Cavalry or Infantry officer. Under present conditions there is a five year non-employment clause. The consequence is young officers who would have been fit for the appointment of Governor of Sandhurst may, and will in all probability, be put on the retired list simply because there is no appointment for them. Sir Edward Markham, an old officer, who has really had a distinguished career, so far as staff appointment is concerned, is keeping out and destroying the career and retirement prospects of a younger officer belonging to the other service. I therefore ask the Question of which I have given notice, and apologise for detaining your Lordships so long.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANS-DOWNE): My Lords, the Question of the noble and gallant Lord has reference to two appointments—the Governorship of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst and the Governorship of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. The noble and gallant Lord considers an irregularity was committed when Sir Edward Markham was given the Sandhurst appointment. The noble and gallant Lord suggests that this appointment cannot properly be held by a general officer of Infantry or Cavalry. Now, as to that I may say that there is nothing in any warrant or regulation by which these appointments are governed to limit its tenure to an officer of the Infantry or Cavalry. As a matter of fact, the noble and gallant Lord himself cited a case in which the appointment was held by a general officer of Engineers. It was so held by Sir Harry Jones from 1856 to 1866—ten years altogether—and there is nothing, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in the duties belonging to the Governor of Sandhurst to prevent those duties being efficiently performed by an officer of the Artillery such as Sir Edward Markham. When the appointment became vacant I selected Sir Edward Markham, in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, as an officer in every way fit for the appointment.

1251
The noble and gallant Lord asked whether he can be allowed to hold the appointment for live years? My answer to that is in the affirmative. Then the noble and gallant Lord suggests, as compensation for the appointment of an Artillery officer for Sandhurst, that the appointment of Governor of Woolwich should be thrown open to officers of the Cavalry and Infantry. As to that I have to say that in the case of Woolwich also there is no rule under which the appointment is tenable only by officers of the Artillery and Engineers. There is no vacancy in the appointment at this moment, and it is of course impossible for me to say in what manner the next vacancy, when it occurs, will be filled up. I have no doubt that we shall select; a general officer thoroughly suitable for the post. I am afraid I cannot give the noble and gallant Lord any more decided answer as to Woolwich than that.

HOUSE OF LORDS AND COMMONS PERMANENT STAFF.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLBY): My Lords, I beg leave to move that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire into the salaries of the permanent staff of both Houses of Parliament, and into the present method of appointment or nomination by any officer of either House; and to report what changes, if any, are suitable in respect thereto. I need preface this Motion with very few words of explanation. Your Lordships are aware that Questions were frequently asked in another place as to the method in which officers of the House of Lords are appointed and paid. I suggested some years ago the desirability of appointing a Joint Committee to inquire into these questions, but my suggestion was not favourably received in another place. It dropped until last year, but, in the meantime, considerable changes have been made. Last year a Motion was made in the House of Commons to appoint a Joint Committee, but that Motion was made so near the end of the Session that no time was left to inquire conveniently into the matter. I ventured, therefore, to suggest that the appointment of the Committee should be postponed to this Session. So far from
1252
opposing the appointment of such a Committee, I am glad it is to be appointed, and I think it might save time and trouble if I anticipated the Motion in the House of Commons this year and moved the appointment of the Committee in this House.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC BILLS.

  SOLICITORS' BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBUBY): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House last Session. The Bill gives the Master of the Rolls power to replace on the Roll of Solicitors a solicitor who has been, either before or after the commencement of the Act, struck off the Roll under the provisions of Section 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843. Unfortunately there was no time for the Bill to pass through the other House last Session, and I therefore beg to move its Second Reading again in this House.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is a Bill to amend the law relating to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham, and, although passed by your Lordships last Session, met with the same fate as the Solicitors Bill.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES ADMINISTRATION.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETON: My Lords, in rising to ask the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to make any

