Sitting of 13 July 1885

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—John Eldon Gorst, esquire, for Chatham; Henry John Atkinson, esquire, for Lincoln County (Northern Division).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —ARMY- (SUPPLEMENTARY); ARMY ESTIMATES; Votes 7 to 9 Resolution [July 8] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered — First Reading — Medical Relief Disqualification Removal [232].
First Heading— Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)*[233].
Second Reading —Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation)*[215]; Polehampton Estates*[216]; Artillery and Rifle Ranges*[217]; Crofters Holding's (Scotland) [184], debate adjourned; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)*[224]; Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) [68]; Public Health (Ships, &c.)*[230]; Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) [231].
Select Committee — Pluralities*[22], Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Salt added.
Committee—Summary Jurisdiction (Term of Imprisonment) [180] — R.P.; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) [99]—RP.
Committee —Report —Post Office Sites (re-comm.)* [193].

QUESTIONS.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART —THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MR. MITCHELL HENEYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will consult with the Trustees of the National Gallery of Portraits as to the propriety of temporarily removing the pictures to the Bethnal Green Museum, or to the National Galleries of Scotland and of Ireland, pending the construction of a fireproof gallery for their permanent reception?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER: In answer to the hon. Member for County Galway, I have to say that I am in communication with the Trustees of the National Gallery of Portraits as well as with the Treasury on this very important and pressing subject. I can assure him that I am sparing no trouble in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, and I hope within a few days to be able to make a definite statement to the House.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had examined the

  409
  western gallery of South Kensington, which was one of the finest galleries in the world?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONERsaid, that he had received Reports on all the galleries. He did not now wish to say anything definite; but he was informed that the roof of the gallery in question was by no means fireproof.

  RAILWAYS — RAILWAY COUPLINGS — ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the appalling loss of life, and the large number of non-fatal accidents, occurring annually to Railway servants engaged in shunting operations, through the present dangerous system of coupling, the Board of Trade directed the attention of their Inspecting Officers of Railways to an Exhibition of Railway Coupling Appliances held at Darlington on October the 3rd, and following days, 1882, with instructions to report thereon; and, if so, will a copy of that report be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether the Board of Trade will depute one or more of their Inspecting Officers of Railways to examine and report on the various improved Railway couplings, designed with the view of minimising the risk to life and limb, now on view at the Inventions Exhibition; and, if so, will the Board of Trade recommend the adoption by the Railway Companies of such as may be favourably reported on?
  THE SECRETARY: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that although some of the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade saw the Railway coupling appliances which were shown at the Darlington Exhibition in October, 1882, they did not make any Report to the Board in the matter, because they were not instructed to do so. With reference to the latter part of the Question, I would observe that some of the Inspecting Officers are serving on one of the juries of the Inventions Exhibition in connection with Railway appliances; and the Report of that jury will, no doubt, be made public later on.

  THE COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND FORESTS—SALE OF LAND TO OCCUPIERS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the
  410
  attention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests has been called to the circular issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with reference to the sale of land to occupiers; and, whether the Commissioners intend to adopt a similar scheme with regard to the 70,000 acres of saleable agricultural lands in their charge; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons which have guided the Commissioners in arriving at that decision?
  THE SECRETARY: The attention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests has been called some time since to this circular. I am not aware that they intend to adopt a precisely similar scheme; but they are always ready and willing to sell their agricultural property upon terms fair to both sides, and have done so to a very large amount in the case of detached parcels and outlying properties. I am informed that the Commissioners have no estates consisting wholly or principally of small holdings which could with advantage be brought to sale in the particular manner proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

  IRELAND—THE COLLECTOR GENERALSHIP OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he adheres to the undertaking given by his two predecessors, that the office of Collector General of Rates for Dublin will not be permanently filled up pending the promised legislation on the collection of rates in Dublin?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: The Government are prepared to undertake that this appointment shall remain provisional.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—SWINE FEVER—ANIMALS ORDER, 1884.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If swine can be compulsorily destroyed when affected with contagious disease, and if compensation can be awarded to the owners, as is the case with cattle; and, does this rule extend to Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (MR. CHAPLIN),in reply, said that by the Animals Order of 1884 Local Authorities had power to have infected

  411
  swine slaughtered and animals in contact with diseased swine, and they were bound to pay compensation out of the local rates. The provisions of the Order did not extend to Ireland.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will be good enough to inform the House what steps, if any, are now being taken by the Privy Council to deal with the serious losses resulting from the widespread existence of swine-fever; if he will represent to the Privy Council the propriety of arming local authorities with further powers to enable them to secure proper and habitual cleansing and disinfection of premises used by dealers in swine; and, further, if he is in a position to afford the House any information as to the appointment, powers, and duties of the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY: In reply to the first part of the Question of my hon. Friend, I may say that an Order of Council, which comes into force on the 21st of July, was passed on the 3rd of this month, the provisions of which, generally speaking, are as follows: — It prohibits the holding of markets, fairs, or sale of swine, either fat or store, throughout England, subject to the following provisions—first, a public sale of fat swine may be held with a licence of the Local Authority, but the animals exposed for sale must be slaughtered within three days; secondly, a public or private sale of swine, either fat or store, may be held without a licence of the Local Authority, provided (1) that the sale is held on premises which are not in a swine-affected place; (2) that no pig on the premises is affected with swine fever; (3) that any pig exposed for sale has been on the premises 28 days before the sale. Provision is also made by the Order for the exhibition of swine at agricultural shows with a licence of the Local Authority on such conditions as they may think fit. Power is reserved to the Privy Council to revoke any such licence, and in any circumstances to grant a licence. With these exceptions all fairs, markets, or sales for swine throughout England are absolutely prohibited from the 21st of this month until the 1st of October. I am quite aware—and that is one of the misfortunes which I greatly lament in connection with this outbreak—
  412
  that an Order of this kind cannot be enforced without inflicting very considerable inconvenience. But it is inconvenience which I am afraid is inseparable from the arrest and suppression of this disease; and my hon. Friend will perceive that stringent measures are rendered necessary when I mention as showing the rapid increase of this malady that it appears from the Returns which have been received at the Agricultural Department from the Inspectors of Local Authorities that while the average number of outbreaks for the last five years has been about 2,000, over 4,000 outbreaks have occurred within the first six months of the present year already, and it is increasing with great rapidity now. Notwithstanding this, the Privy Council, bearing in mind the satisfactory results of similar Orders in dealing both with cattle plague and foot-and-mouth disease, have every hope that the disease by these means will shortly be checked; but they are quite prepared to adopt further measures if they should be necessary. My hon. Friend also inquires if I will
  "represent to the Privy Council the propriety of arming local authorities with further powers to enable them to secure proper and habitual cleansing of premises used by dealers in swine?"
  But I think he has omitted to observe how wide are the powers already conferred on the Local Authority by Article 109 of the Animal Order of 1884. They are as follow: — For requiring the owners, lessees, or occupiers of markets, fairs, sale-yards, places of exhibition, lairs, or other places used for animals, to cleanse those places from time to time at their own expense; for requiring the owners, lessees, or occupiers of those places to disinfect the same or any spelled part thereof from time to time at their own expense, where, in the judgment of the Local Authority, the circumstances are such as to allow of such disinfection being reasonably required; for prescribing the mode in which such cleansing and such disinfection are to be effected. These are the powers already enjoyed; and while I should only be too glad to receive any suggestions from the wide experience of my hon. Friend, it appears to the Privy Council, and that is my own opinion, that the powers already enjoyed are sufficient; and I confess I do not see at this moment

  413
  how they can be effectually widened. In reply to the third part of the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to say that a Committee of Council for the consideration of all matters relating to agriculture was appointed by the Queen in Council on the 27th of June last. It consists of the Lord President, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Earl of Harrow by, the Earl of Lathom, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. By the Order of the 27th of June all matters relating to agriculture are referred to them; and, in the absence of the Lord President, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presides over the Committee. The Committee, or any two of them, exercise all the powers conferred on the Privy Council by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; and the Lord President and the Chancellor of the Duchy are in daily attendance at the office for that purpose. In addition to the duties involved in carrying out the provisions of that Act, the Committee receive and consider all Reports and statistics received from the Colonies and foreign countries, and the Agricultural Returns, both home, foreign, and Colonial, are prepared and issued under their supervision. All the correspondence connected with the above question is carried on by them, and all Orders of Council under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act—of which there were 174 in the year 1884—are passed by them.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state how often the Committee referred to in his reply was summoned to meet; how many times it had met since its first appointment; and whether he would lay upon the Table a Return giving particulars as to the attendance of Members of the Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHYpromised to make further inquiries into the subject.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— THE GRAND JURY, CO. DONEGAL— INQUIRY INTO IMPROPER EXPENDITURE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the reiterated demands of the Grand Jury of the county Donegal, and espe-
  414
  cially by resolution at the last Spring Assizes, for a searching inquiry into the alleged improper expenditure of public grants and other moneys intended for the benefit of the Fisheries in Ireland in the construction of public works in useless localities, as well as imperfect in execution; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Resolutions and Correspondence between the Grand Jury (and of the Committee appointed by them) and the Government; and, whether it is a fact that it is now intended by the Government to employ an engineer to investigate the professional part of the matter, only leaving uninvestigated the misapplication of the Public Funds in the various ways alleged?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Government have decided to have an inspection of these piers made by an independent engineer of undoubted eminence, who will inquire and report not only as to the suitability of the sites selected for these works, but also as to their design and the manner in which they have been executed. I do not understand the hon. Member to allege any "misapplication" or "improper expenditure" which is not covered by those points of reference. I have no objection to produce the Correspondence; but I think it would be bettor to await the engineer's Report before doing so.
  MR. HEALY: What is the engineer's name?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr. Stevenson.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the inspection would be confined to the county of Donegal, or would it be extended to other places?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: At present, I think, it will be confined to Donegal; but its extension is under consideration.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX —THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882.
  MR. RANKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that Income Tax is payable upon the joint income of husband and wife; and, if so, whether, under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, Income Tax should be charged upon the incomes of the husband and

  415
  wife separately, thereby allowing both to claim the exemption or reduction, as the case may be, when their separate incomes are each of them below £150 or £400?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The joint income of husband and wife living together is, by the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, s. 45, liable to assessment to Income Tax, and this is not affected or over-ridden by anything in the Married Women's Property Act.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. RANKINasked the Postmaster General, If any, and, if so, which, of the Colonies have expressed their willingness to adopt the use of Postal Orders with the United Kingdom; and, if he is willing to open up a correspondence with those Colonies that have not so expressed themselves to ascertain if they are disposed to enter into an arrangement to honour such Postal Orders that may be sent from the United Kingdom and presented for payment at any Post Office under their control that already are authorized to pay Money Orders, so that all the advantages given by the Act of Parliament passed in 1883 may not any longer remain unused by the friends of emigrants residing in this Country?
  THE POSTMASTER: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the postal order system has been extended to Malta and Gibraltar, and that arrangements have been made, and are now in force, which enable persons in India, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlement to remit money by means of postal orders to the United Kingdom. About 12 months ago a similar proposal was made by my Predecessor to the Canadian Post Office; but although further communications have been addressed to that Department no decision has been received.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it intended shortly to disemploy any more Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act; if so, who they are; and, how many Sub-Commissioners will then be left?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I am not in a position to give a definite answer to this Question at present. The whole matter is under consideration.
  MR. HEALY: Will the information be forthcoming before the Vote for the Land Commission is taken?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I think so, but I will inquire.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND) — APPOINTMENTS IN THE SURVEYOR'S DEPARTMENT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, What is the number of officers belonging to English offices who have been transferred temporarily or permanently for duty in the Surveyor's Department in the Post Office in Ireland during the past seven years; the number belonging to Irish offices who have been similarly transferred to England; what special qualification was possessed by those English officials for their respective posts, which was wanting in the Irish officers; whether the heads of every Department in the Post Office Service in Ireland, with two exceptions, are Englishmen or Scotchmen, or officers drawn from those Countries; and, whether he will give an assurance that, in future vacancies, the Irish officers will not again be passed over by officers from English offices, or, as an alternative, to give the Irish officers a reciprocal advantage of being appointed to similar vacancies in England?
  THE POSTMASTER: In replying to the inquiries of the hon. Member, I may say that the question of nationality in no degree affects my selection of officers for employment on surveying duty in either England, Scotland, or Ireland, those officers being chosen who are considered best qualified, without any regard to the land of their birth. I cannot, therefore, give any such assurance as the hon. Member asks me to give. In reply to his specific Questions, I beg leave to say that during the last seven years eight officers have been sent to Ireland from England, and one to England from Ireland, for employment on surveying duty. In each case such officer was selected either because no other possessed equal qualifications or could be spared for temporary duty when the employment was of that character. Of the heads of departments of the Post Office in Ireland, five, I be-

  417
  lieve, are Irishmen, one is an Englishman, and one a Scotchman.

  GENERAL GORDON—A PUBLIC MONUMENT.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to the House a Vote for the purpose of erecting a monument to General Gordon in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We think that it would be in accordance with a very general feeling both in this House and in the country that there should be a memorial to General Gordon of the kind indicated in the Question of my right hon. Friend, and when we have fully considered the question of the position and the precise character of the memorial, we shall be prepared to propose a Vote to the House on the subject.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that he should like to know whether the Government were in possession of authentic information showing that General Gordon had been killed?
  [No reply.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT, 1882— LEGISLATION.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to take into consideration the question of amending "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882?"
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Her Majesty's Government do not propose to undertake the consideration of this question during the present Session.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If he will be good enough to inform the House the number of candidates who annually present themselves for examination as officers and engineers for service in the Mercantile Marine, stating the average number failing to pass on their first examination; and, if it is correct that candidates failing on first presenting themselves must, on coming up for reexamination, pay the full amount of fees; if so, whether he will, as in all
  418
  other public examinations, cause a moiety of the fees to be remitted?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I can at once give the hon. Member the figures which will answer the first part of his Question for one year. If he desires information for other years, I shall be glad to give it to him hereafter. The numbers of applicants for masters' and mates' and engineers' certificates of competency, during the year ended 31st May, 1885, including repeated applications by the same persons, were as follows:—Masters and mates, 4,085; engineers, 1,783. The actual numbers of persons who failed to pass on their first application were 2,241 masters and mates, and 390 engineers. It is the fact that candidates failing on first presenting themselves must, on coming up for re-examination, pay the full amount of fees. As regards the last part of the Question, the fact is that the same rule applies in all the examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners— namely, that no part of the fee is returned to applicants who fail. The Rule acted on by the Board of Trade was made as long ago as 1877.

  NAVY—TORPEDO EXPERIMENTS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the experiments which have for some time been conducted at Sheerness by Mr. Brennan, in controlling torpedoes, have been brought to a conclusion; if so, with what result; whether experiments with torpedo controlling apparatus are being conducted by Admiral Hornby with the Evolutionary Squadrons; and, if it be correct that Mr. Robert Scott, of Newcastle, recently offered the Admiralty a torpedo guiding apparatus capable of controlling submarine torpedoes a distance of three miles; if so, what arrangements the Admiralty have made for eon-ducting the necessary experiments?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Brennan torpedo has been taken up and is being worked out by the War Office, and the Admiralty has nothing to do with it. No experiments with torpedo controlling apparatus are being conducted by Admiral Hornby. Mr. Scott offered this apparatus, which, he stated, would enable the torpedo to be controlled at a distance of three or four miles. No arrangements were made,

  419
  as, after a careful examination, it was found unsuitable for the Naval Service.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—THE TROOPS AT SUAKIN.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that an order was issued at Suakin, directing that all men should be shown in the returns as effective, whether in hospital or not, except those who were actually invalided on board ship; and, if so, whether ho can state the number of hospitals on shore, and the maximum number of men in those hospitals returned as effective?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is stated by Sir Gerald Graham, by the Chief of the Staff, by the Deputy Adjutant General, and by the Principal Medical Officer, that no such order was issued. There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member as to the technical meaning of the word "effective." Effective does not necessarily mean efficient; and soldiers are always borne on the strength of their regiments as effectives until actually invalided from the station.

  THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE—THE ROYAL COMMISSION".
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state when the Royal Commission for inquiry into the Depression of Trade will be issued; and, whether he will give an assurance that, before the end of the present Session, the terms of the Commission, including the names of the Commissioners, will be communicated to the House?
  MR. HENEAGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause inquiry to be made at the same time into the inconveniences attending a limited gold currency and the advantages of a legal silver currency?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid that I cannot state the exact date upon which the Royal Commission will be issued; but I think I can undertake that the terms of the Commission and the names of the Commissioners shall be communicated to the House before the close of the Session. In reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), I may say that there is no doubt as to the great im-
  420
  portance of the subject to which he refers, and we shall consider how far we can include matters connected with it in the scope of the Commissioners' inquiry.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: The right hon. Gentleman said, on Friday last, he would make a statement on the subject referred to in my Question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I shall not have any statement to make until I am able to communicate to the House the terms of the Commission and the names of its Members.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) —THE MURDER OF MRS. NOLAN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the murder of a woman named Nolan in the county Kerry; whether it is true, as stated in the papers, that her husband, who is charged with the murder, was discharged from prison a month ago on ticket of leave "inconsequence of showing signs of insanity;" and, whether, if this be true, any notice will be taken of the conduct of the prison authorities in discharging the prisoner under the circumstances?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HAET DYKE): Nolan was convicted of a White boy offence in 1881, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Soon after his imprisonment, and on several subsequent occasions, his wife memorialized for his release, and the usual reference was made to the Judge; but it was not considered advisable to comply with her prayer, owing to the unsettled state of the locality. In April last the convict himself sent in a memorial, and on the usual form attached thereto the medical officers of the prison reported for the first time that the convict was weak-minded, but in good health. Lord Spencer, after some local inquiries, felt enabled to order Nolan's release on licence, and he was accordingly discharged. The discharge was not on the ground of ill-health or in consequence of his showing signs of insanity. No report was ever made that he showed signs of insanity, and his conduct in prison was always reported as good.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked what was the verdict of the Coroner's jury?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARYasked for Notice of the Question.