1253
change in the title and position of the officers appointed to succeed Sir W. Anderson as head of the Ordnance Factories, and whether any change in the administration of the Factories is contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, I do not propose to detain your Lordships. I merely say, my Lords, in excuse for bringing forward this question, if any excuse is needed, that the administration of the; Ordnance Factories in this country is of very great importance, and I hope the Secretary of State for War will be able to give your Lordships a satisfactory explanation, and one that will satisfy the aspirations of those who look to him for doing what is best for the service.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: My Lords, I very gladly give the noble Viscount the information for which he asks. The present organisation of the Ordnance Factories dates from the year 1887, when the late Mr. Edward Stanhope introduced important reforms into their management. Even those who think, as I do, that the present system requires some further alteration, will acknowledge the great value of those reforms which were made by Mr. Stanhope. In order to establish this proposition, it is only necessary to compare the condition of the factories as Mr. Stanhope found them and as he left them. It is enough to say that before his time the different factories were unconnected, that there was no system of independent inspection, and no proper financial control over their proceedings, while outside the factories the Services had no voice in the selection of the weapons and equipment which were supplied to them. Mr. Stanhope left the factories under the administration of one responsible head, under proper financial control and under independent inspection, and he admitted, for the first time, the valuable principle that the Military and Naval authorities should have the right to a voice in selecting their own stores and equipment, and of accepting and refusing it, according as it succeeded or failed in passing the test of military inspection. The result has been a system under which, whatever its imperfections, there have been no scandals of the kind which attracted so
1254
much attention in Parliament during the years which preceded Mr. Sanhope's reforms, and no complaints that the Services have had forced upon them faulty weapons or imperfect equipment. If we have come to the conclusion that certain further changes are necessary, they will certainly not be in the direction of a departure from the main principles laid down by Mr. Stanhope. It will be convenient that I should describe the present system so far as it affects the principal officials concerned. The whole of the manufacturing departments of the Army are, by an Order in Council, placed under the control of the Financial Secretary. The nature of the control which he is to exercise is not defined, but it was apparently intended to be something more than the ordinary power of financial review which he exercises over the whole of our Military expenditure. The Financial Secretary is, of course, a civilian and a Parliamentary official. Under the Financial Secretary there is the Director-General of Ordnance Factories, a post which, though not necessarily held by a civilian, for the past 10 years has been held by a civilian, the late Sir William Anderson, an officer of very great ability and experience, whose untimely death towards the end of the year was greatly deplored by all who knew him. Under the Director-General there is a Deputy Director-General, a mechanical engineer, who is also a civilian. It will be observed that under this arrangement the Ordnance Factories, so far as these higher posts are concerned, have of late been entirely under civilian control; and I call attention to the fact that the Inspector-General of Ordnance—who, under the Order in Council which governs the constitution of the War Office, is charged with supplying the Army with warlike stores and equipment, with dealing with questions of armament, of patterns, of inventions and designs, and with the duty of advising the Secretary of State on all questions connected with this department—is given no voice whatever in the management of the factories, and no right of giving a single order within them. It does not seem unnatural that, in spite of the undoubted ability of the officials to whom I have referred, in spite of all the pains which they have