  NAVY—SHIPBUILDING — NAVAL EXPENDITURE (THE VOTE OF CREDIT).
  MR. A. F. EGERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether ho will issue as a supplement to the Navy Estimates an amended programme of Shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards and by contract, showing the allocation of the additional sums granted by Parliament?
  MR.RYLANDSasked whether there was any truth in the report that the excess of expenditure for naval purposes had proved to be greater than the amount stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMI-RALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), I have to say that I hope we have got to the bottom of the discrepancy with reference to the excess of expenditure to which he alludes. In answer to the Question upon the Paper, I have to say that an amended programme will be prepared by the Constructors' Department in conference with the several Dockyards as rapidly as possible. It will, however, take some time to prepare — three weeks or so—and until the ships, vessels, and boats forming the Evolutionary Squadron have returned to the ports the estimate can only be approximate.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ACCOMMODATION IN THIS HOUSE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having regard to the great inconvenience now experienced by honourable Members on one side of the House through the impossibility of obtaining seats from which to put Questions and to discharge their Parliamentary duties, and the further probability that this unequal division of Members with respect to the sides of the House may possibly continue after the next General Election, he will at his earliest convenience consider some plan of providing accommodation for the Representatives of the People in the House of Commons?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr.PLUNKET): The important and difficult question of providing better accommodation for Members in this House is one which has from time to time been urged very strongly upon the
  422
  Government of the day ever since the Select Committee appointed in 1867 reported on the subject. But on each occasion when there has been a debate in this House there has been found to exist great differences of opinion, not only as to what ought to be done, but also as to whether anything ought to be done in the way of change. I have not myself had time yet fully to consider the subject, but I hope to go carefully into it during the Recess. No doubt, the inconvenience experienced by hon. Gentlemen opposite under the present exceptional circumstances is very acute, and I should be very glad if it were in my power to give some temporary relief; but I am afraid I cannot. The hon. Member says in his Question that "the present unequal division of Members may possible continue after the next General Election." I doubt, however, whether, if the present Opposition as greatly outnumber us in the next Parliament as they do now, they are very likely to allow us to remain where we are; and, on the other hand, I should rather hope that we may contrive in the meantime to get rid of the difficulty in another way. However that may be, as I have said, I will go into the question carefully during the autumn; and I shall be very glad to confer with the hon. Member for Stoke on the subject.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON PENJDEH.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any information regarding the Arbitration to determine whether the attacks by the Russians on the Afghans in the neighbourhood of Penjdeh was consistent with the promises of the Russian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr.BOURKE): No definite arrangement has been come to on this subject. A case has been put in on behalf of the British Government, but the matter has not been arranged.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DEATH OF PETER O'GARA IN A POLICE CELL AT SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the death of a man named Peter O'Gara, in the lock-up or

  423
  strong room of Constabulary Barrack No. 1, in the town of Sligo, on the 25th of May, Whether the Irish Government have noted the following sworn statement made at the inquest, namely, that after Peter O'Gara, charged with being under the influence of liquor, was placed in the lock-up, another man, arrested on the same charge, was put into the same cell; that the cell was left in total darkness; that the orderly room was at some distance from the cell; that the orderly constable visited the cell about five times in three hours, and that, on entering the cell about three hours after O'Gara had been placed there, he found O'Gara dead, and covered with blood, and bearing numerous wounds, and the other man partly undressed, and having blood on his face and hands; what is the rule in constabulary barracks in Ireland with regard to visits by the orderly to a cell in which prisoners in a state of intoxication are confined; whether the Government will order that no person in a state of intoxication shall be placed in the same cell with one or more other prisoners, unless an orderly is in the cell, or unless the persons in it are under his constant observation; and, whether there is any rule that the cells should be left in total darkness?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The facts are substantially as stated; but it appears that the orderly visited the cell five times in two hours, his last visit being about 15 minutes before the time at which O'Gara was found dead, and all appeared to be right on that occasion. The Coroner's jury found that no blame was to be attached to the police; but the Government have asked the Inspector General to consider whether the regulation as to visits to intoxicated persons —which was framed to meet such cases as this—might not be made more stringent. There is no rule that the cells should be left in darkness.

  INDIA—DEFENCES OF THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, intend to construct any Military railways, roads, or other works, on or beyond the North Western frontier of India besides those mentioned in the Despatch of the Government of
  424
  India of the 22nd September 1844 and the Bolan Railway? The hon. Member also inquired whether there was any truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Government intended to form a military cordon at or near Candahar, or to take any other steps for the occupation of that place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that I have no knowledge of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government or the Government of India to construct any military roads or railways or other works besides those mentioned in the despatch of the 22nd of September, 1884. With regard to the further Question of the hon. Member, it appears to me that he has for the moment forgotten that Afghanistan is an independent State.

  EGYPT—ALLEGED SLAVERY.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a pamphlet entitled "Scandals in Cairo in connection with Slavery," recently published under the auspices of the British and Foreign Slavery Society, to whom the documents, in proof of the statements made, have been submitted, which affirms the complicity of the Khedive and several high Egyptian officials in the maintenance of the slave trade; and, whether the Foreign Office will direct an investigation into the grave charges so made against the officials concerned?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE): I have received a pamphlet which I think the hon. Member himself was good enough to send me. If the accusations made in the pamphlet are supported by names of persons, it shall certainly be sent out to the Egyptian Government; but as the pamphlet is anonymous, it does not appear to me necessary to do so. If the authors of the statements contained in this pamphlet will send their names to the Foreign Office, then it will be sent to the Egyptian Government.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHasked the Postmaster General, When he expects

  425
  to be in a position to state to the House the course he proposes to pursue in reference to the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS)said, that in the course of a conversation held a little while ago, he had stated that, although the Government were not disposed to go on with the Bill themselves, they would give the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) an opportunity of doing so. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to find an early day for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to take up the subject, and when the Bill was in Committee, he hoped himself to be able to move an Amendment. In that way the House would have a fair opportunity of considering the whole subject. The Government had, under those circumstances, an expectation that the Bill would become law this Session.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the course pointed out by the noble Lord was most satisfactory to him, and he should be quite prepared to submit the question to the House.

  THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE" AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to an article which was printed and published in the newspaper called The Pall Mall Gazette on the 10th instant, and which charges certain members of the Metropolitan Police Force with bribery, corruption, and other acts of grave misconduct; and, whether there is any foundation for these charges?
  MR. HIBBERTalso asked, whether, seeing that the charges in question reflected generally on the conduct of the Police, the right hon. Gentleman would, in the interests of the Force, at once institute a searching inquiry as to the truth or otherwise of those accusations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS): With reference to this Question, I observe that the charges are general and that no names are given. All I can say is, that if any facts are stated and names given, I shall feel it my duty to try to get to the bot-
  426
  tom of the charges, and a most full inquiry will be made, because, in the interests of the police themselves as well as of the public, it is important that, if such charges are unfounded, they should be declared to be so.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the authorities of the City of London have instituted proceedings against certain persons for offering for sale obscene publications and for displaying obscene placards in the public streets; and, whether these publications were numbers of the newspaper called The Pall Mall Gazette, and, why similar steps have not been taken with regard to the vendors of the same publications and against the exhibitors of the same placards within the Metropolitan Police area?
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked whether it was intended to take any steps against the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette with reference to the articles that had appeared in that paper and had excited a great deal of public attention?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: With reference to the first Question, I have to say that I am aware that some proceedings have been taken in the City of London against the newsvendors who were offering The Pall Mall Gazette for sale. In my opinion, if proceedings are to be taken at all, it is not desirable to take such proceedings against the persons who sell the papers. With reference to the Question of my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor, I must ask him to give me Notice of it.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the allegations made against the Metropolitan Police of collusion between them and Mrs. Jeffreys, who was lately convicted of keeping a disorderly house in Chelsea, he intends to take any notice of the conduct of the police in this matter; whether he intends to take any step to restore his pension to late Inspector Minahan, who was the means of bringing this scandal to light; and, whether the police, who charged a man named Baring (a witness in the late Jeffreys' case), and who assaulted another man named Stoneham, who complained at the station of the violence used by the

  427
  police in taking Baring into custody, have been reprimanded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: With regard to the first and second paragraphs of this Question, they refer to matters dealt with by my Predecessor in Office, and no new facts have been brought before us, therefore I have taken no proceedings. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I have to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the magistrates came properly to a conclusion, and held that there was no evidence to support the slightest foundation for such a charge, and they considered the police were justified in their original arrest, and that there had been no undue violence.

  EGYPT—THE NILE EXPEDITION-STEAMERS ON THE NILE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, How many shallow water, portable, and other steel-clad steamers have been sent to the Nile; if he will be good enough to inform the House, their tonnage, draft of water, and description of guns with which they have been fitted; and, whether, during high Nile, it is intended to utilise them in relieving the garrison of Kassala?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Eighteen shallow-water portable steel steamers have been sent to the Nile. One is of 175 tons and the other 17 are of about 100 tons. Their draught of water is limited to 30 inches. Five of the steamers carry each a 9-pounder central pivot gun, and two Nordenfelts. It is not proposed to employ these vessels in operations for the relief of Kassala.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether steps are being taken, in view of the expiration of the Irish Coercion Act at the close of the present Session, to discharge the resident magistrates and other officials appointed for the purposes of that statute, and to withdraw extra police from any localities upon which they are now quartered?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): There are no Resident Magistrates or other officials appointed specially for the purposes of
  428
  the Prevention of Crimes Act, although some of them have necessarily discharged duties in connection with it. One district may be said to be nominally still proclaimed for extra police under that Act; but the proclamation is practically suspended and will shortly be revoked. There is no other district so proclaimed.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that a number of Resident Magistrates were specially appointed to carry out the provisions of the Crimes Act; and will they not be discontinued, now that the Act is to be allowed to lapse?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I was not aware of that. It would be better to put the Question on the Paper.

  POISONS BILL—POISONOUS PATENT MEDICINES.
  MR. WARTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government contemplate taking any steps with respect to poisonous patent medicines; and, whether it would be possible to issue such a stamp to be affixed to patent medicines as would avoid the appearance of giving a Government guarantee of the goodness or harmlessness of such medicines?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): In reply to the first part of the Question, I have to say that the Government do not intend to proceed with the Bill introduced in "another place" by their Predecessors. As regards the second part, the stamp will be altered so as to make it plain that there is no Government guarantee of the medicine. The stamps will in future contain the words "This stamp implies no Government guarantee." Specimens were submitted to and approved by my Predecessor, and the engraver to the Inland Revenue is now engaged upon the preparation of the requisite plates. It is expected that the new plates will be completed and the present stock of old stamps exhaused within two months from now.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN DUBLIN AND THE WEST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, What stage the negotiations between his predecessor and the Midland Railway Company of Ireland, with reference to the establishment of an improved day Mail Service between Dub-

  429
  lin and the West of Ireland, had reached when the present Government came into office; whether he has noted that, under the present system, the merchants and traders of the West of Ireland are subjected to a delay of twenty-four hours in dealing with letters and orders; whether the sum in dispute between the Department and the Company for the annual cost of the improved service is only about £2,000; and, whether, in deference to the desire of the Irish Members of all parties, steps will be taken to close the arrangement with the Company?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The Midland Great Western Railway Company demanded a sum of £14,700 a-year in addition to the existing payments for a complete scheme providing for the desired acceleration of the day mail service with the West of Ireland; but my Predecessor was of opinion that the utmost payment that the circumstances would warrant was £7,000 a-year. This was accordingly offered to the Company, who declined it. With the view, how-ever, of coming to a settlement if possible, it was thought right to make a proposal under which a less complete measure of improvement would have been effected for a payment to the Company of £6,000 a-year; but they still did not see their way to meet the views of the Department, and demanded £9,000 a-year. I can find no grounds for differing from the opinion which my Predecessor formed on the subject after repeated consideration, and I regret that I can hold out little expectation of an agreement with the Railway Company, unless they will consent to an abatement of their demand. I am aware that an improved day mail service would prevent considerable delay, and by affording an opportunity for reply the same day would accelerate some portion of the correspondence by 24 hours.

  COLONIAL BONDS-INSUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE OF REPAYMENT.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience arising to holders of some Colonial Bonds, such as New Zealand Five per Cent. 5–30 Bonds, from the insufficiency of the notice given by the Crown Agents for the Colonies when such bonds are to be paid off, such
  430
  notice being only an advertisement in The London Gazette six months previously; and, whether he would recommend to the Crown Agents that proper notice should be given on presentation of the last coupon payable, either in writing or by stamping the cheque, that no further interest would be paid, and that the bonds must be presented for payment, rather than that they should allow the money to lie idle in their hands without interest until the bonds happen to be presented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (COLONEL STANLEY): My attention had not been drawn to the inconvenience stated until the hon. Member put his Question. I am inclined to think that he has been misinformed as to the supposed insufficiency of notice. In the case referred to six months' notice had to be given by advertisement in The Times and The London Gazette. In point of fact, the publicity given largely exceeded this requirement. The advertisement appeared six times in The Times, five times in another daily paper, and 48 times in leading financial and other newspapers—59 times in all. In addition, notices have been posted in the coupon office of the Crown Agents since August last, and in The Times of last March there was inserted a special warning to the bondholders that the interest on the bonds had ceased. I understand that there would be practical difficulties in adopting the course suggested in the Question, and I have no authority to deal with the matter; but if after my answer the hon. Member still wishes to press his views, I shall be happy to confer with him and to put him in communication with the Crown Agents.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND)—PENSION FUND—THE VALUATION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what progress has been made with the valuation of the Irish National School Teachers' Pension Fund; and, are the funds sufficient to permit of a reduction of five years from the present age for maximum pension; and, if so, when will the new revision scheme come into operation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The valuation of this fund has just been

  431
  completed, and the Actuary's Report containing it is now under consideration. The surplus of assets over liabilities shown by the valuation would certainly not admit of a reduction of five years in the age for compulsory retirement.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—NORTH PORTARLING-TON DIVISION, MOUNTMELLICK UNION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether representations have been made to the Local Government Board that the return of one of the candidates at the last election of guardians for the North Portarlington Division of the Mountmellick Union was secured by the admission of a number of claims to vote which were in fact illegal, and the rejection of a number of claims to vote which were duly lodged; and, whether he will direct an inquiry to be held on the spot by a Local Government Board official?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Representations have been made to the effect stated; but the Local Government Board, after very careful consideration, do not think that a prima facie case has been made out for an inquiry, or that the facts which have been brought to their notice afford reasonable grounds for doubting the validity of the return.

  ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS (IRELAND) — THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN—MR. ERRINGTON.
  MR. CALLANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of the "Record" which, in 1883, the late Prime Minister promised, in consequence of the "prolonged and repeated visits of Mr. Errington to Rome," should be made and kept from time to time, of these proceedings for the purpose of transmission to future Secretaries of State; and also Copy of all Memoranda and Correspondence in connection with the "irregular communications" made by the Foreign Office or any Member or Members of Her Majesty's late Government, through Mr. Errington or any
  432
  Other "recommended" agent, to any member or agent of the Papal Court, especially with reference to the appointment to the Archbishopric of Dublin?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE): I am informed the record alluded to in this Question consists of some letters which have been left in the Office evidently for the inspection of the Secretary of State. As there is no current business conducted at present by the Foreign Office to which they can possibly refer, Lord Salisbury has not thought it necessary to examine them. If they contain a record of any confidential communications, these could, of course, only be published with the consent of the person to whom or by whom they were made.
  MR. CALLAN: Arising out of the answer, might I ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether Mr. Erring-ton, as a matter of fact, communicated or conveyed, at the request of the late Government, any communication of any kind whatever to any of the officials of the Papal Court at the request of any Member of the late Government respecting the appointment to the Archbishopric of Dublin, and, if so, what was the nature of it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I have not seen these communications, nor do I mean to read them if I do see them. I believe that is also the present intention of Lord Salisbury; and, therefore, under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to give any information with respect to the contents of the letters.
  MR. CALLAN: Then I will ask the late Prime Minister whether, in view of the answer just given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, I presume, has had a consultation with Lord Salisbury, he will have any objection to placing on the Table of the House a copy of the communications referred to, or whether he considers it to be consistent with his duty still to persist in suppressing and concealing from the House and from the people of Ireland the nature of the irregular communications which passed between the Court of Rome and the author of "Vaticanism?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have some difficulty in gathering the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Question; but I think

  433
  I can so far relieve him from any necessity of prosecuting the subject further in connection with myself by saying that I know nothing whatever of these communications.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  MR. RAMSAYasked the Junior Lord of the Treasury the specific subject for the consideration of the meeting of Scottish Members which had been convened for 3 o'clock to-morrow? It would be satisfactory to the Scottish Members if the hon. Member for Bute could state the object of the meeting.
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. DALRYMPLE)said, although the meeting was of a private character, he was very happy to answer the Question. The object of the meeting was simply for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of the Scottish Members with reference to the Universities Bill. Before be sent out the notice, he put himself in communication with the late Lord Advocate, so as to be informed of his opinion on the subject. He did not place any agenda on the paper convening the meeting, as he did not wish to limit the subjects which might be brought up, especially as it would be most important to have the opinion of the Scottish Members on any Business which might be before Parliament at the present time.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked when it was proposed to take the next stage of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill? He understood that it had been fixed for to-morrow.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, the Government had not anticipated that the Bill would be taken tomorrow, when it was proposed to put down the Education Estimates as the first Order. They proposed, however, to proceed with the Bill on the earliest possible day.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS — FIXING OF POLLING PLACES.
  MR. HENEAGEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the action of certain magistrates at a formal meeting of the Quar-
  434
  ter Sessions for Lindsey, held to receive the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the Scheme drawn up by the Clerk of the Peace, after due consultation with the agents of both political parties, who expunged the Hainton polling place, leaving the majority of voters in that district from four to five miles to go to the poll at the next General Election, although Hainton was and is now a polling place for Mid-Lincolnshire, and the Hainton School-room is within three miles of all those resident in the district assigned to it; whether he is aware that some of the magistrates alluded to are connected either with the polling district or the petty sessional division of which it forms part, and that the whole scheme had been unanimously approved by the finance committee, advertised in the county papers, and generally assented to throughout Lindsey; and, whether there is any provision in any Act connected with Parliamentary elections which will enable the memorial of the inhabitants of the district to be heard, and the local authority to remedy this or any other grievance in those schemes, for providing polling places which have been already formally approved and adopted throughout the Country?
  SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he can point out, in the Acts of this or of previous Sessions, any provisions enabling persons to obtain redress in those cases in which the local authorities have not made adequate provision of polling places to enable voters to record their votes without too great loss of time and other inconveniences?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it seemed to him that the magistrates who had fixed the polling places had exercised a very wise discretion, and had done their best to meet the convenience of the district. The fixing of polling places depended upon the Acts of 18(37, 1883, and 1885, and the remedy to any person who thought that the provisions of the Acts had not been complied with was to move for a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to make proper appointments.

  ARMY—THE BOXER CARTRIDGE.
  MR. JERNINGHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a

  435
  Statement addressed to him by General E. M. Boxer on the subject of the alleged failure of the Boxer Cartridge in the late operations in the Soudan?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The transactions to which this Memorandum refers occurred 15 years ago. There is much controversial matter in the statement; and as the ordinary means of publication are open to General Boxer, I must decline to present it officially to Parliament.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the extraordinary importance of the subject, the Medical Belief Bill would be read a second time tomorrow, and whether he would also undertake to insert a clause giving a positive and direct instruction to the overseers to make out supplementary lists of voters who had been omitted from the regular lists through receiving medical relief?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could make no promise as to such a technical point as that suggested; but, of course, the President of the Local Government Board would attend to the matter, and, no doubt, if such a clause were necessary, would put it in. It was their wish to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible, and if they were able to have the Bill circulated to-morrow morning, they would ask the House to give it the second reading to-morrow.

  NAVY—FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADMIRALTY.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the form of the promised inquiry respecting the finances had been considered, and whether it would be departmental or would be a full and searching inquiry by a Committee of that House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): As Lord Northbrook proposes to make a statement on this subject in "another place" to-morrow, and considering the high position he has occupied, not only in the late Liberal Government, but in previous Administrations, it would not be
  436
  proper or courteous to him for the Government to publicly express the exact shape or nature of the inquiry they propose to institute until they are in possession of the statement which Lord Northbrook proposes to make.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—REPORTED DEATH OF THE MAHDI.
  MR. BRODRICK: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any official information of the reported death of the Mahdi?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE)said, the Government had received from official sources information to the same effect as that which was given in the newspapers; but there was nothing definite.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— RIOT AT WATERFORD.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received any information from Waterford respecting a very serious riot which took place there yesterday between the police and the military?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is the case, I am sorry to say, that a disturbance took place at Waterford yesterday. I have received the following telegram from the General Officer commanding in Ireland:—
  "Telegram just received from General Officer commanding Cork, reporting disturbance at Waterford last night between troops and civilians. One civilian stabbed by picket sentry and died. Troops confined to barracks and Court of Inquiry ordered."
  I can give no further information than is contained in the newspapers until the Report is received.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, ho saw by the Orders that the Crofters' Bill was marked with the asterisk as if it were a Government Order. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was intended to proceed with it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is a mistake; it ought not to be "starred."
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that, as there was no block against this Bill, if no one else did, he would move the second

  437
  reading of the Bill when the Order was reached.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: In the event of the second reading being moved, I shall move that the Order be discharged.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY; (SUPPLEMENTARY).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir Arthur Otway, this Vote for Men was laid on the Table of the House on the 27th of April last. It formed part of the preparations which were then sanctioned by the House in the Vote of Credit for various Departments. From some cause or other the Vote for Men was not then taken; but to a considerable extent the men themselves have been raised, and it has become necessary that a Vote should be taken in order to give legal authority to what has been done. No doubt, the late Government entertained a hope that it might not be necessary—I hope also that it may not be necessary now— that the whole force of 35,000 men should be raised. But the Vote having been laid upon the Table, and the circumstances under which it was asked for being now, to a large extent, the same as those which existed then, it does not appear to the Government that they can ask at present for a less number than 35,000 men. I share the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) on Thursday last, that the negotiations which are now proceeding may terminate satisfactorily so far as the delimination of the frontier between Afghanistan and Russia is concerned; but there can be no doubt that a delay-has occurred which, at all events, has prevented an agreement or understanding on that question, and, inasmuch as this Vote is part of the whole understanding on which Parliament sanctioned the Vote of Credit, it does not appear to me nor to the Government possible to ask for a loss number of men; but, at the same time, I may say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to call up the men
  438
  to the Colours if they are not required, and if the occasion does not arise. Between 11,000 and 12,000 men under the operation of the orders issued by the late Government have been called to the Colours, and they have responded with great alacrity to the demand made for their services. To that extent the numbers borne on the strength, of the Army are in excess of those authorized by Parliament at the present moment, and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to submit this Vote in the form in which I now submit it. I confess that I am reluctant, and as far as the Government are concerned they are reluctant, to ask for the whole Vote. We have entertained the hope that a complete understanding might have been arrived at with Russia before this period. While Her Majesty's Government have no intention to advance in any degree beyond the demands, with reference to the Afghanistan Frontier, of their Predecessors, the House and the country will feel that it is impossible for them to recede from the engagements which have been deliberately entered into by the Government of this country with the Ameer of Afghanistan. We hope that an arrangement may shortly be concluded; but, until it is concluded, we must maintain the condition of preparation which the late Government thought to be necessary, and which we ourselves believe to be necessary. I, therefore, ask for power from the Committee to raise the full number of 35,000 men if it should be deemed necessary.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further number of Land Forces, not exceeding 35,000 (all ranks), be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at Home and Abroad, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not propose to question in any way the discretion of the Government in moving this Vote for 35,000 men. I must, however, point out that the course which is being taken with regard to the Vote of Credit and this Vote is not absolutely consistent. This Estimate was laid on the Table at the same time as the Vote of Credit for £11,000,000, and it was then contemplated that a large increase of the Army should be made, not only by the process of suspending the

  439
  transfer from the Colours to the Reserve, but also by calling up a larger number of Reserve men to the Colours. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) stated to the House that, in consequence of the changed aspect of affairs, it was probable that the whole Vote of Credit for £11,000,000 would not be expended, and he stated what proportion of the sum would probably be spent, and what it would probably be necessary to provide out of the Ways and Means of the year. That Estimate has been in substance, as I understand, adopted by the present Government. A revised Vote of Credit, therefore, will obviously not provide for so large an increase in the Army as was asked for by the late Government. That portion of the Vote of Credit which was to have been expended upon guns and military stores in Egypt, of course, is not susceptible of much reduction; but, with the Ways and Means available to the Government, I may point out that it is not possible to provide for the 35,000 men asked for. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that an addition of some kind is necessary. From the process of retaining men with the Colours who would have passed into the Reserve there is, at the present moment, a considerable number of men in excess of the Establishment. What that excess will be it is impossible to say until it is decided how long the Proclamation suspending the men from passing out into the Reserve is to remain in force. It was not the intention of the late Government, or my intention, if no further change had occurred in the affairs of Afghanistan or in the negotiations with Russia, to have asked for the whole of these 35,000 men. I recognize, however, the force of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and on his assurance that it is not proposed to call out any further number of men unless they are absolutely required, I do not think it is necessary to insist on any reduction of the Vote, though, perhaps, a more logical course than that proposed might have been adopted. There is, however, one question which may be most conveniently asked on this Vote, and that is, whether the Government have formed any intention of increasing
  440
  the number of troops which it had been previously decided to retain in Egypt? The Committee will have seen, from the Papers presented the other day, that it is not intended to withdraw the troops on the Nile further than Wady Haifa; and that the Province of Dongola, as far as Akasbeh, and the railway, are to be held. I do not now want to criticize that position. As a matter of fact, no decision had been come to, as to what was to be done with the Nile Railway, when the late Government left Office; and it is not very clear what useful object can be served by the railway when the Province of Dongola and the principal positions in that Province have been relinquished in pursuance of the orders given by the late Government. But what I desire to ask is, whether that decision to complete the railway and to protect it would involve the detention, on the frontier of Egypt, of a larger Force than was previously contemplated. Lord Wolseley has stated in one of the Papers which have been presented, that the number of battalions of Infantry required, exclusive of the garrison of Suakin, for Egypt, Assouan, and the Nile Frontier is 12½ battalions. In a telegram presented in the Papers printed the other day, Lord Wolseley suggests that if it were intended not to retire from Dongola, it would be necessary to maintain 18½ battalions instead of 12½ battalions. As I understand no decision has been arrived at by the Government to retain Dongola, I wish to ask whether their decision to keep the railway and to protect it would, in their opinion, entail an increase of the Force for the police of Lower Egypt and the protection of the Nile Frontier, and whether such a decision would not diminish the possibility of the Force being very considerably reduced? In the Papers previously presented, the Committee will see that the Government accepted the advice of Lord Wolseley and General Stephenson on that point pending further consideration. They wore, however, of opinion that the Force mentioned as necessary to be retained in Egypt would, in all probability, be found to be excessive; and if there was no advance on the part of the Mahdi, they were inclined to think that it would not be requisite to maintain a permanent Force as large as that indicated by Lord Wolseley. But now, if a considerable

  441
  Force is to be employed in the protection of a railway considerably in advance of the frontier previously decided upon, it is doubtful whether such a reduction of the Force would be possible. The only question I desire to put now is, whether the Government have, in consequence of the decision to complete the railway and protect it, formed any opinion as to the increase of Force in Egypt that will be necessary?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE: I may at once reply to the noble Marquess that there is no intention on the part of the Government to increase the Force in Egypt by reason of the retention of the railway which has been in course of construction, and for which all the materials and the rolling stock are on the spot. The Government do not think it right, under all the circumstances of the case, that a railway which has been constructed at a considerable expense, and the construction of which had not been stopped when they took Office, should be forthwith abandoned. It was represented that the holding of that position would be a valuable strategical operation, and that it would enable us to check any rapid advance from the South. Under the circumstances, seeing that the railway would be behind the Force which would hold the head of the railway, it was considered desirable to accede to the wishes of the Officer commanding. There is, I repeat, no intention to increase the Force in Egypt, and it will give the Government satisfaction if, after consultation with Lord Wolseley, they find that it may be possible to decrease it. I can only repeat, so far as the original Vote is concerned, the assurance that I have given before. It is not proposed to increase the strength of the Army beyond the extent that may be required for the exigencies of the moment; but, on our responsibility, we think it our duty to ask for the amount of Force which I have stated, although we hope that we shall have no occasion to avail ourselves of the margin between the actual number of troops now enlisted and those which might be raised under the Vote.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would like to ask his right hon. Friend whether he would prefer that a general discussion on questions connected with the Army should be taken on this Vote for Extra Men, or on the Vote for the Reserves? It was import-
  442
  ant to know what would be the most convenient course for the Government and the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked for information in reference to the expenditure on the Expedition to Bechuanaland, how long their Forces would be continued there, and what had been the total expenditure already incurred? He also wished to know what would be the total expenditure in connection with the Soudan War, with the maintenance of the garrisons in Egypt, and for other purposes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I must leave it to the Chairman and the Committee to decide when a general discussion can most fitly be raised. As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that it should be taken on this Vote if, in the opinion of the Committee, that course is the most desirable, or on a later Vote upon which, I understand, it may also be properly taken. In regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I am sorry to say that I am not yet in possession of such decisive and dear information in regard to the operations in Bechuana-land as will enable me to give a complete answer to the question he has put to me. The Government hope, however, in the course of a few days, to receive information from Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Charles Warren, which will enable us to indicate to the House the course which we think it will be most expedient to adopt. As to the cost of the operations in Egypt, I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has addressed any question to me upon that subject. But if it is the wish of the hon. Gentleman to obtain the best Estimate that can be framed in regard to the cost of those operations, I will endeavour to obtain one; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be a very difficult matter to separate the charges of the War Office from the war provisions and the transport, and other expenditure, which go to make up the total cost of such an Expedition, unless such expenditure has been kept separate in the first instance. Nevertheless, if it is the wish of the hon. Gentleman, I will endeavour to do the best I can to supply the information,
  THE CHAIRMAN: What is there in this Vote which has reference to the question of Bechuanaland? As a rule, a general discussion in Supply has been allowed; but all other discussions have been confined strictly to the subject before the Committee, and, that being so, I am clearly of opinion that the proper occasion on which to raise a general discussion is on the Supplementary Vote for the number of Men. It has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the general discussion should be taken on the Vote for the Reserves. It would be entirely out of Order, and I should not be prepared to sanction a general discussion on the Vote for the Reserves; and I think that any general discussion which it is considered desirable to raise will undoubtedly be more conveniently and appropriately taken on this Vote.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, after the intimation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, he would at once enter upon the general questions he was anxious to bring before the Committee. In the first place, he would venture to say that never had a Minister for War succeeded to Office under more difficult and trying circumstances than his right hon. Friend had done on the present occasion. He believed that his right hon. Friend was perfectly right and justified in asking for these 35,000 men, and he was very much surprised at the tone of the remarks of the noble Marquess who had just sat down; because if there was any man who understood, or who ought to understand, the present position of affairs abroad, especially in regard to Afghanistan, Egypt, and Bechuanaland, it was the noble Marquess. He was perfectly ready to admit that the sum of money which had been asked for was not sufficient to pay or to keep these 35,000 men; but the noble Marquess knew perfectly well that of the 35,000 men, 10,448 had been already raised in excess of the number voted by Parliament at the commencement of the Session. The noble Marquess also knew that 2,537 had been summoned, and had joined from the Reserves. He was also aware that the number who had been authorized to join by their own application was 969, and that the estimated number of time-expired men who
  444
  were retained with the Colours was 4,100. And yet, with all these additional men, they had only at the present moment 10,448 above the Estimate that was voted at the commencement of the Session, or rather, he should say, at the commencement of the second Session, at the beginning of the present year. He had read with great interest a Memorandum which the noble Marquess had published, in which in the most honourable and creditable manner he had given full credit to all who had worked with him during the last two years at the War Office. He would venture, if the noble Marquess would allow him, as an humble Member, to do so, to give to the noble Marquess himself all the credit, which he thought every Member of the House was prepared to give to him, for having endeavoured, by every means in his power, to place the Army, it was necessary to send abroad, on the spot to which it had to go in a thoroughly efficient and effective state. He was glad that the noble Marquess had placed upon record his views with regard to all of those who had served under him; and he did not suppose that in so short a time any man had had to send out so many Expeditionary Forces— small, no doubt—to maintain the honour and dignity of the country. He believed that the good which the sending out of those Armies had done in the interests of the country was incalculable. It showed that they did not rely upon that timid policy which everyone abroad thought they held, and that they were not going to give up possession of the great and magnificent Colonies and Possessions which they had in South Africa without striking a blow for them. So far as Bechuanaland was concerned, they had showed that they were determined not only to maintain the honour and interests of this country, but to protect those Native Races whom they were bound in honour to protect. In regard to Afghanistan, the noble Marquess had, of course, been forced by circumstances to make every provision for placing an efficient Army in the field. Only the other night—and the House listened with great interest to the statement—they were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), that now that Penjdeh had been ceded, there was only one thing left for settlement—namely, the Zulfikar Pass,

  445
  The Penjdeh incident had passed away; this was the only one point at issue, and in reference to that Russia had given her word of honour that the Zulfikar Pass should be retained by the Ameer of Afghanistan. If he knew anything of his country, they would insist that Russia should keep her word; and this circumstance formed another reason why his right hon. Friend the (Secretary of State for War was bound to keep up the war preparations which had been begun by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess stated that he had equipped and sent out three Armies to serve in the Soudan. They all knew what happened in regard to the first Army; and all he would say was that the heroism and discipline of the British troops which composed that Army had never been better shown than at Tamai and El Teb. No finer discipline could have been displayed, and no troops could have been better handled by the officers than the Force which won the battles of Tamai and El Teb. The General Commanding had admitted that he had made a mistake; and he was not above stating it publicly in his despatch. Instead of attributing blame to anybody else, he was quite ready to take it upon his own shoulders. But that fact, instead of diminishing, greatly increased the force of the observation he wished to make to the Committee—namely, that the gallantry of the officers and the discipline of the men who fought those two battles was beyond praise. If the noble Marquess had deferred to the opinions of those who knew the circumstances best at the time, and had sent the Force on to Berber, the life of that noble and gallant man—General Gordon—might have been saved. But other things intervened; voices below the Gangway were heard; and the noble Marquess thought it better, after having sent the Expedition to Suakin, to withdraw it, and to leave Osman Digna to go on with the depredations ho had committed for so long a time. The noble Marquess sent another Expedition to Suakin more recently—a very large Expedition — to assist the Army of Lord Wolseley, struggling at the time, as it was thought, upon the Nile. That Army, numbering, if he recollected rightly, no loss than 12,000 men, was well equipped. He did not intend to enter into a description of all that had happened in the course of that
  446
  Expedetion; but he might, perhaps, be permitted to say that the gallantry, heroism, and discipline of both men and officers at Baker's Zareba were almost unparalleled. They had saved an Army from annihilation. Strange to say, no inquiry had been hold into the circumstances of that day. He would not ask what were the reasons why there had been no inquiry. He would only venture to say that in the Navy, whenever anything happened to a ship, or when anything went wrong, an inquiry was held, not for the sake of humiliating, degrading, or blaming any man, even if that man had not done his duty, but in order to see what was the excuse and explanation for the position in which the ship had been placed. He would not say one word against the gallant Officer in command on the occasion to which ho referred; but having regard to the number of killed and wounded, and to the utter distruction of the transport, he thought that, in the interests of the Army and of the gallant General himself, it would have been more satisfactory if some official inquiry had taken place, so that it might have been shown how it was that a well-disciplined Force, and a Force occcupying such a position, could have been overtaken by such a calamity as that which befel the Army at Baker's Zareba. The gallantry of the men and of the officers on that occasion stood out most conspicuously. They might educate men for the Staff at Colleges; but they could not put into them those soldier's brains, that eagle eye, and quickness of action, which alone made the soldier, whatever his learning might have been. He deeply lamented what had occurred at Baker's Zareba; but he had thought it right to mention these circumstances in the interests of the gallant men who fought at Baker's Zareba, and whose services had received scant notice and recognition, while honours had been conferred thickly upon others. In passing from that subject, he would only repeat that he had no desire to attach blame to any gallant officer; he simply thought that some inquiry ought to have been instituted, and that an investigation, in which all the facts would have been brought out, would have been much more satisfactory, not only to the gallant Officer in command, but to the Army which he had the honour of commanding. Then

  447
  there was the third Expedition—namely, the Expedition up the Nile—and he did not suppose that in the history of any country there had ever been a more laborious, or a more magnificent undertaking; and if it had only come to a successful termination it would have been one of the most brilliant achievements the Army had ever performed. It must not be forgotten that in a country like Egypt the climate was, to a great extent, similar to that of India, and yet the Expedition went up the Nile without any men to do the duty of camp followers. The men composing the Force were required, not only to row the boats themselves, but to do things of every sort and kind. Yet they never murmured or complained, but, whether Irishmen, Scotchmen, or Englishmen, cheerfully moved up to the front animated but with the one idea of doing their duty and doing honour to their Queen and country. When they found a body of men like those performing satisfactorily the her clean task they undertook, and overcoming every difficulty, he maintained that they deserved some special and signal mark of appreciation at the hands of Her Gracious Majesty. There was one action he would like specially to mention—namely, the battle of Abu Klea—if the Committee would pardon him for a moment. He held in his hand one of the most interesting accounts he had ever read of that action, from the pen of an officer serving with his own old regiment there, whose Commanding Officer said to him, before he went out—"Depend upon it there will be stirring times in Egypt. Therefore, whenever you have an opportunity, put down from day to day what occurs within your own knowledge, so that you may be able to give a truthful and accurate account of what happens under your own eyes." And what did that officer say?—
  "At about 8 o'clock the square was formed up and advanced. This was roughly our position."
  He should like to show the letter to the noble Marquess opposite. There was a sketch of the position marking where every regiment was placed, and where the guns were situated both in the front and in the rear of the square. These guns were all inside the square, the artillery in rear of the front, and the naval guns in front of the rear of
  448
  the square. The letter went on to say—
  "In advancing the fire was very hot, and the men began falling very thick. Dickson—now Colonel Dickson, of the Royal Dragoons—was wounded almost at once; so was Beach, of the 2nd Life Guards; they were both sent back to the Zareba. The skirmishers were then sent out to the flanks and front, and the enemy were seen retiring in numbers. On gaining the rising ground we came in view of a long line of the enemy's flags on the Wady on our left front. My first idea was that the enemy were retiring leaving their flags; but we soon found, to our cost, that this was not the case. At this period Lord St. Vincent, our adjutant, was shot on my right; he was placed on a cacolet. When we were some 600 yards or less from the flags we halted for a minute or two in a hollow. The ground was very hilly, rough, stony, and broken. In advancing again the order was given to bring up our right shoulders; at the same time we saw that the line of flags was by no means deserted, but that there was a dense mass of the enemy lying in the long grass. When about 300 or 400 yards from the enemy they rose up in three masses and advanced on us, wheeling round on the right, and keeping their dressing most beautifully. The skirmishers stopped to fire—a fatal mistake, as they masked our fire in running in. The Naval Brigade, with the Gardner gun, tried, at the same time, to come into action on the left rear corner of the square, but the square closing up to the front left them out in the cold. Colonel Burnaby ordered the 4th and 5th Dragoon Guards to wheel up and protect them. This caused more confusion, as they all got mixed up with our men. The Gardner gun was now run back and brought up between the Greys and the Lancers. The skirmishers, at the same time, ran in, causing more confusion. In much less time than I have taken to write this, the enemy came on with a terrible rush and were into us, and a hand-to-hand encounter took place. The right side of the square was on higher ground; they kept firing over our heads when we were driven into the camels diagonally. The camels, I fancy, although they were the cause of much confusion, ultimately saved a complete disaster, as they formed a dense mass which prevented the enemy from getting further."
  There was only one other passage he wished to read—
  "The Naval Brigade was driven back and had to leave their gun. However, we all made a rush forward and got them back. After 15 minutes or so the enemy broke and turned. After this there was frightful confusion, and it took a long time to get our men (such as remained) together. The enemy were seen retiring on all sides, and for some time we continued to fire on them."
  He believed that to be a fair and correct account of the battle of Abu Klea, and it showed that the enemy broke through and got into the square while Colonel Burnaby was trying to bring in