1255
taken, there should, under such a system, have been a good deal of friction, and a feeling on the part of the Services that their requirements were not always sufficiently understood or attended to with sufficient promptitude. It is often said that manufacture is better in civilian hands, and should be left entirely to civilians. That is, I think, a statement which requires some qualification. It would be truer to say that manufacture should be in the hands of men who, whether they have begun life as soldiers, sailors, or civilians, have been trained to manufacture, and who are accustomed to the processes and routine of manufacture, and who know how to get the best value out of the man and the machinery which they employ. A soldier may be an extremely able soldier, he may know exactly what kind of weapon the Army wants, but he may be quite unable to make it; and the idea of bringing in a clever soldier, with no experience but that which he has acquired in the Army, for five years, and handing over to hum the management of a great business concern, would be preposterous. Upon the other hand, a soldier or a sailor who is thoroughly-conversant with the design and manufacture of warlike stores—and we know that such soldiers are to be found—has this great advantage, that he not only understands manufacture, but that he is able to understand better than a civilian the requirements and, I would almost venture to say, the prejudices of the Services, while the Services, knowing that this is the case, are inspired with a confidence which they would not otherwise feel. There is another consideration of which we should not lose sight. The factories are concerned not only with the manufacture of warlike stores, but with the invention and design of such stores, and with the conduct of experiments relating to them. We look to them to carry out for us those modifications in our war material which are constantly required by the ever-varying conditions of the Service. Now I do not think it will be seriously disputed that, in regard to all questions involving the design of warlike material, it is right that the soldiers and sailors by whom that material will be used should have a voice. We arrive, therefore, at this, that in so far as the Ordnance factories
1256
are concerned with design, it is necessary that the Services should have a locus standi within them. Then arises the question whether it is possible to divorce design from manufacture. I believe you cannot, and that the attempt to do so would result in the most lamentable failure. Design and manufacture must go hand in hand. That is certainly the view which prevails in the great private firms upon which we depend to a great extent for our supplies of warlike material. Sir Andrew Noble, the head of the well-known Elswick firm, and a man of unrivalled experience in these matters, writing to me a few days ago, says:—
"I say distinctly that in my opinion it would be fatal to separate designing and manufacturing if you desire to make any progress."
And you will find that in these works, and in all other great enterprises of the same kind, the closest contact and the most constant intercourse is maintained between persons engaged in design and those by whom the process of manufacture is carried out. We have, in these circumstances, come to the conclusion that steps should be taken in order to bring the Ordnance Factories into closer touch than heretofore with the Services. I say "the Services," because it will not be forgotten that the Navy are as much interested as the Army in this matter. The Navy are customers of the Ordnance Factories to quite as great an extent as the Army; and I am able to say that the views which I am expressing are shared by the Admiralty. The steps which it is proposed to take are these. In the first place, I have appointed, as head of the Ordnance Factories, a soldier—Colonel Bainbridge. He has been for many years past in charge of the Royal Laboratory, and has had under him about 8,000 operatives. Although he is a soldier, he is thoroughly versed in manufacture, and is, I believe, in all respects fit for this promotion. I may add that he is no longer on the active list of the Army, and that his tenure of office is governed by the rules of the Civil Service. It is also proposed to alter the Order in Council so as to make it clear, on the one hand, that the control exercised over the factories by the Financial Secretary is financial control only—that is, I need not say, in

1257
a great industrial enterprise of this kind a very extensive control indeed—and, on the other hand, that the Inspector-General of Ordnance has the right of exercising direction over the factories. It is, of course, not intended that he should take their management out of the hands of the Director-General, but, considering that he is, as I have already said, responsible for supplying the Army with warlike stores and for dealing with the design of such stores, we think it desirable that he should be placed in direct contact with the factories, and that he should have some voice in their affairs. This, of course, does not imply that the factories will be in any sense emancipated from financial control. To that control it is quite clear that they must remain subject, and we have no idea of relaxing it. In order to bring the title of the Inspector-General of Ordnance into closer correspondence with his duties, we propose that he shall be styled Director-General of Ordnance, and, in order to avoid confusion, the head of the factories will have the title of Chief Superintendent of Ordnance Factories. These are the changes which we mean to make. They are intended to bring the Services into closer touch with the factories whose business it is to supply them with their equipment, and to do that without in any way abandoning the idea that the factories must be managed on business principles and kept under strict financial control. I am strengthened in these conclusions by the fact that no less than three Committees and Commissions—viz., the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores, presided over by Sir J. Stephen in 1887: the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, presided over by Sir Matthew White Ridley in 1887; and the Committee on the Organisation of the Army Manufacturing Departments, presided over by Lord Morley about the same time—recommended that the Ordnance Department and, as part of it, the Ordnance Factories, should be under Military control, and, at a later date, the Royal Commission on the Civil and Professional Administration of the Naval and Military Departments, presided over by the Duke of Devonshire in 1890, called attention to the fact that these recommendations, to which they apparently gave their adhesion, had not, so
1258
far as they concerned the Manufacturing Departments, been acted upon. I ought perhaps to add that there are other questions concerning the internal organisation of the factories upon which I have not touched, because they are still under consideration.
LORD MONKSWELL: Do I understand the noble Marquess to say that the office of Head of the Ordnance Factories will, for the future, not be open to civilians?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I did not say anything, I think, which warranted that construction. I pointed out that the office had lately been held by a civilian, and that I had appointed to it a soldier, but the office, so far as our regulations go, is open either to a soldier or to a civilian. In point of fact, the tenant of it who preceded the late Sir William Anderson was a soldier.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock to Monday next, at a quarter past Four o'clock.