  449
  the naval guns. That caused the confusion which ensued, and the Guards, the Royal Sussex Regiment, the Mounted Infantry, and the Heavy Camel Corps were then enabled to display their discipline and courage, and those qualities which had made their fighting men the wonder and the astonishment of the world. He maintained that something more than ordinary compensation ought to be given to those men. Medals no doubt were very good things, and would be well received; but there was something more than that required. The men who had done that work had performed labour which in India and elsewhere would have been performed by camp followers. All their clothes had been destroyed, and, therefore, a considerable amount of batta ought to be given to them. He thought it was only right that that should be done, in the interests of the public and the interests of the Army, for men who had deserved so well and fought so bravely under a gallant and distinguished General like Lord Wolseley. They all knew that recommendations for honours had been made generously, but they knew also that those honours would not go very far; and it was necessary that the men should not only receive their full need of praise, but also the substantial recognition which he thought it was admitted their conduct deserved. He only desired now to say a few words in reference to the increase of the Army. He was one of those who had always believed, ever since short service was first adopted, that it could not possibly be of use unless the Army was increased by 10,000 men. But now, when they came to look at the calls upon the Army of this country, when they looked at their magnificent Empire, at the greater England far away from these small Islands, he thought no one, even among hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side, would say—"Not another man." He wished he could say—"No more war." If they wished to maintain their position, they could only maintain it by being prepared for war. It was because his right hon. Friend had just assumed the Office of Secretary of State for War that he wished to call his attention publicly to the matter, and to ask him to look carefully into this question of short service. Even the noble Mar-
  450
  quess opposite would not wish to send short service men to India, because he knew very well that they would not be able to do the duty required of them in that great Empire which, in the future, they would have still further to protect. If he was right in his contention, instead of withdrawing their Forces from India, they would have to increase them. What was it that they had generally done hitherto? They had invariably denuded the Army at home of old soldiers in order to keep up the Army in India; and the consequence was that whenever they had anything like a small war— such as the War in Egypt—on their hands, they were obliged immediately to call out their Reserves—those very men whom they ought to have in re-servo for a time of emergency. Some of them they had to send with the first Army Corps sent out, and others to fill up the regiments of young soldiers at home. This happened whenever they engaged in hostile operations, no matter how insignificant. He would point out to his right hon. Friend a circumstance which had been admitted by the noble Marquess opposite; and proofs might be given by the score, if any were wanted, of a similar state of circumstances in other instances. The noble Marquess did not deny that in two regiments sent to Gibraltar there were men who had never gone through their rifle exorcise, and who were unfit to be sent out in any way to a Station like Gibraltar. He could go into other cases; but he had simply mentioned this in order to show the Committee exactly what the state of affairs was. At Portsmouth, at Dover, at Aldershot, and in Ireland, it was impossible to find men enough in the same coloured uniform to do the duties necessary to be done in these garrison towns, and they found men in green uniform doing duty with men in red uniform; the reason being that there was not a sufficient number of efficient men belonging to the same regiments as the ordinary guards. He would go a step further. The noble Marquess said it was absolutely necessary to increase the depots at home when both battalions of a regiment were abroad; and with regard to 15 regiments abroad, the noble Marquess had increased the depots to 600 men. Here he would point out to his right hon. Friend that the one way to

  451
  mate the men efficient, and know their duty, was to have able and responsible officers and non-commissioned officers; by keeping them at the depot centres with the same officers and noncommissioned officers, and by treating them fairly, honourably, and reasonably, until they had learned their duty and their discipline as soldiers. No man ought to be placed in the ranks until discipline had been thoroughly taught to him, and he was able to understand it. To put men on sentry would not teach them what their duty was, and to put men on sentry who were only half-drilled led to all sorts of mischief. He ventured to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to that fact, and to remind him that those depots ought to be the places from which the men should be sent out to join their regiments, and that they should be large enough to furnish the men who were to go out to the battalion in the Colonies or in India. When they were filling up a regiment from home, the men they sent out ought to be in a perfectly trained condition. They ought to have a first Army Corps with every battalion that was necessary, and there ought to be a second Army Corps which could be mobilized whenever it was considered desirable, and into which, if necessary, might be put some of the Reserves. He did not think, for a moment, that the necessities of the country would decrease. Looking at the views and opinions now entertained by foreign nations in regard to colonization, and their desire to take every available spot of land for themselves, it became the more necessary for this country, both in regard to the Army and Navy, that they should absolutely be prepared for war. He had only one word more to add, and it had reference to the Cavalry. His hon. and gallant Friend near him the Member for South Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) called attention to the condition of the Cavalry in a speech delivered on the 19th of March last. His hon. and gallant Friend was justified in saying that there was not a single regiment of Cavalry which could be sent out complete in men and horses. They had at present six regiments of 600 men, with only 400 horses, and 13 regiments with 450 men and 300 horses. He would advise the Government to follow the example of France and Ger-
  452
  many. "What did those countries do with regard to their Cavalry and Artillery? They always kept those branches of the Service up to their war strength, because they knew very well that they could not make it up at a moment's notice. The Cavalry Reserve was all very well; but they would have to give the men training again before they could venture to send them upon active service. Of what use was a man who had not been upon the back of a horse for two years? At a pinch there was not much time for preparation, particularly if they got into a critical position; and noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen would be found coming down to the House and saying it was absolutely necessary that money should be voted for preparation even in the interest of peace. Let them now make preparations while they had time. He had ventured to submit those observations to his right hon. Friend, knowing that he could not alter the present position of affairs; but he hoped his right hon. Friend, by a firm bearing and by a determination to do that which was for the best interests of the country, would show foreign nations that they had lost none of those qualities which had made this country superior to others, not only in acquiring, but in maintaining the Possessions they had in India and elsewhere. He would ask his right hon. Friend to look carefully into all those matters, and to carry out such a policy and make such preparations as would keep them in that proud position which they had occupied for so many years.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend had made a speech which he was sure the Committee had listened to with much interest; but it was a speech of a character which was not perfectly original as proceeding from his hon. and gallant Friend, although it certainly sprung from a desire to secure the efficiency of the Service to which his hon. and gallant Friend belonged. No doubt the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet was one that was perfectly consistent with the Vote proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith). But the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted the Vote was, in his (Mr. Rylands) opinion, neither business-like nor satis-

  453
  factory. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and asked the Committee to give him a Vote of 35,000 men, while he said, at the same time, that ho did not want the men, and did not expect to want them. If the necessity arose it might be necessary to raise men, and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said the necessity existed now. The hon. and gallant Baronet was perfectly consistent, and he did not flinch for a moment from expressing the views he had on more than one occasion presented to the House. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that the men were wanted, and he was prepared to pass the Vote and follow up the consequence of that Vote—namely, by finding the money for paying 35,000 men. If the advice of the hon. and gallant Baronet was to be followed, and if they were to assert in Egypt the position the hon. and gallant Baronet invited them to assume, no doubt they would want those 35,000 men, and possibly a great many more than 35,000 men. But he (Mr. Rylands) asked the Committee to look at the question, in the first instance, as a Committee of business men. He would recall to their recollection what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) told them when he asked originally for 35,000 men. The noble Marquess and the Government, of which he was a distinguished Member, came down to the House under circumstances of great anxiety. He told them that an addition to the Army might be necessary in order to support the interests of the country; and he asked for a largo sum of money as well as an increase in the number of men, placing on the Table a Vote in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate for the proposed increase of 35,000 men. But a great many things had happened since the noble Marquess came down to the House, and among other things the late Prime Minister had made a most important statement to the House. Would any hon. Member get up and say that the condition of things was as acute, as difficult, and as dangerous as it was at the time the Vote of Credit and the Supplementary Estimate were laid upon the Table? He contended that the circumstances had entirely changed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) were to come down to the House
  454
  and tell them that he wanted a further sum of money—if he were to say, in fact, that it would be necessary to spend not only the Vote of Credit, but some millions more, ho could then understand a proposal for power to raise those 35,000 men; but he altogether objected to a Vote which gave to the Government the power of raising men which they themselves were not prepared to say were wanted. Not only so, but they would not have the means of paying for this additional number of men if they obtained power to raise them; and if they were raised it would be absolutely necessary to come down to the House for an additional sum of money in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. It was quite clear from the statement of the noble Marquess that the late Government did not intend to ask for this large number of men. The noble Marquess stated distinctly that he had kept this Vote from the judgment of the Committee, because he entertained strong hopes that this very large number of 35,000 men would not be required. He gathered from what the noble Marquess had said that evening that the late Government had arrived at the conclusion that it would not be necessary to ask for the full number of additional men, or for any larger number than the actual number which had been enlisted up to the present time. He was glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) in his place. He had been looking round for him with some anxiety. He was satisfied that his hon. Friend would not consent to give to the Government the power of raising 35,000 men when they could not affirm that they were really wanted, but, on the contrary, declared that they were not likely to want them. He would, therefore, propose to reduce the Vote from 35,000 to 12,000, which was the number, as he understood, that had actually enlisted, and the number which he gathered from the statement of the noble Marquess was considered sufficient for the purposes the late Government had in view. He believed it to be of the greatest importance that the Committee of Supply in that House should conduct their affairs in a business-like manner. He was quite prepared to believe, because he had always had reason to suspect it, that there had been a great deal of mal-

  455
  administration at the Admiralty for a long course of years. He did not know what might be the case in regard to the War Office; but the time was rapidly approaching when it would become necessary to investigate the manner in which the business of the country was carried on in all the great Departments of the State. There were certainly reasons to suppose that for the large amount of money expended year by year upon the Army the country did not get their money's worth. There appeared to be a want of business habits, and other circumstances which led to the greatest possible waste and confusion. Allusion had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B.Barttelot) to circumstances which had occurred in Egypt which had led to the destruction of a number of gallant men through the mismanagement of the officer in command. The greatest possible amount of consternation was produced in the minds of the people of this country when the intelligence was first received here; and ho would like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), before the discussion closed, to say whether he intended, in answer to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Baronet, to institute an inquiry? He could inform the right hon. Gentleman that the conduct of the Expedition to Egypt to which allusion had been made had been such as to create in the minds of the people of this country a considerable amount of anxiety and alarm. It was naturally asked how it could be possible, and, if so, why it was possible, that they could send out their brave soldiers to carry on the wars of this country, and allow them to be all but sacrificed through the disastrous results of a blunder? It might turn out that it had not been the result of a blunder; but, at any rate, the whole circumstances ought to be inquired into, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet that in all such cases there ought to be an inquiry, just as there was in the Navy. Whenever a ship was lost there was a court martial, and, in the same way, whenever any circumstance arose in connection with the administration of the Army to call for special comment, and which excited a suspicion that a serious disaster had barely been averted, it was not only right, but absolutely necessary
  456
  for the future well-being of the Army and the satisfaction of the country, that that circumstance should be fully and impartially inquired into. He had long been of opinion that in this country they ought not to go in for a large Army, but for a well-equipped and thoroughly accoutred Army; they ought to have a well-appointed and a well-trained Army, a perfectly efficient Army, and they ought to have behind that Army considerable Reserves in this country. He strongly objected to an over-grown Army intended to support a system of needless interference in foreign affairs, and in questions in which British interests were not concerned. He would cordially welcome any Government who would heartily set to work to secure efficient and well-trained men in conjunction with the economical administration of the Army. He entirely disapproved of voting an unnecessarily large number of men in order to justify a large expenditure upon them; and upon that account he did not sympathize with the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in his desire that the Government should increase the strength of the Army to 35,000 men. He begged to move that the number of men be reduced from 35,000 to 12,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further number of Land Forces, not exceeding 12,000 (all ranks), he maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at Home and Abroad, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."— (Mr. Rylands.)
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he did not rise to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), however desirable the hon. Member might believe it to be, to reduce the number of men on the score of economy. There was one thing which, in his opinion, was above economy, and that was efficiency; and when he found that there was agreement between the noble Marquess on the other side of the House, the late Secretary of State for War, and his right hon. Friend who now presided over the War Office, he certainly did not think, judging from the opinion of those high authorities, that there was much probability of the services of the whole of the 35,000 men being required. He took that opportunity of warmly congratulating his right hon. Friend upon his appointment,

  457
  although he had undoubtedly undertaken a most difficult task, as he had probably, by that time, found out. His right hon. Friend possessed great administrative talent, having had previous official experience not only at the Treasury, but also at the Admiralty; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would find that finance at the War Office was, at all events, superior to that which distinguished the administration of the Board of Admiralty. However that might be, he thought his right hon. Friend would not remain long in his present position without finding out that which almost all of his Predecessors had found out. Quot homines, lot sentential. His right hon. Friend would discover that he had a vast amount of skilled opinion to consider, and that a great number of schemes would be placed before him. Ho would also be required to deal with a considerable number of grievances of one sort and another; and he sincerely trusted that his right hon. Friend would form no opinion at present upon the conflicting claims and diversity of opinion likely to be placed before him. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had, with his usual force, placed before the Committee the very gallant conduct of their troops in the Soudan. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) thought there was not a Member of the House, whether a civilian or a military man, who would not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend as to the gallantry displayed by the troops. He would go further—if it were possible to go further —and say that the bravery displayed by the men, under the most trying circumstances, was commended by the united feeling of the House of Commons. His hon. and gallant Friend, however, went a little further, and had touched upon a somewhat delicate matter. The hon. and gallant Baronet had referred to what seemed to be at first a very serious disaster; but what, owing to the bravery of their troops, was converted into a victory. As he understood his hon. and gallant Friend, he asked for a court martial. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No.] At all events, his hon. and gallant Friend asked for an inquiry which might lead to a court martial. He believed that a Question was asked of the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for
  458
  War (the Marquess of Hartington) not many weeks ago upon the same matter; and the reply of the noble Marquess was that he had referred the question to Lord Wolseley, and that Lord Wolseley gave it as his opinion, as General Commanding-in-Chief, that if an inquiry was considered necessary he would institute one, but that he did not at present think the matter ought to go further. It was a very delicate matter. He had no wish—and he was sure that his hon. and gallant Friend did not wish—to cast undue blame upon any officer concerned in the matter. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No; I do not.] He quite believed that, and that his hon. and gallant Friend did not intend to impute blame to anybody; but, of course, when they came to inquire into circumstances of that kind, it was pre-supposed that the inquiry would, more or less, be made public; and if it were made public, no doubt a great deal might be said, when the results of the inquiry were laid before the House, which had better not be stated. He could not help thinking that an inquiry of this kind should be left entirely to the Commanding Officer in Egypt, and to the Executive Authorities at home. If they acted up to their duty, he believed the officer who was more particularly concerned would not escape blame, and might even incur punishment; but it would be a somewhat serious matter, at least as far as the officers themselves were concerned, if, through any misfortune, perhaps not of their own bringing about, they were to incur public blame, and be exposed to the ordeal of a court martial, and, probably, to a punishment still worse than a court martial. He, therefore, thought it was better, under the circumstances, that the Commander-in-Chief should use his discretion, and by private inquiry ascertain whether any of the officers were to blame, and, if so, ask them to resign their commissions. He admitted with his hon. and gallant Friend that a serious disaster had occurred; that it was the duty of the Executive to inquire into the cause of it; and he was convinced that if they were called upon they would do their duty in the matter. If he might be bold or presumptuous enough to offer one or two suggestions upon the general question to his right hon. Friend he would like to do so. He thought that

  459
  in all questions in regard to the Army and the number of men they were bound to fall back upon the question of efficiency as opposed to that of economy. He thought they were bound to trust to those who sat on the Treasury Bench to say what was required and what was not required; and from the experience he had obtained in Pall Mall he had never yet been able to learn that any estimate had ever been made of the actual number of troops required for the defence of the country, and for properly providing for the defence of their fortifications and garrisons abroad. He knew that the question had been considered, and he recollected a statement made by Lord Airey about it at the time that noble Lord was at the head of a Commission appointed to inquire into the whole state of their military defences. Lord Airey said at that time— and he (Lord Eustace Cecil) believed that it would still be found to be the case— that no estimate by experts and no evidence had ever been obtained, although there had been an immense amount of talk both in the newspapers and in the House of Commons, as to the exact number of men required for the defence of that Empire. They all knew that 130,000 were usually put down in the Estimates as the number that was required, and he had not a word to say about that. But there was a strong feeling among military men and among the public generally that a great many of the men were too young and too immature. The whole question of short and long service hung upon that. It was useless to think of long service again to any extent, because he was able to say, from his own experience, that men would not enlist for long service. Not one-fourth of the men that were required would think of enlisting for long service; and, therefore, they must adopt short service, and take what they could get. In the Army Estimates, at page 7, the Effective Forces were put down. He laid great stress on the word "effective." The Effective Forces required were 130,000 men. Now, he held that all men under one year's service were not effective; and, therefore, he should like to see in the Army Estimates in future a separation drawn and a distinction made. He thought it would be a very easy matter, when the House of Commons were called upon to vote
  460
  130,000 men, to show that out of that number there were probably 100,000 soldiers of more than one year's service, and 30,000, or whatever the number might be, who were under one year's service. The House would then be enabled to see exactly where they were. They would know the number of immature men they had at their command, and also the number of men they could count upon for the defence of the country in a case of emergency, or for defending their fortifications and garrisons abroad. That could not be a very difficult matter to arrive at. They had every year a Return given to them; but the public and the country, and even Members of the House of Commons, did not understand the Estimates, and were accustomed to run away with the idea that because 130,000 men were given in the Estimates, those 130,000 men were in a fit condition to be sent abroad to undertake any duty. There never was a greater mistake. Probably 35,000, or even more, of the entire number were simply recruits not at all fit for active service. He, therefore, thought it was only right that the men should be properly classified. He thought his right hon. Friend would understand what he meant when he said that in the Navy the boys were classified differently from the able seamen. The Committee at once understood that they were boys, just as they would understand that the young soldiers under one year's service were recruits; and then the House of Commons would be able to see, by taking into consideration also the number of the Reserves at the command of the War Office, exactly what the number of men was upon whom they could depend. He again said, as he had stated before, that he felt some sort of decision should be come to at the War Office as to the number of men that were actually required. He did not want more. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in that respect, and it was unnecessary to secure the services of one man more than was actually required; but what he did want was that every man who was placed in the Army Estimates as a soldier should be fit for duty, ready to go anywhere and do anything, and with less than that he, for one, would certainly not be satisfied. There was a third suggestion which ho desired to make to

  461
  his right hon. Friend, who might accept it for what it was worth. They had been told by Lord Wolseley, in a despatch laid upon the Table that morning, that their troops must remain in Egypt. He would read the exact words of Lord Wolseley—
  "You cannot get out of Egypt for many years to come."
  If that were correct—and ho had no doubt that it—was ho would not ask for a declaration of policy from the Government at that moment; but if that was the case, he thought they must cut their coat according to their cloth, and be prepared to send out troops which would be able to stand the climate. That led him to a matter which he had often advocated in that House, and he had advocated it also out of the House, both in writing and in other ways—namely, the employment of coloured troops. He found, on reading that most interesting book The Journal of General Gordon, that he was supported by General Gordon himself in his recommendation that there should be a further adoption, of coloured troops. He had over and over again spoken about this matter; and he could not help thinking that a return to the old policy of 20, 30, or 40 years ago would be a very wise step. There were then three West India regiments, a Ceylon Rifle Corps, a St. Helena Corps, and the Cape Mounted Rifles, besides all the coloured troops they had in India. What number of coloured troops had they now? If hon. Gentlemen would examine the Army List, they would find that there were only two West India regiments beyond and above the Sepoy regiments. If they were to hold North Africa, and to retain their position in Egypt, and to protect their large Possessions at the Cape and in South Africa, it was necessary that they should have troops able to stand the climate of the tropics. He would read the extract to which he had referred from General Gordon's journal. He did not think there ought to be the slightest difficulty in ascertaining what troops were necessary for service in India. He would not, of course, under the circumstances, think of choosing Arabs or Mahommedans; but it would be very easy indeed to take troops from other parts of Africa, troops who were certainly brave, and who would do good service if properly officered. Some time ago
  462
  he had asked a Question of the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) if it was true that a certain number of Zulus were to be enlisted for service in the Soudan? His Question was received with a sort of jeer by hon. Members from the Sister Island, and he was asked whether he wished to have savages employed? He had certainly no desire to see savages employed; but he did not see why any troops they enlisted for employment in the Soudan or anywhere else should be classed as savages. He had a personal acquaintance with the Kaffirs; and he believed that, if they were properly drilled and officered by Europeans, they would become as good troops as any they had in the Service. As to the question of savages, he believed that the people of civilized countries had committed acts in times of insurrection or revolution quite as horrible as any that had ever been committed by what were considered to be savage races; and he did not, therefore, see that this feeling with regard to savages applied to one race more than to another. But, however that might be, he was of opinion that there were in Africa men who, under proper discipline and led by proper officers, would be equal to any service that might be required of them. General Gordon was of the same opinion, and he would now turn to a passage in General Gordon's Journal which by accident he had come across that morning. At page 189 General Gordon said—he thought the Committee would bear with him while he read it, for no one had ever had greater experience of coloured troops than that gallant officer both in Asia and Africa. Therefore, ho did not know that he could cite a better authority than General Gordon, who said—
  "I believe that a good recruitment of Blacks and Chinese would give England all the troops she wants for Expeditions; mixed with one-sixth English, I would garrison India with Chinese and Blacks—with one-sixth English no Army could stand against us."
  That was General Gordon's recorded opinion, and whether General Gordon was right or wrong it was for others to judge. The view of General Gordon certainly agreed very much with the opinion he (Lord Eustace Cecil) had long entertained. The employment of coloured troops would also compare very

  463
  favourably with regard to the cost. There could be no question that the English soldier was about the most expensive article the country could possibly have. He fully admitted that, when they got him in perfection, no finer or braver man existed, and that he had always done and always would do very good service. It was calculated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), a good many years ago, that every English soldier of 20 years of age cost £100. There could be no doubt that every English soldier now cost £120, and possibly more; and when that was compared with the comparatively small cost of the Blacks, he believed that in the end, considering the vast Possessions they held, they must be driven to do something of that kind; and he, therefore, threw it out for the consideration of his right hon. Friend. He did not know that it was necessary to trouble the Committee much longer. He certainly felt very strongly indeed that, after all their discussions, of which this was probably the last in which he would take part in that House—but after all the discussions they had heard year after year from one side of the House and the other, it was almost a disgrace that they could not introduce some practical plan which could give satisfaction to all—not only to those inside, but those who were outside the House, who had a constant tendency to a scare. It was always being thought that this country was liable to be invaded, and it was always fancied, and sometimes feared, that they had not a sufficient number of troops to keep up the old prestige of England should the necessity arise. He maintained that such a state of things in a wealthy country like this, with men who had spent their lives in studying the wants and the requirements of the country; who had over and over again talked of them both inside the House and out of it—such a state of things, he maintained, was a disgrace, and especially when it was put on the ground of economy. It was the duty, no matter what Party was in power, of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty to come down and say—"So many men are required and so many ships, or otherwise we will not be responsible for the safety and honour of
  464
  the country." Until that was done there would be this constant scare in regard to invasion. Over and over again they were complaining of the want of military and naval power, and were making themselves almost the laughing stock of foreign countries in this matter, because they knew perfectly well that we had both the men and the money if we chose to employ them. The only reason why it existed arose from that miserable parsimony and economy which overtook hon. Members on both sides of the House when in Opposition, without any regard to the honour and glory of the country and the efficiency of its Military and Naval Services.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he regretted very much to hear, from a remark which had fallen from the noble Lord, who had just addressed the Committee, that they were about to lose his distinguished services. The noble Lord had had great experience in connection with military matters and was a very high authority. He (Sir George Balfour) did not think that the Army had been kept in an efficient state for some years past. Having, during his service, had occasion to assist in deliberations, and to make calculations for Army organizations, he had formed the opinion that it was almost impossible to collect data by which to fix on the strength to be maintained. The one guiding rule was money, and that could only be fixed by the nation; but this principle could and ought to be acted on —that whatever might be the number of men required the Army ought to be kept in an efficient state. He wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the necessity of calculating very carefully the number of men required during one year by the several branches of the Service, and then provide for maintaining the depots in a state of efficiency. One of the things they had always had to complain of was the insufficient state of the depots. An examination of the monthly Returns showed that for some years past the fixed Establishment of the depots had been quite insufficient, the actual number in depots being double the number allowed—that meant that the battalions had been kept below their strength in order to fill the depots. This drain, added to the number of men wanting to complete, had resulted in the

  465
  active Forces being 10,000 below the Establishment. He also wished to know how long it was intended to maintain the Native troops at Suakin? It was not politic to require Native troops to garrison places not fit for European soldiers.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, it was an important fact, and one worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government, that up to a recent date very few men in the Reserve had availed themselves of the Order of the late Secretary of State for War to come back to the Army. He believed that the result would have been very different had certain advantages been offered to the men. The Committee would remember that he had already drawn attention to that subject. Everyone desired to see old soldiers retained in the Army; but he was convinced that it was impossible to keep a proper proportion of old soldiers in the Army until some alteration was made in the present system of deferred pay, which, as it stood at present, was an inducement to men to leave the Colours and go into the Reserve. He thought, in the interest of the Service, that the system should be done away with, and that instead of the payment of a sum of money a free ration should be given. He could cite Lord Wolseley himself as an authority in support of the view which he was now recommending. Lord Wolseley had pointed out with reference to the recent Campaigns that the men had not only done their duty well, but cheerfully, a fact which he attributed to the good quality of the food which they received. He (Colonel Colthurst) thought it clearly established that the ration given at home was scarcely sufficient for the men, who might be said to be enlisted in this country on false pretences; because, although they were told they would get 1s. a-day and free rations, they found after enlistment that 2d. or 3d. a-day were deducted from the amount promised them. He believed the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the War Department could not do anything that would be more beneficial to the Army in the sense he was speaking of than to give the men what they wore told they would get when they joined the Service—namely, a free ration. He sincerely hoped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be directed to that point; and he ven-
  466
  tured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should also consider whether some other inducements could not be held out to men to rejoin the Army— men who, although they might find it difficult to get Civil employment, would not return to the Colours on account of the many changes that were made, and the general state of uncertainty which prevailed.
  SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he had no desire to extend the discussion on this Estimate, but simply rose to make a very few remarks with reference to the inquiry which it was suggested should be hold on the subject of what had occurred in the Soudan. He ventured to point out that hon. Members would do well not to place any great reliance upon information received from abroad, which very often came from irresponsible persons, whether newspaper reporters or officers in the Service. It seemed to him that in dealing with this matter the only person to whom they could look for sound information was the Commander-in-Chief himself, Lord Wolseley. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said that he desired to have an inquiry instituted in the interest of the officers themselves. But he would observe that when things of that kind were once set on foot, information did not always come forward in the way they would like; and, therefore, he was of opinion that no advantage would result from the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend. If any inquiry were needed, he thought it should be instituted with reference to the uncertainty of the orders given to the Commander-in-Chief in the recent Campaign, but that the proposal for such inquiry should come from the Cabinet alone. He was induced to believe that, had the orders given to the Commander-in-Chief with regard to the friendly tribes been more distinct, his difficulties would have been greatly diminished. There was one point to which he desired to call attention. In his opinion, there was both difficulty and danger in putting rifles into the hands of soldiers not thoroughly trained to their use. He considered that full instruction was necessary for the use of the rifle, and he had reason to believe that accidents had occurred to Cavalry soldiers from the want of such instruction. In con-

  467
  clusion, he repeated his opinion that no useful purpose would be served if the inquiry into the war in the Soudan suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend were instituted.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) had quoted Lord Wolseley to show that the troops in the Soudan had done so well because they had good food. But if his hon. and gallant Friend had studied Lord Wolseley's despatches, ho would have found that that was not entirely due to having good food, but to the absence of drink. He was glad to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) making this Motion. His hon. Friend was addressing the Committee when he entered the House, and it reminded him of old times to hoar him pitching into the extravagance of the Government, and he said to himself —"There is one live Radical loft." But if they were to go on with the old policy adopted of late years by the country, sanctioned by a large majority in the House of Commons and by the late Government, it would appear that, so far from Her Majesty's Government having asked for too many men, they had not asked for half enough. What was that policy? It was a policy of invading, robbing, bombarding, and ravaging unfortunate countries who were weaker than ourselves. Upon that policy, whether pursued by Liberal or Conservative Governments, he looked with the utmost horror; he regarded it as a policy hateful in itself and injurious to the best interests of the country. He hoped that when they had a new House of Commons and a new electorate a total change in those things would be brought about. He did not know whether it would be so; the new electors might be as warlike as the old ones; but he looked for a better state of things, in which the great Armies they were now called upon to vote would find no place. For those reasons, he should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for the reduction of the Army; and he trusted that it would lead to the country not having in future a great number of men wherewith to work out these national crimes.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, it was true that they had had several wars in the last
  468
  three years; but he did not wish to characterize the policy of the Government with regard to them quite so strongly as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had done. In the opinion of some, there had been no great strategy shown by the officers commanding. The men had fought extremely well; but they were told that their good behaviour was largely owing to the fact that they had had good food and very little drink. That brought him to the point he wished to lay before the Committee. Ho asked what did the private soldiers get out of all this? In some countries they got a good deal of plunder; but in our Campaigns, with the exception of a medal or two, they got nothing whatever. He would go farther and say that now that they had household suffrage, ho did not think it wise to shut out the private soldier from distinction in the profession of arms. That had certainly been the policy of the late Government. In his opinion, there was only one way in which they could improve the position of the private soldier, and that was to open a career to him by giving a certain number of commissions to men in the ranks. Of course, the greater number of soldiers would only rise to the rank of Captain; they would not all become Generals or Field Marshals, although some of them might do so. But what was the case at present? There was the position of Quartermaster, which was given to men who had been Quartermaster's clerks, whoso duty it was, amongst other things, to take an account of the stores of the regiment. Those were men taken from their duty as soldiers and put to a useful occupation; but he did not think that those commissions led to anything of advantage to the men. Then there was the position of Riding Master; they were extremely useful men in a regiment, but their rank did not lead to anything. But, leaving out those, he asked how many commissions were given to private soldiers in the course of last year? He had on a former occasion put that Question to the Secretary of State for War, and the reply was that there were 20. Now, that he considered an extremely inadequate amount of promotion as open to the private soldiers in the Army; and he was strengthened in that opinion by the remarks of historical

  469
  writers, one of whom remarked that no country ever succeeded in arms unless promotion was in keeping with the general feeling of the people. Even of the 20 commissions referred to, ho was told that a large proportion were obtained by gentlemen — not private soldiers, in the ordinary sense of the word—who went into the ranks in order to work their way up to the rank of officer through that of Sergeant. He did not object to those men having commissions; but he would not leave out the ordinary private soldier, who had perhaps few friends, and no influence at the Horse Guards. He would say that a commission should be within the reach of a Sergeant Major, who, as a rule, was a good soldier, and was possessed of a good deal of smartness which every officer was not. The number of commissions could be very largely increased, and the present number was so small that that might be done without decreasing the number of commissions given to the Militia. The Militia system, during two or three years, had worked well; but now men went into the Militia to get a commission in the Army, so that, practically, there was a return to the old system of nomination. A considerable number of those nominations were made by the Lord Lieutenants of counties, and very few reached the men in the ranks. They were not given to them, but to men who had gone in for two or throe years to qualify, against whom he did not say one word, but between whom and the ordinary private soldier there was a great difference. Ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would increase the number of those commissions, and make them bonâ fide the reward of those who had done their duty in the ranks. They were familiar with the conduct of the troops in recent Campaigns; they had read of 12,(100 contending with 10,000 savages; they had seen them without water standing still in square, exposed to the attack of those savages; but what benefit did the private soldier derive from his courage? For his own part, he should like to see 10 or 20 commissions given to the Sergeants who fought at Tel-el-Kebir and at places on the Red Sea, as well as a considerable number to privates, and that without their going through any test. That he was convinced would produce a totally
  470
  different feeling in the ranks of the Army. At present, he contended that nothing was done for the private soldier, although some of those who joined the ranks for the purpose of qualifying were promoted, and got in some eases large rewards. He could quote the case of a man in one of the recent Campaigns who had been promoted without having worked his way up. He happened to be acquainted with his family, one of the best in the county, and he knew that he went in to qualify. But, as he had said, there was nothing done for the private soldiers in the way of giving them commissions, for the Quartermasters and Hiding Masters were not Commissioned Officers; and, therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would do something to make the private soldier feel that a commission was within his reach if he did his work well.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he wished to express the great gratification he felt at seeing the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) sitting on the opposite side of the House. He could remember the time when hardly a single Estimate passed through Committee without his criticism, although he regretted to say that during the last five years he had been almost completely silent; and the consequence of that was that the National Expenditure had risen from £75,000,000 to £85,000,000, and this year to £100,000,000. The hon. Member's speech that evening had a business-like sound; but he would like to hear some reason for the vote which the hon. Member was asking him to give for the reduction of the number of men. He would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realty knew anything about the matter? Did he know how many men were wanted; did he know what they were doing and what were the services required of them? He had not heard from the hon. Member a single argument showing that he had anything beyond a general acquaintance with the subject; all that he had said with regard to the Vote was that too much money was being spent. He ventured to remind the hon. Member, as a business man, that, in maintaining our Army and Navy, they were simply paying for their insurance, the cost of which must increase, as in the case of private persons, with the increased value of their

  471
  property. He saw no reason whatever for supporting the Motion of the hon. Member.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that the present system of retirement, both as regarded the Army and the Navy, caused the country to lose the services of many excellent and competent officers, and, moreover, created discontent in the Service, and even prevented men entering the Naval and Military Services. They had given the best years of their lives to those Professions. Many men who were perfectly efficient would rather give up their pensions than leave their Profession; and, therefore, he appealed to the Secretary of State for War to consider whether some mode of changing the present system of retirement could not be devised by which the services of those very competent officers could be retained.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the Secretary of State for War a grievance which he had drawn attention to earlier in the Session. He had had cause to bring the case of the Quartermasters before the Committee; and he now rose to express the hope that, notwithstanding the change of Government, the grievance of those men would not be lost sight of, and that Her Majesty's Government would give it their favourable consideration. The Quartermasters believed that they had the sympathy of many officers in the Army and at headquarters, who knew how to appreciate their services; but they were, at the same time, under the impression that there was some influence at the back of those connected with the Army that pulled against them. He had no intention of going over the case again on that occasion; but he ventured to say that if the right hon. Gentleman would do him the favour to read what he had stated on this subject earlier in the Session, he would find that the Quartermasters had a grievance, and that he had made out a strong case for its removal.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend near him the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) had attributed the failure of the Camel Corps to the inability of the Cavalry men to handle the long rifle. But he should have thought his hon. and gallant
  472
  Friend would have known that the mechanism and construction of the weapon was the same as that which they were accustomed to. It was of the game form, took the same cartridge, and was the same in all its parts; and, therefore, he was of opinion that, whatever failure there might have been in the Camel Corps, it was not due to that cause. He wished to bring before the Committee the necessity there was for endeavouring to organize a Mounted Infantry Corps. The value of Mounted Infantry was increasing almost every day, with the extended area now covered by military operations in time of war. The possibility of transporting troops by railway had also rendered it necessary to countervail those movements by Mounted Infantry. In Russia he believed there were in the Army about 50,000 Mounted Infantry, and all agreed that our Mounted Infantry had done good service in Egypt. There was no parallel between Mounted Infantry and Cavalry; the Mounted Infantry fought on foot, the camel or horse being merely the means of transporting them, whereas the Cavalry soldier fought on horseback, and the horse was his weapon. Therefore he said that no increase in the Cavalry would do away with the necessity of increasing the number of Mounted Infantry. The latter were carried by horses or camels to points whore they were wanted in good time; by means of these animals they were also able to make longer marches than they could otherwise make; and when they arrived at their point they dismounted and fought on foot with the long rifle. He also thought it would be an advantage to have an addition of mounted men to every regiment. At present an Infantry regiment was unable to stir unless it had a Cavalry escort, which it was not always easy to obtain. As a matter of fact, scouting could not be done by men on foot to any effective extent, and his proposal to the Secretary of State for War was that there should be attached to every Infantry regiment about 20 horses, which number bethought would probably be sufficient for training some 80 men. If they were to have mounted men at all it was necessary that they should be thoroughly instructed in the management of horses, because without that knowledge a man would soon give a horse a sore back. He believed that

  473
  his proposal, if adopted, would have the result of making the Army more effective than it was at present, by forming the nucleus of a corps of mounted men, which would be very useful in time of war.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he did not see how any hon. Gentleman sitting on that (the Liberal) side of the House could hesitate to support his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands). When they recollected the circumstances of the proposal of the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Hartington) it would be remembered that there was a crisis, an emergency—that the country was supposed to be in peril when this extraordinary Vote of 35,000 men was proposed. But surely it was recognized on both sides that the emergency had passed away, and that the danger no longer existed. Confirmation of that fact was given, because the money was not asked for to maintain the difference between 35,000 men and the number already enlisted. He thought it would be well to resist the temptation to increase the Army unnecessarily. What would the men cost supposing they were enlisted? Something like £3,000,000 per annum in addition to the present expenditure. Surely the expenditure was already sufficiently large and extravagant; and it could not be contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), in the present political state of the country and their foreign relations, that those men should be called in. The moral effect of reducing the number of men from 35,000 to 12,000 would be felt not only in this country, but in Europe at large. In the present overgrown military and naval systems in what were called civilized and Christian countries the world was in constant and increasing danger of a breach of the peace. They in this country were supposed to have a control over their military and naval expenditure, and over the Heads of those Departments; and if, under present circumstances, they had not the moral courage to say that as the danger had passed away, and there was no further call for the men at that moment, the expenditure should be reduced, they would be missing a great opportunity of returning to the path from which, unfortunately, they had wandered far away to the injury not only of this country, but of Europe in general.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not intend to refer to a good many of the subjects that have been touched upon in this interesting, but rather discursive discussion. Hon. Members have mentioned the two discussions which have already taken place on the Army Estimates, and in which I have taken part. I do not wish to repeat anything I have already said, and the only two points I consider it necessary to refer to are the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and a matter I shall touch upon subsequently. I am not able to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The Supplementary Vote for Men which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), and which has been put from the Chair, is a Supplementary Vote which was laid on the Table by myself as a responsible Member of the late Administration; and I should, therefore, be in a considerable difficulty in voting against it. It is true, as has been said, that circumstances have changed to a certain extent; and it is extremely probable that if the late Government had remained in Office they would have withdrawn the Supplementary Estimate and proposed one containing the same wording, but of another figure. However, taking into consideration the assurances given, it does not appear to mo that the Commit-too should take such an extreme course as to reject the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has admitted that circumstances are changed. He says he believes—he not only hopes, but believes—that there will be no necessity for calling to the Colours the number of Reserve men required to make up the 35,000. But he is unable to state, and the other responsible Ministers are also unable to state, that the circumstances which rendered it necessary to ask for a large increase to the military resources of the country have changed to such an extent that all danger has passed away, and to give Europe the impression that this country is no longer under the necessity of making or maintaining any increase to those resources. That I understand to be the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with the Government that it would give a false impression, and perhaps be raising false hopes, and placing the country in a position of false security, if we were to

  475
  make alterations in the Supplementary Estimates at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has assured the Committee that the men will not be called out unless it is absolutely necessary that they should be; and, under the circumstances, I do not think that we should be running any risk whatever, but that, on the contrary, we should be strengthening the hands of the Government, by agreeing to the Motion which they have proposed. I cannot vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The only other subject to which I wish to refer is that dealt with by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who referred to the great cause which the House and the country has to be grateful to the officers and men who have taken part in the numerous Expeditions which this country has sent out. I have on past occasions endeavoured to render my humble tribute to the manner in which all ranks have conducted themselves in those Expeditions; but this, I think, is hardly the occasion to enter upon the subject, more especially when we know that the Government intends, before the Session closes, to give an opportunity to Parliament to express publicly their thanks to those who have taken part in the Campaigns. Regret has been expressed that an inquiry has not been held into the occurrence at Baker's Zereba, in which General M'Neill was concerned. I gave the House, some time ago, the substance of a despatch which the late Government received from Lord Wolseley upon the subject, and his reason for holding the opinion that any such inquiry could not be conducted with advantage, but, on the contrary, with disadvantage, to the Service. The House and the country were at the time, I believe, satisfied that there was considerable force in that opinion. The practice of trying Commanding Officers in the Navy by court martial when a ship is lost or injured may be a practice very well adapted to that Service; but I doubt whether it is a practice that could be introduced with advantage in the Army. At any rate, it could hardly be introduced except in the case of an actual reverse; and whatever criticism may have taken place of the operations at Baker's Zereba, the result cannot be described as a reverse. Though we suffered very severely, especially in
  476
  our transport, the surprise ended in a vigorous repulse and discouragement of the enemy, and the destruction of a large body of his forces. Under what circumstances is it proposed to lay it down that there is to be an inquiry? Is it proposed to lay it down that there is to be an inquiry not only when there has been a reverse, but when there has been a success also? If we are to have inquiries with regard to these operations we must have one after every action that takes place, because hardly any action could take place without some of the officers present who are not responsible to the Government, or some of those irresponsible Civil gentlemen who now so numerously accompany our troops on active service, being of opinion that it could have been conducted in another and a better way. I am of opinion, as Lord Wolseley suggested, that the officer who will not risk something is not the officer we want at the head of our troops, and that the officer who will not take responsibility is not the kind of officer we should have. An officer who has responsibility is extremely likely to do something which will be criticized and will not meet with the approval of officers who have no responsibility. It has been said that a court martial need not be constituted to inquire into this matter; but I do not know in what other way the inquiry could be conducted. The facts are simple enough, and are perfectly well known. Whether mistakes occurred or not, there has been, as far as I know, on the part of all the officers concerned, the most complete frankness and straightforwardness in the statements that have been made as to what occurred. There is no difference of opinion, as far as I know, in any of the accounts. The orders given by the General, and the way in which they were executed, are perfectly well known to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, to the Adjutant General, and to the other Military Authorities; and all that is to be done is for them to decide whether blame or censure should be passed in consequence of the orders given and carried out. As I stated some time ago, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief intends to wait until the return of Lord Wolseley to this country before he alters the opinion which he has formed upon the matter. He wishes to

  477
  consult his Lordship as to the impression ho formed of what took place; and after such consultation he will consider whether or not any expression of opinion on his part is or is not necessary. As the Committee is aware, Lord Wolseley returned to London to-day. His Royal Highness will now have the opportunity of consulting him upon the subject; and until he has taken advantage of that opportunity it appears to me that any expression on the part of the Committee as to the necessity of an inquiry is altogether uncalled for, and would tend to lower the prestige of the Army. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any other subjects that have been referred to, and I will conclude by saying that I am unable to support the Amendment.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he hoped that some inquiry would be held as to the disaster which occurred to General M'Neill's Zereba. All who had read an account of that disaster must be convinced that there had been an utter absence of proportionate caution on the part of the Commander. If ordinary precautions had been taken, judging from the reports sent home, the disaster could not have occurred. The excuse made by the noble Marquess for not holding an inquiry was that it would tend to decrease the confidence of the rank and file in their officers, or deter the rank and file from properly performing their duties.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I did not say that.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he begged the noble Marquess's pardon. He was merely drawing an inference from the noble Marquess's statement. The noble Marquess seemed to think that an inquiry of this kind would have a tendency to lower the prestige of the Army and destroy the patriotism of those who composed the rank and file. He (Mr. Gourley) held a contrary opinion, and, in spite of what had been said against the view, considered that a course should be pursued similar to that adopted in the Navy. If a vessel took the ground or came into collision, or if any other accident happened to her, however trivial, a court martial was held on the officer in command. What was the effect of that? Why, it had a tendency either to clear the officers and men from blame, or place it on the proper shoulders and
  478
  create more care in the future. In the same way an inquiry into a disaster in the Army, such as that which had occurred to the force under General M'Neill, would have a tendency to increase the confidence of the rank and file in their Commanders. An hon. Member who had spoken had excused General Graham in regard to his first disaster in the Soudan, because he confessed he had made an error; but the hon. Member had forgotten this fact—that nearly the whole of the Naval Brigade under that General's command had been almost cut to pieces owing to faulty square. There ought certainly to have been some inquiry on the part of the War Office into the disaster that had befallen that force. But what had happened in the case of General Graham? Why, he no sooner reached the Soudan, than apparently he commenced to make similar blunders to those ho made during his first Campaign. Therefore, without troubling the Committee further, ho did hope that, inasmuch as in answer to a Question he (Mr. Gourley) had put to the ex-Secretary of State for War when he promised to make some inquiry, he would not follow the advice of the noble Marquess, but would cause a strict inquiry to be made into the causes of the disaster which befel the Zereba under General M'Neill's command.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am obliged to confess that I do not possess the confidence or the knowledge which the hon. Gentleman appears to possess, and which would render me capable of at once saying, of my own knowledge, that those who have served their country have mismanaged and misconducted the operations which have been intrusted to them. For my own part, I prefer to rely upon the advice of the noble Marquess, who was responsible for the Army when the transaction occurred; and I believe that the course taken by the noble Marquess was wise and just, and that nothing could be more injurious than to call an event of this kind a disaster, when it has brought into light some of the best characteristics of the English soldier. Whatever may have been our loss—and, no doubt, there was lamentable loss of life —the loss inflicted upon the enemy was crushing and complete. It is notorious that the enemy, of whose bravery and adaptability for war it is impossible to

  479
  speak too highly, has not stood up again against our Army since that engagement. That was the last action fought in the Soudan, and that was the last time the enemy stood up before our soldiers. I will not pursue the subject further, as an opportunity will soon be afforded of doing justice to the, I was going to say marvellous, bravery of our troops. They have been exposed, under circumstances of great difficulty, to dangers from which ordinary men would have recoiled; and they have maintained the character of Englishmen in a manner which must make us proud of the services they have rendered to their country under conditions excessively trying. In a climate which, under ordinary circumstances, would deprive men of vigour and power, they maintained the character of English troops and the soldier's reputation. I have received a great deal of most excellent advice, and I wish to tender to hon. Gentlemen my warm thanks for the kindness that has prompted them to give me that advice. I can assure them that, so far as I am able, I hope to give good effect to everything that I find of a practical nature in that advice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has already warned me that he will exercise the greatest possible vigilance over the War Department now that we have changed sides. We all know that he is capable of denouncing extravagance and maladministration in the warmest and most eloquent terms; and I hope he will keep a vigilant watch on me. I can assure him that I will give him every assistance I can to stimulate economy and improve the efficiency of the Department as long as I have the honour to preside over it. But I must demur to the suggestion that, because I happen to sit on this Bench, I am willing to be a party to any extravagance or to any expenditure that, in my opinion, is not required for the defence and security of the country. I have been reminded of the necessity of looking to efficiency as well as to economy. I entirely accept that view. Hon. Gentlemen have told us that we must have, not a large Army, but a well-appointed Army, and a thoroughly efficient Army, with large Reserves. I entirely agree with them, and I hope they will support the Secretary of State for War, whoever he may be, in securing that this
  480
  Empire shall possess, not a large Army, but a well-appointed and efficient one. I do not think any Administration, whether composed of Members on this side, or on the other side of the House, desire the Army to be formed on any other principle. Well, an hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I do not now see in his place, spoke of the number of men who join voluntarily from the Reserves; and I may, perhaps, be allowed to say one word as to how the men came out from the Reserves. The men of only 15 regiments were called out, numbering 2,492, and of these 2,309 responded to the call, a circumstance which reflects the highest possible credit on the men themselves, and which shows the extent to which we can rely upon the Reserves in time of emergency. The hon. and gallant Member also asked how many had joined voluntarily. Well, out of the 15,000 now serving, 9,000 joined voluntarily, and have returned to the Colours. I should only be detaining the Committee at a moment when there is no reason for doing it if I ventured to go back on the many suggestions that have been made in the course of this discussion. I should like to have referred to the valuable suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram); but if he will permit me to study the information that has been given to me, I hope at some future time to be better qualified than I am now to express an opinion upon it, and upon many other suggestions which have been made. As to the particular Vote before the Committee, I have said already that I hope it will not be necessary to call for the men; but, upon my responsibility, I believe the best course to take is to furnish the Government with a Force that will be sufficient if the necessity for it arises and an emergency should occur. I trust that no such emergency will arise.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 98: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 220.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
(2.) £606,000, Volunteer Corps.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid that, in his opinion, the 215,000

481
Volunteers, who were found ready to devote their time to the service of the country, deserved to be assisted in every way. In many instances, at present, the Volunteers had to spend very large sums of money not only for drill sheds, but for rifle ranges, and many of the latter were entirely inadequate. There were two questions which never ought to be lost sight of; one was the discipline of the Force—and he thought every-one would say that the Force had of late improved very much in discipline— and the other was that they should be taught to shoot accurately, because that was one of the main objects for which they were organized. The Volunteers had neither great coats or packs, or any of the things which were essentially necessary should the men be called out. He did not ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) to do anything in a hurry, but to consider what was the best way of dealing with a question which he was perfectly certain would commend itself to every right-thinking man in the country— namely, the question of promoting the efficiency of the Volunteer Force. When they found men willing to give up their time to the service of their country, every assistance should be afforded them to become proficient in the duties they had to perform. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give to the Volunteer Force those advantages which they required and deserved.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he should like to express in a few words a similar view to that of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He did not think that anyone who looked upon the Volunteer Force as an important element in their national defence could be quite satisfied with the state of things which sometimes occurred. When Rifle Corps or Artillery Corps were obliged to make up their necessary expenses by resorting to bazaars and other expedients of that kind, it did suggest the question whether the country was doing its duty by the Force. And the question of expense had a great bearing on one very important element of the Force— namely, the officers. He believed that if an investigation could be made it would be found that many gentlemen
482
whom it was very desirable should join the Volunteer Force were deterred from accepting commissions because of the great expense in which they would thereby be involved. In the case of most of the Volunteer Corps, it was absolutely necessary for a man who took a commission to be prepared to put his hand in his pocket and spend a considerable sum of money annually. Volunteer officers were now required to undergo a rigorous examination in tactics and other matters, and it was very desirable that no unnecessary obstacles should be put in the way of their serving their country. The wants of the Volunteer Force had been put forth in a concrete form. It had been suggested that a 10s. addition to the efficiency grant would go very far to remedy the existing deficiency; and he suggested to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) that between now and next year he should take into his very earnest consideration whether it was not desirable to increase the efficiency grant, and so make the Volunteer Corps less burdensome than they now were on those required to maintain them. As to the numbers of the Force, it would be found that on page 40 the number of Artillery provided for this year was 38,283. Under the heading 188–, ho found that the number was 38,898, showing a nominal decrease in that arm of the Service. Looking at the Volunteer Returns, he could not make out how that decrease could have happened; but now he understood that there was a misprint in the Estimate, and that the number entered for last year should be 36,000 instead of 38,000. As a matter of fact, each arm of the Service except one was in a state of numerical development, the one arm of the Volunteer Force which was not in that happy condition being the Mounted Rifles. Judging from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had said with reference to the importance of Mounted Infantry in the Regular Army, he thought it was a matter of some concern to those who took an interest in the Volunteer Force that the Volunteer Mounted Rifles should be decreasing in numbers. The policy of the War Office had been to bring the Volunteer Force into closer contact with the Regular Army, and if Mounted

483
Rifles or Infantry were to be a portion of the Establishment of the Regular Array, he suggested for consideration whether some attempt should not be made to have a mounted squad or troop in connection with each Volunteer regiment. He thought it was possible that some arrangement could be made by which persons who had horses and liked to devote themselves to military exercises might be induced to join a mounted company in connection with a Volunteer regiment. Those were matters which were worthy of consideration, and he threw it out as a suggestion whether the time had not arrived, when the organization and condition of the Force should not form the subject of an inquiry by a Committee of that House, which should take evidence from the persons most interested in the Volunteer movement. Of course, he did not expect that his right hon. Friend would be able to give any answer that Session to such a suggestion. There was another very important point in connection with the Force—namely, shooting. At the present moment the annual competition was taking place at Wimbledon which was supposed to test the efficiency of the Volunteer Force in shooting. It was open to doubt whether the Wimbledon meeting was carried on in the most business-like way. And it was questionable whether it would not be better that the annual rifle contests should be conducted on similar principles to the meeting of the Artillery Association, and that the Volunteers who attended the camp should be subjected to more strict military discipline. It was suggested some time ago that when the Force came to be armed with the Martini-Henry it would become dangerous to hold the camp on Wimbledon Common, and that, if that were so, arrangements should be made for holding the meeting at Aldershot. Of course, that could not be done without a grant being made for the purpose, because it would then be quite impossible to pay any great part of the cost of the meeting of the National Rifle Association at Aldershot out of the subscriptions of those who came to look on because they took an interest in shooting as a sport. There was also the question of rifle ranges, which was a very serious and important one; and it was very probable that many corps would find that the capabilities of the
484
present ranges were hardly up to the requirements of the new rifle.
COLONEL SEELYsaid, he had a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), the adoption of which might distinguish his term of Office without, at the same time, entailing any appreciable charge on the country. The very existence of the Volunteer Force pre-supposes that they might at some time or other lose the command of the Channel. Unless they were prepared to face that fact, the right hon. Gentlemen would do well to disband the Force and save the money which it cost the country. The Force was raised to defend them against invasion, and it was maintained with that object. There wore people who thought that their invasion was impossible; but he thought after what had occurred within the last year or two that was certainly not the opinion of most Members of the Committee. It was well known that within the last year they had had the greater portion of their Fleet in the Mediterranean, and that for several months it would not have been at all impossible for the French, if they had been inclined to pick a quarrel with us, to have so arranged as to have obtained the command of the Channel before we could get our Fleet there. In the old days, no doubt, that would not have mattered much, because it would have taken France a long time to concentrate a large number of troops on her coast. Since France had been covered with railways all that was completely altered, and there was no doubt that the French could within a very few hours concentrate probably 100,000 or 150,000 Infantry at the ports on the coast. Now, at those ports—at Dun-kirque, Calais, Boulogne, Dieppe, and Havre—his impression was that there would always be found a sufficient number of vessels, fishing boats, coasters, screw colliers, and steamers of one sort and another, to convey—he thought ho was moderate in saying—100,000 men in calm weather across the Channel. And there were many parts of the South Coast of England where troops could be landed in calm weather without any difficulty whatever. As the tide was going out, guns, horses, and ammunition could be landed without the smallest difficulty. Now, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, what would be done in

485
the event of such a tiling happening? The right hon. Gentleman could not withdraw any troops from Ireland— that was clear; and in England there were only at the present time about 30 or 40 battalions of Regular Infantry— he (Colonel Seely) did not know the exact number, but assumed that there were not more than 50 at the most. The right hon. Gentleman dared not remove the garrisons from Dover or Portsmouth or from any of the Dockyards, and his (Colonel Seely's) impression was that the right hon. Gentleman could not tomorrow put more than 25 battalions of Infantry of 600 men each in the field. He doubted whether 15 battalions of Infantry could be put in the field without disturbing the depots of the territorial regiments; and if the right hon. Gentleman wore to disturb those depots he would interfere with the organization of the Reserve and Militia. Well, now, it might be said that the French would have to bring a large train and baggage, and all that sort of thing; but it seemed to him that all the French would want if they attempted an invasion would be plenty of ball cartridges. The whole of the South of England was full of everything that an Army wanted with the exception of ammunition. Granted ammunition, his impression was that an invading Army would find all they wanted—all the horses and carts and provisions which they required would be found ready at hand. What he wanted to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was that in the Volunteer Force, for which this Vote was asked, he had a very large number of men who, from the circumstances of the Force, were practically almost as available as troops in barracks. Nearly all the men of a regiment lived in the same town; the officers were practically speaking all resident; the men had their arms and uniforms at their own homes; and there was no reason whatever, as far as he knew, why almost the whole of the Force should not be available for service in a very few hours after notice was given. But it was not at all so at the present time; because, in the first place, the Volunteers had no ammunition. When the shooting season was over, the Volunteers had no ammunition whatever. It might be argued that there was plenty of ammunition in the country; but to issue 100 rounds per
486
man—which was the very smallest allowance which could be made—to 200,000 men, would take up considerable time, not to speak of the confusion which would be created. Then, if there was ammunition, there was nothing provided for its conveyance. The pouches which all Volunteer Corps had held a very small number of rounds. So that what the Volunteers wanted was, first of all, ammunition, which, to the amount of 100 rounds a man, at least, ought to be in store at the different headquarters, ready to be issued when wanted; and, in the second place, stout bags to carry it in. If the men were called upon to march, he did not doubt that they would soon find the horses and carts to carry the reserve ammunition required. Then, again, the Volunteers ought to have some means of carrying food. He would not say anything about great coats, because Secretaries of State must be weary of hearing the question of great coats mentioned. Great coats were not absolutely necessary; but ammunition and food were necessary, and unless the Volunteers were supplied with them it was impossible for them to move. Assuming that ammunition and food were supplied, and that they had the men standing ready to move, there was no doubt that the Railway Companies would be able to move the troops with very great rapidity. Take his own case. He commanded a regiment of 1,000 men, and he should be very disappointed if, on a sudden emergency, there were not 800 men available. He had no doubt whatever that either the Midland Railway Company or the Great Northern Railway Company could have a train ready within an hour to take the men anywhere they might be required. It was necessary, if Volunteers were to be made use of on a sudden emergency, it should be impressed upon them that it was their duty to turn out whenever they received notice. Unless that were done, and unless they had some practice in turning out, they would not, if really required., turn out in the way, he was quite sure, they would on reflection wish to do. If the exceedingly moderate requirements he had alluded to, and which would not involve the country in any cost, were complied with, his impression was that within 24 hours probably not less than 150,000 of the 200,000 men would be found ready at

487
hand. Now, what would the right hon. Gentleman do with them? He would have to tell off a sufficient number to garrison all the fortresses. The 30,000 or 40,000 Artillery Volunteers ought, it seemed to him (Colonel Seely), to be told off to the Dockyards and mercantile ports. Then the right hon. Gentleman would have to tell off a certain number of battalions of Volunteers to replace the battalions of Regular troops doing garrison duty in the country. That would enable the right hon. Gentleman to have all the Regular troops—the Regular Infantry, of which he (Colonel Seely) was speaking—at his disposal, and that in itself would be a matter of the greatest importance. If it were known that in 10 or 12 hours the troops in the fortresses of Dover and Portsmouth and of other places could be vastly augmented or replaced by Volunteers, it would undoubtedly strengthen the confidence of the people in the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could make on an emergency. After the different fortresses had been garrisoned, there would still be left from 100 to 150 battalions of Volunteer Infantry at the disposal of the War Office. It was not for him to suggest what arrangements the War Office should make; but he did maintain that the arrangements should be made now, because the conditions could be just as well thought out quietly in time of peace as they could in time of great confusion and emergency. It might be said there should be a fusion of the Volunteers and the Regular troops. Personally, he thought it would be well if to every two Volunteer battalions there was one battalion of Regular Infantry, and that the commander of the latter should be the brigadier of the three battalions. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to compare for one moment the position he was now in with the position which he might be in with no cost and with very little trouble. At the present time the right hon. Gentleman could not, without disturbing his territorial depot regiments, put 15,000 Regulars in the field; but if proper arrangements were made—arrangements which would involve little or no cost to the country—the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put 100,000 or 120,000 Volunteer Infantry in the field within 24 hours. Now, the posi-
488
tion of the country would be very much strengthened if such arrangements were made; and nothing would so much strengthen and encourage the Volunteers as to make their place in the defence of the country clear and definite. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would utilize the peculiarity of the Volunteers' constitution —namely, their immediate availability for service as compared with the men of the Army Reserve and Militia—he would do great service to the country. It might be said that unless they were careful they would throw over, to some extent, the connection which was said to exist between the Volunteers and the territorial regiments. He should like to state very distinctly to the right hon. Gentleman that the connection that existed between Volunteer battalions and the territorial regiments was purely verbal; there was no real connection between the two that he knew of. In conclusion, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to consider the matters he had specified.
SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYwished to bear his testimony to that of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham (Colonel Seely) to the value of the Volunteer Force, and he hoped the Government would be able to make some additional allowances or some increase of the capitation grant to that Force. He had listened attentively to his hon. and gallant Friend, and nobody knew better what the Volunteers stood in need of, and he had hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would have concluded his remarks by, at all events, urging for some additional allowance by which the Volunteers might provide themselves with those necessaries which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred to. He was really at a loss to understand how those various things were to be provided, unless they were supplied out of a capitation grant. His hon. and gallant Friend said the whole could be done without any additional cost of expenditure, and that what was wanted was to make the place of the Volunteers clear and distinct among the Army Forces of the country. That was all very well, but it would not bring them a single step more forward than they were now. He could not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend that the Volunteers were not a territorial force;

489
the place of the Volunteers was in their own territorial district. They were, in fact, the most thoroughly territorial in their character of any of their Military Forces. They were really the only Force that was entirely associated with distinct localities, and which might be said to belong wholly to the district in which they were raised.
COLONEL SEELYsaid, that what he had remarked was, not that the Volunteers were not a territorial force, but that their connection with the territorial regiment was not a real but a verbal connection.
SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, that territorial regiments were connected much less than he desired to see with the counties, and certainly there could be no doubt of the fact that the Volunteer regiments were absolutely territorial. They all belonged to the same districts; they were officered to a great extent by gentlemen living in the same county; and, in reality, they were the most territorial force the country possessed. Six or seven years ago, the Predecessor of his right hon. Friend who now held the position of Secretary of State for War appointed a Committee to inquire into the condition of the Volunteer Force, and that Committee made two or three recommendations. Some of them were made to the Volunteer Force itself, and they were in the nature of pointing out how the Force could best economize its resources. There was also a recommendation that there should be a further allowance from the State. With regard to those recommendations which were made to the Volunteers themselves, he thought he might say that every one of them was cheerfully and readily accepted and adopted by the Force. One of them was that the Force should consolidate small regiment3 and small companies into a battalion; and another was that they should assimilate their uniforms, and adopt, if possible, the territorial uniform of the regiment to which they were attached. There were several recommendations in regard to range and drill sheds, one and all of which, he believed, were adopted, and a great amelioration in the condition of the Force was brought about in consequence. There was another recommendation which only went to the extent of recommending an increase of the capitation grant; but,
490
nevertheless, it was suggested that an additional allowance should be given for training in camp. Very shortly after that Committee was appointed, a new Administration came into Office, and he was bound to confess that the new Secretary of State did carry out very loyally the recommendations which had been adopted by his Predecessors. To a certain extent the increased allowance for training in camp was granted to the Force, but it was not done to the full extent of what the Committee had hoped. The recommendation of the Committee which sat at the War Office was that, as the men could, in their opinion, only be made thoroughly efficient by attending Volunteer camps, an allowance of 2s. a-day for six days per head should be made to each man training in camp. A Vote was taken in the Estimates for the number of men whom it was thought probable would desire to go into camp. But the number of men who presented themselves in the following year exceeded the number for whom provision had been made in the Estimates. The Volunteers were accordingly informed at the War Office that more men were seeking to go into camp than there was provision for, and the surplus names were accordingly struck off. The result was that only a limited number of men had received the benefit of camp training, and the advantages, which were hoped to be derived by the Service when the recommendation of the Committee was made, had been much diminished. It was said that the Committee did not recommend any increase of the capitation grant. That was true; but it did recommend an increase of allowance. Since that Committee sat, now nearly seven years ago, circumstances had marched onwards very rapidly. The Volunteer Force itself had become more established in the opinion of the people, and it had become more accepted as one of the institutions of the country. That fact, gratifying and satisfactory as it was in every way, still possessed this disadvantage—that whereas in former days persons were ready to contribute annually to the maintenance of Volunteer regiments, they now considered that the Volunteer Force was established, and, therefore, they did not consider it necessary to make those contributions which they formerly made. They would as soon think now-a-days of contributing

491
to the maintenance of the Yeomanry and the Militia as of making any contribution towards the Volunteer Force. In that way there was a considerable call made on the Volunteers themselves for expenses which were originally subscribed for. In former times great liberality was displayed in lending Corn Exchanges, public halls, fields, and other places where the ordinary drill could be carried on. He could assure the Committee that now everything of that sort had to be paid for. If a Volunteer officer desired to take his men into a field for drill or practice he had to pay hard cash for the use of it. The result was that the Volunteer Force had considerable difficulty in holding its own in connection with the heavy charges which were constantly falling upon it; and it could not be denied that the Force was undoubtedly deficient in many respects. It was deficient so far as being properly equipped was concerned; and when a regiment was required to go out for two or three days, or to camp out for a week, it had no means of carrying the food that was necessary, together with ammunition and clothes. If the Volunteers were to be made really efficient those were matters which ought to be attended to. He would not advocate the giving of eleemosynary relief, because he did not think that was the way to deal with the Volunteer Force; but it was most unsatisfactory to require them, as at present, to carry a heavy burden on their back. It was very distasteful to them; it took away a great deal from a man's strength to make him a beast of burden, and it deprived him of the power of marching with celerity. There were excellent inventions for carrying kits, which were all to be obtained for money, and which ought to be supplied if the Military Authorities had any regard for the health and safety of the Volunteers. At the last Review at Brighton a number of regiments were positively without the slightest protection; and if the weather had been stormy, instead of fine, there would have been many men who would have been exposed for 24 hours to the inclemency of the weather without any protection whatever. What was really wanted was a further capitation grant; and if the Force was to be maintained in a satisfactory position, it would be necessary to increase that grant. They did not ask for any great increase, and what
492
the amount was to be must be left to the decision of those who framed the Estimates at the War Office. At the same time, he thought that some increase was absolutely necessary in order to preserve the vitality of the Force. Then, again, there was great difficulty experienced in obtaining officers. The difficulty arose in this way. Many of the Volunteer regiments were heavily in debt, and it was found that, although it was not a difficult matter to secure the services of officers who were quite ready to give their time and experience, they declined to take upon their shoulders the debts of the regiment, and, in consequence, the country lost the services of many men who were well qualified to command the Volunteer Force. Those were matters which he thought it was due to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he should have pointed out to him. He did not know whether his right hon. Friend would be able to give any guarantee upon the subject; but he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend would use his knowledge and bring his discretion to bear upon it. He did not advocate the appointment of any further Committee. The question had been investigated already by two or three Committees, and all the information that could be desired was now in the possession of the War Office. He thought his right hon. Friend, on inquiry, would see that the circumstances had materially changed from what they were seven years ago, when the Departmental Committee of the War Office sat, and that the time had now arrived when it was necessary to add to the capitation grant. In dealing with the question, he would deprecate any increase in the amount of money given merely for skill in shooting. It was well known in the Force that the registered work at the ranges was such as they could not altogether rely upon, and the making of the grant dependent upon the register kept by the sergeant at the range would, in his opinion, be much to be deprecated. If they wore to have an increase of the capitation grant, let them have it for efficiency. It was all very well to have increased shooting efficiency, and he should object to the taking away of any portion of the money prizes now awarded; but any increase of the capitation grant that might be given, ho earnestly hoped

493
would be given for efficiency, and that it would not be made to depend upon the men becoming marksmen, or upon high-class shooting.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER,said, he was anxious to explain to the Committee the nature of the increase on this Vote. The main increase — namely, £18,600, under Sub-head 15—was for the pay, &c, of Sergeant Inspectors of the Volunteer Corps. It was simply a transfer from Vote 1, and it was a charge made in accordance with the desire of the Public Accounts Committee, who were of opinion, and, he thought, very wisely, that it would be much better to have the pay of the permanent Staff of all the three arms of the Volunteer Service—Rifles, Artillery, and Engineers— included in that Vote. Up to the pre-sent time, the pay of the permanent Staff of Artillery and Engineers was taken in Vote 1, while the expenses of the permanent Staff of the Rifle Volunteers were taken in this Vote. It was thought better to transfer from Vote 1 the pay of the Artillery and Engineers, and include the whole of the pay for the three branches of the Volunteer Service in one Vote. That accounted for an increase of £18,600. The remainder, of course, was due to the increase in the number of the Volunteers. In regard to the other two items of increase—the addition to the capitation grant, £9,400, was explained by the increase of 6,000 men in the aggregate strength of the Volunteers, who were now 208,000 as against 202,000 last year; there was also the increase of £8,500 in the Miscellaneous Charges of the Volunteer Force, which was the increase alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) when speaking of the limit placed upon those who desired to go into the country for training, and earn the capitation grant by remaining there for six days. The late Government had thought it best not to limit the number upon a matter which seemed to be somewhat popular among all the Volunteer officers, and which afforded the Volunteers the best chance of learning the discipline taught in the Regular Army, and of becoming efficient. That discipline was far better taught in camp. The camp services were never taught except in camp; and, generally speaking, the popularity of this service was
494
so great that it was thought it might have been better to have granted the full amount last year. That accounted for a further increase of £4,800. He was anxious to say one or two words in answer to the speeches of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire and of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham (Colonel Seely), both of whom made, he believed, demands for increased expenditure upon the Volunteer Service. There had been a statement made in "another place," by his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State in the late Government (the Earl of Morley), on this very question. The hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire formed one of the Committee who sat seven years ago, and went into the whole question of Volunteer equipment and the capitation grants. The object of the inquiry of that Committee was to ascertain the host possible means of increasing the allowance made to the Volunteers. When the present Government came into Office, they found that there had been an augmentation of the grant, and substantially they carried out all the recommendations that were made by the Committee. But as to the supply of kits, it was thought that all the requirements would be met if a certain number of articles were kept in store and issued when they were required. It was felt that there would be great difficulty in storing all the articles required; and, further, that if they were issued to the Volunteers, there was a risk of their being used for non-military purposes. That was a point to which he wished to call the attention of his hon. and gallant Friend. His hon. and gallant Friend argued in favour of an increase of the capitation grant to the amount of not more than 10s.; but it must be remembered that the Volunteers were a very largo Force, now numbering 208,000, and if they increased the capitation grant from 30.s. to £2, they would really be putting the country to a cost of £100,000 for that one item of increase. It had always been a difficulty that in any grant to the Volunteers they must make it universal. They could hardly make it dependent upon any condition of efficiency; and if every Volunteer was to receive an additional sum of 10.?., it would be found that there must be an increase in the Estimates of the Secre-

495
tary of State for War of something very close upon £100,000; and as to the desire to have particular articles, as he had pointed out, they could not be sure that their use would be confined to Volunteer or military purposes. For instance, great coats might be used in a variety of ways, and as to water-bottles, they might be very easily supplied by the Volunteers themselves. All they had to do was to procure a soda water-bottle and have it covered with leather. Then, again, with regard to ammunition, it was hardly right that the men should carry ammunition about with them except when on actual duty. They must be treated like the Regular soldiers, who were never entrusted with ammunition except on duty.
COLONEL SEELYsaid, he quite agreed with that; but he thought it ought to be kept in the Volunteer stores.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the custom of the Regular Army was to issue ammunition through the Quartermaster to soldiers going on duty. That ammunition they carried in their pouches, and re-delivered when they came off duty. It had been found inconvenient to place deadly weapons in the hands of the men without restriction. It would probably be remembered that a number of outrages were committed in 1854, in consequence of allowing ammunition to be indiscriminately carried. For instance, Captain Keate was shot at, and there was a desperate murder at Chatham of two officers; and in consequence Viscount Cardwell, who was Secretary of State for War at the time, issued an order that all unused ammunition served out to soldiers going on duty should be returned into store when they came off duty. He thought the Volunteers ought to be treated in the same way; but there ought to be means of serving out ammunition rapidly in the case of an emergency. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham (Colonel Seely) had referred to the issue of canvas bags to enable the men to carry rations with them. That might be an excellent thing in an enemy's country; but he would appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay), as an old Adjutant of the Guards to say whether it was not a matter which might safely be placed in the hands of the Quartermaster? A telegram could always be sent to the Quartermaster at the station whence
496
the troops were proceeding, to say when a regiment was about to arrive, and he would be able to provide them with a hot meal and all the provisions they required at the time of their arrival. Of course, there were various things in which by the expenditure of a little money it would be possible to increase the efficiency and comfort of the Volunteers; but where it would be necessary to incur a very great expense, the question they ought to ask was whether it was worth while, considering the enormous outlay which would have to be incurred, to place at the disposal of the Volunteers those appliances which were only really required if they were serving in an enemy's country. He apologized for having detained the Committee; but he was anxious to show that the Department, so far as the late Government were concerned, were fully aware of the interests of the Volunteer Force, but had considered that in many of the requisitions made the cost would more than out-balance the advantage.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. NORTH-COTE)said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Arthur Hayter) had left him very little to say in reference to matters of detail connected with the Office in which he had the honour to be his Successor. But he hoped he should not be misrepresenting the feelings of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War when he said that all suggestions made with the object of securing the increased efficiency of the Volunteer Force would receive from the present Administration most anxious and careful consideration. It was impossible to speak too highly of the great anxiety of the men who formed the Volunteer Force to become more and more efficient. The General Commanding at Aldershot, in his Report for last year, said—
"The Volunteers came down in considerable force towards the close of the drill season. They were put through a short course, beginning with battalion drill, under the supervision of their respective brigadiers, and ending with a sham fight on the Fox Hills. They took the greatest pains with and interest in their drill, and their progress was extraordinary. Their discipline and general conduct were admirable."
He thought that that Report, coming as it did from a most experienced Officer, would give the utmost satisfaction in

497
regard to the efficiency of the Volunteer Force. The present discussion had ranged over a wide field, and questions of the utmost importance had been raised in it. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) suggested the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the organization of the Force. That suggestion had not been received with general favour; but it was obviously necessary in the first instance to consult the Volunteer officers on the subject. Various proposals for increasing the efficiency of the Volunteers had been made in the course of that discussion by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay), and the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham (Colonel Seely), and without expressing at that moment any opinion as to the propriety of increasing the capitation grant, ho might say that those suggestions deserved and would receive very careful consideration. The question which was raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire as to the increase of the capitation grant, had been fully dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter), and ho certainly must point out to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire that the simple addition of 10 s. a-head to the capitation grant would lead to an increase in the entire Volunteer grant of no less than £100,000 a-year. It was obvious that that was a serious demand to make, and one which before it could be adopted would require careful consideration. With regard to camping out and other matters, he thought the House of Commons should take such steps as would assure the Volunteers that they were disposed to deal with the Force fairly and even generously.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he must apologize for intruding himself ill the debate; but the Volunteer Force was one of great importance to the country, and was deserving of so much consideration that he had risen for the purpose of making one or two remarks. In the Volunteers the nation had now a Force of 208,000 men, which would cost the country, according to the Estimates, £700,000 in the course of the year. Surely, that was by no means an extravagant sum to pay for their services; and he was of opinion that even some slight increase would not be altogether inappropriate.
498
From year to year they expected the Force to be in a condition of greater efficiency, and to have made rapid progress, and every year it would be found that the Force devoted themselves more and more to the Service with with they were connected. In regard to the increase of the capitation grant, he would not advocate any general increase; but he thought there was one point in which encouragement might be usefully given, and that was in respect of the shooting of the men. There was a discussion upon that subject last year, and the Secretary of State promised that something should be done in that respect. It was well known, particularly in the Metropolitan District, and in some of the large towns, that considerable difficulty was experienced in obtaining convenient ranges at which the men could practice. That difficulty did not exist so much in the rural districts, but it did in regard to some of the most efficient and able Volunteer Corps of the country which belonged to the large towns. He could not help thinking that something might be done to provide convenient ranges, so that the various corps might have reasonable facilities afforded them for improving their shooting. He would suggest that there should be some small grant to those Volunteers who showed a higher state of efficiency than the rest, and that for shooting up to a certain standard a certain grant should be given which would enable a corps to meet the expense they were put to owing to the want of a convenient range close at hand, or owing to the difficulty they had in proceeding to and from the shooting ground. If something were done in that respect, he knew, from communications ho had received, that it would give great satisfaction to many Commanding Officers of regiments, and it would not put the country to a very heavy expense. He would submit for the consideration of the Government whether some grant of of that kind might not be made for efficient shooting, so as to relieve the corps from some of the expense and difficulties they at present experienced in discharging very important functions.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £384,500, Army Reserve Force.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the number of Reserve men in the Reserve last year was put down at 42,500,

499
and the number put down for 1885–6 was also 42,500. He presumed that there were not that number in the Re-serves at the present moment, because he thought his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) had said that they had drawn from the Reserves in one case 2,348 men, and in another 969 men. He should be glad if his right hon. Friend could inform the Committee what was the number at present serving with the Reserve? He would also like to ask his right hon. Friend what course he proposed to take in regard to the time-expired men, who numbered 4,100? How long did he intend to retain those men with the Colours? Were they to go into the Reserves, or what was the proposal he intended to make in regard to them? He would also ask his right hon. Friend if he would carefully consider the question of the depot centres and the calling out of the Reserve men belonging to each of those depot centres every year? He saw from a paper that day that it was said that the Government proposed to allow men from the Reserves to volunteer into any regiments they chose. If that were done, it would at once do away with the system of local regiments; and ho was very anxious to know if there was any truth in the statement, because, if it were true, the system of which they had heard so much, and which had been so favourably considered by the authorities at the War Office, was evidently about to fall to the ground? His own opinion had always been that the Reserve men ought to be called out, even if it were only for one day; that they ought to be fitted with their clothing, and that they ought to know their places in the regiment to which they belonged. They should also be put through the necessary drill and rifle exercise to see if they were efficient. If they were found efficient there was not the slightest reason why, when they appeared on parade and showed that they wore up to the mark, they should not be dismissed to their homes. Parliament had given power to call them out for eight days; but if a man showed that he was efficient, and it was known where he could be found, that was all that could be required of him. But if they were to be allowed to volunteer into any regiment they chose the system would inevitably break down.
500
He also wished to ask his right hon. Friend to consider carefully whether the Reserve men ought to be called out on every occasion that they found it necessary to enter upon a small war. It was said, when the Reserve was originally formed, that the men would only be called out in the event of an emergency; but now they seemed to be unable to send a small Force anywhere, without calling-out the Reserves, not only for service abroad, but to do duty at borne. He would ask his right hon. Friend whether he would not give his attention to this matter, which, in his judgment, deserved the most serious consideration?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was sure his hon. and gallant Friend would see that, having hold his present position at the War Office for a fortnight only, ho was not yet in a position to lay down principles on which the Army should be governed. He could only say then, with regard to the Reserve Force, that Her Majesty's Government regarded it as exceeding valuable, and one which ought to be treated with the greatest care and judgment, and that any suggestion which his hon. and gallant Friend had to make in connection with it should receive consideration. As to the general principle of calling out the Reserves on every occasion when the slightest strain was placed upon their military system, he had no hesitation in saying that that was not desirable. No doubt, the object of the Reserve was to constitute a Force upon which the country could depend in a time of considerable emergency.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, this was a question of bringing the Reserves together so that when they were called out for service they should be drilled for a certain period, and not receive pay until they could prove that they had attended a certain number of drills. He thought this matter would be very simple, because he understood from a high authority in the Army that it would not be necessary to do more than bring them out and attach them to a Volunteer Corps, with whom they could learn their drill and fire the number of rounds required from efficient Volunteers. The advantage of that was that if they wore attached to a Volunteer Corps they would not interfere with the enrolled members of the corps, while, at the same time,

501
they would learn their drill in the cheapest possible way. With regard to the calling out of the Reserves, it had not been the intention of the late Government, nor was it, he supposed, the intention of the present Government, to call out for small wars the whole of the Reserve. The desire and intention was that there should he a drilled Reserve of 40,000 or 50,000 men in the country. He thought it would be an excellent thing to have the Reserve men attached to a Volunteer Corps with whom they could drill on Saturday afternoons. Ho believed that Colonel I)u Plat Taylor was quite prepared to take 200 Reserve men in his own corps. The expense would only be that of equipping and clothing them, and probably a capitation grant paid to the Commanding Officer of the corps for the men. He understood from an authority of high position at the War Office that if the men were taught to shoot there would be no difficulty whatever in regard to drill. They would be practised both at loose order and close order drill at the butts. Then there was the advantage that they would know to whom they paid the money earned by the Reserve; they would know that the men were efficient and that they were ready, while, at the same time, the arrangements could be carried out at the least possible expense. There were also 6,500 Army Pensioners, all veteran soldiers, to whom he thought it would not be unfair to say that in consideration of the money which they received they should go through a certain number of drills. Not being called out on permanent duty, no further cost of pay or pension would be incurred. Ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would carry on the investigation which had been instituted, and carry out the plan of drilling the men with the Volunteers in the cheapest manner possible.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he could not help thinking that the suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Arthur Hayter) with respect to putting Reserve men through their drill with the Volunteers was a valuable one, and he believed that if it were carried out it might be of advantage to the men of both Services. But there had been this difficulty felt, both with regard to the Volunteers and the Reserve men— namely, that the employers of those
502
men were not always ready to consent to their attending the drills at certain times. He thought that certain days would have to be fixed for drilling the men together. It was very desirable that the Volunteers, as well as the Reserve men, should be in force on those days, so that the battalions might be of adequate strength; and, looking at the matter from the point of view of the Volunteers, he believed it would be a valuable thing to have the Reserve men paraded with them, especially when in camp. But it had come to his knowledge that, either from not valuing the Force sufficiently, or for other reasons, employers were reluctant to allow men the proper facilities for going into camp; and hon. Members would know that it was a great hardship to them to have to give up for that purpose employments of value, which they could not resume. As the whole country was interested in the efficiency of those Forces, he suggested the consideration whether some penalty should not attach to employers who unduly refused their assent to the men performing their military duty. That question was becoming more and more important every day; the Reserve Forces were increasing yearly, and it was most desirable that the Volunteer Force should turn out in as great strength as possible on certain occasions; and, therefore, he urged the importance of Her Majesty's Government considering how, in some way or other, they could lessen the shortsightedness which it was well known existed among some people on that subject.
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought that employers ought to be punished if they did not allow the Reserve men in their employ to go out, if it was the law that they should go out. But the real point to be considered was, that if the Reserve men were called out unnecessarily, they were prevented from getting employment, because their employers naturally did not want to lose their services. Ho believed that in Germany and France the Reserve men were never, or almost never, called out for drill, although in Germany they were sometimes called out for a week or 10 days for the purpose of being taught the use of a new arm, and in France he believed that they were only called out, perhaps, once in four or five years for manœuvres only, and not for drill. Why should

503
they want to call out the Reserve men more than the Germans and the French; and why should they worry the men by calling them out, and getting them into difficulties with their employers? It was in that way that the lives of the Reserve men were made burdensome to them, and he had himself received many letters from Reserve men complaining of the loss of employment, which they could not get back again. He hoped that, if the rule were introduced of sending them out with the Volunteers, in Ireland they would not be called out at all—that they would be allowed to go free in Ireland until, at any rate, there were Volunteers there.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £464,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments, Wages, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
DR. CAMERONsaid, he had to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the choice they had made in appointing the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay) to the Office of Surveyor General of Ordnance. He had been on the Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and it was well known that he had been most zealous in probing every abuse to the bottom, and most sharp in seeing through any attempt to hoodwink the Committee, and therefore he looked forward with great hope to the career of the new Surveyor General of Ordnance. He felt most hopeful that, by the exercise of that zeal and energy which he had shown himself to possess, he would be able to cleanse the Augean stable, the affairs of which he had been called to administer, and to do more good in the Office he held than any of his Predecessors had done for a long time. The examples by which he proposed to make good his reference to the Augean stable would be taken from what had occurred during the Soudan War. He would confine himself to the working of the Department to which the Vote referred during that war. The labours of the Committee which sat last year to investigate the action of the Department had not been thrown away; they had done immense good: and the fact that
504
in many respects the Supply Service of the Soudan Campaign had been efficiently conducted, was due to the fact that publicity had frightened the officials, and that in consequence many recommendations which were before declared to be impossible of fulfilment had been carried into effect. The officials of the Department had come before the Committee, and the Committee were told that certain suggestions could not be adopted, and that they were perfectly unworkable; but he would point out that the number of suggestions which were adopted was very considerable indeed. The Commissariat, for example, had repeatedly suggested that there should be separate ships for stores; that was said to be impossible, but it was carried out. They said that supercargoes should be sent with store-ships; that was said to be impossible, but they were sent. A recommendation was made to reduce the size of the packages for transport; that had been repeatedly ignored, but now the suggestion was adopted, and in the last campaign packages were sent out in a more handy and manageable form than had before been, the case. But while improvements were seen in the conduct of the Soudan Expedition, there were certain vices inherent in the system, as at present organized, which were manifested in the Soudan War, as in every preceding war. He believed that in connection with the Soudan War the Engineering Department urged upon the Government that the construction of the Berber-Suakin Railway should be taken up by military engineers; but it was not. Some time ago he had asked the late Secretary of State for War a Question concerning a quantity of biscuits that were sent up the Nile, and of which, on arrival, large quantities were found to have been rendered useless. It was said that they had been packed in trade cases which were insufficient, and that they had been exposed to wet in going up the Nile. In answer to that Question he was told that the biscuits were not packed in trade cases, but in cases specially recommended by the Mobilization Committee, and that they had been exposed to great dangers in going up the Nile. But, as a matter of fact, that was only found to be the case among what were called "Captain's" biscuits; and the bulk of the biscuit supply, which

505
was obtained from the Naval Stores at Deptford, being properly packed, arrived in perfect order at its destination. He understood that if the "Captain's" biscuits had been properly inspected, the result would have been different, and that they would have arrived in as good condition as the biscuits from Deptford; and he might mention that the reduction he was about to move to this Vote referred to the salary of the official who passed those biscuits. Some person must be to blame in that matter, and ho wanted to know who was responsible? Then there were tea, and sugar, and salt sent up the Nile, and on arrival large quantities were found to have been destroyed. The tea was packed in cases fastened with shellac, not with solder, which would have been effective. The groceries, sugar, and salt were, to the extent of some 25 per cent, destroyed by wet in the passage up the Nile. Did the Committee imagine for one moment that it was not foreseen that those things were to be exposed to wet? That was all foreseen, and he understood that water-proof bags were sent out for the purpose of protecting the sugar and salt; and, therefore, either they could not have been put into those bags, or they could not have been properly fastened in them. The result of that was that the soldiers had to go on short rations. Someone must have been responsible for that neglect also. In order to carry the biscuits, which had to be thrown into the Nile or buried in the desert; in order to carry the bags of sugar and salt, which had not been properly placed in their water-proof coverings, the most necessary stores had to be omitted. In that way no clothes were sent on to the Army, and in the course of a short time the troops were literally clothed in rags. In order that they might be able to carry those damaged biscuits, and the salt and sugar that had been rendered useless in the way he had described, they had to omit the conveyance of boots, which, so far as the necessary equipment of an Army was concerned, ranked next in importance to arms and ammunition. The consequence was that their unfortunate soldiers, who were obliged to make prolonged marches through the desert, found themselves in large numbers walking over the hot, shingly sand, either with bare feet, or with such make-shift substitutes for
506
boots, in the shape of sandals, as they could contrive to fasten round their feet. He thought that that one fact would suffice to show the Committee the importance of sending out the very best articles required for use in a campaign, and taking every possible care that they should arrive in proper condition. Again, in order to carry the things he had described as so very inadequately looked after, it became necessary to omit the requisite supply of corn for the enormous number of camels that had been provided for the use of the Army, and the consequence was that corn was only obtained with extreme difficulty, and the wretched camels for whom it was needed got almost smaller rations than the men, the fact being that they never got more, in the majority of cases, than about 5 lbs. of grain per day. Another result of the impossibility of finding room in the transports for all the things that had to be carried was that the men were obliged to go without their tobacco, the space that would have sufficed for that and other articles being taken up with a lot of rotten biscuits and the improperly packed bags of salt and sugar of which he had already spoken. As he had previously stated, all the difficulties he had enumerated were perceived and recognized beforehand, for it was foreseen that the boats would often be partly submerged, and every provision was consequently made to guard against that contingency; but, notwithstanding that, every preparation that had been made with that object was frustrated owing to somebody's fault. Now, he wanted to know who that somebody was'? This had reference to the Department of the Director of Supply, and they ought to be able to ascertain with whom the fault rested, Then, again, he had to bring under the attention of the Committee what had happened in the case of the purchase of camels. What, he asked, had been there-suit of the camel contracts? Why, that the animals obtained were of the most wretched description, while the management of those purchased was often equally bad. He had been informed by a professional gentleman—a veterinary surgeon—who was on the spot—he did not know whether he was actually at Cairo or not, but he was, at all events, in Egypt at the period referred to—that from 20 to 30 percent of the camels pur-

507
chased at Cairo wore absolutely unfit for service, that proportion of the animals being unsuitable, either through actual disease or physical inefficiency— which was precisely what had been the case in the Afghan War. The same thing occurred at Suez, where, at the depot established at that place, there were upwards of 1,000 of those animals, a large proportion of which, he was informed, were also totally unfit for service. Those animals had, however, been bought for the use of the British Expedition, and in the great majority of cases they were bought without having been subjected to veterinary inspection. There was another matter in relation to the supply of camels to which he was anxious to draw attention. An hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dawnay) had, on a former occasion, put a Question on the subject, but had failed to elicit an answer; and he (Dr. Cameron) therefore, wanted to obtain an answer now. He referred to the case of a shipload of camels, in regard to which the hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk (Colonel Dawnay) had asked a Question of the late Government. It was reported that a shipload of camels had been received at Suakin, the whole of which were in such a state of unfitness that the entire lot had to be sent back to Suez. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) who was then at the head of the War Department, had promised that the matter should be inquired into; but he (Dr. Cameron) was not aware whether the noble Marquess had instituted an inquiry. They had had general assurances that the camels were excellent; but he (Dr. Cameron) could furnish specific instances of their being nothing of the kind, and he would undertake to prove that assertion if he were afforded an opportunity of so doing. He could also show that when serviceable camels were obtained, they were sometimes mismanaged in the most horrible fashion. The fact was, that they were not put under the management of anyone who knew anything about those animals, but, on the contrary, were placed under the charge of Infantry officers who had had no experience of camels; and he had been informed that in some cases, in order to accustom the animals to desert work, they were ordered to be watered only once in three days. They had, of course, all heard the story of the man who contended that his horse
508
only ate as a matter of custom, and that it could be reduced by careful management to do without food altogether, and who was convinced that he should have carried out successfully the experiment he made in that direction had it not been that, unfortunately for his theory, when he had got the animal down to a straw a-day it died. It ought to have been understood that when the camels were in the vicinity of a plentiful water supply they should have been allowed to have as much as they wanted; but the result of the treatment to which those particular animals were subjected was that when they started on their journey through the desert, after having only been watered once in three days, they were wholly unfit for the work they had to do, and while upon the march they died like rotten sheep. He had been told that in consequence of the exposures before the Committee of 1884, some genius had actually sent out farriers to see to the auxiliary transport employed in the Soudan Campaign—an idea which had not occurred to those who had had charge of the Expedition of 1882; but he was informed that even in the Nile Expedition large shoes, fit only for carthorses, had been sent out for the purpose of shoeing the small horses used by their soldiers in that campaign, the result being that in certain Cavalry regiments the horses had to go unshod, as they had to go unshod in the Expedition of 1882. During the time the war was in progress they had heard a good deal about the swords of two of their Cavalry regiments having been found utterly unreliable, and having been condemned accordingly. That also was a matter connected with the Vote they were now discussing. As to the bayonets served out to their soldiers, and which it was reported had turned out so badly, he was informed that there had been some exaggeration in the statements which had been made. Probably his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance, who had been out in Egypt, would say something on that point. There was, however, one other matter to which he should like to draw the attention of the Committee, and that was with regard to the cartridges served out to their men. The cartridges themselves did not come within the Vote he was then discussing, but the officers of the Ordnance Department who were

509
responsible for sending them out did come under it, and, therefore, the matter was germane to the question then before the Committee. They were all aware of the extent to which those cartridges jammed when in use by their soldiers in action with the enemy. It had been stated that 25 per cent of the Boxer cartridges got jammed. If that were so, he asked the Committee could there possibly be anything more disgraceful? He asserted that such a scandal as that ought not to be allowed to pass without the most searching investigation and the most zealous and careful attempt to bring home the blame to the proper parties. A number of those cartridges were not sent out in water-proof cases, and the result was that they were found to have been damaged by wet, and thus to have been rendered useless, in consequence of which they were condemned. The worst part of the business was that a number of the damaged cartridges were served out and missed fire just at the moment when they were most needed. Another point relating to the cartridges was this. The calibre of the Gardner machine gun and that of the Martini-Henry rifle were the same, and it would have occurred to anyone but a genius in the Department presided over by his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance that it would have been as well to have made the cartridges interchangeable. But that was not the case; and the consequence was that when the time came at which the Army ran extremely short of Gardner-gun cartridges, although it was, at the same time, well supplied with Martini-Henry cartridges, it was unable to make use of the latter in order to make good the deficiency of cartridges for the machine guns. That, too, was the Department that had sent out for the use of the Navy those wonderful guns of which they had heard so much. No doubt, his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Carbutt) would give the Committee the whole history of those guns, and would explain how it was that when they were fired their muzzles were so frequently blown off. His hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie), in discussing the Navy Estimates on a former occasion, had called attention to the case of H.M.S. Baring, which was one of the ships they had off Madagascar at the time the French were engaged in
510
hostilities there, and on board which vessel, out of the nine guns she carried, it was only safe to fire one, the remainder being in such a condition that they were ordered not to be fired. There could be no doubt of that fact, as it had been admitted by the late Secretary to the Admiralty, who had replied to his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire. They would doubtless be told, on the present occasion, that a letter had been received from the Commander-in-Chief stating that everything had been conducted in the most admirable manner in the prosecution of the Soudan Expedition. He would, however, ask hon. Members not to allow themselves to close their minds against the statements he had made simply because that authority would be quoted against him. In the Egyptian Campaign Sir John Adye himself, the Surveyor General of Ordnance, had told them everything was first-rate, and that where anything had gone wrong it was simply owing to military exigencies. He (Dr. Cameron) did not see how that statement could be accepted as justifying the home purchase of unsuitable flour, which had been proved to have been sent out with the Expedition, nor was he able to see in what way it could justify the payment of an enormous price for bad hay. Nevertheless, Sir John Adye had made that statement; and from that day to the present moment, whenever he had brought forward any complaint as to management of the Expedition of 1882, he had been invariably met by the assertion that Sir John Adye, having said everything was all right, it must be so. He should like, before ho sat down, to show the Committee the extraordinary nature of the assertions the War Office officials endeavoured to ram down the throats of sensible men; and he thought that when the Committee saw the kind of assaults which were thus made upon their credulity, they would admit that it was well to be somewhat cautious as to the manner in which they received general statements, and that they ought to exercise their own judgment upon questions connected with the charges brought against the Department. In the Report of the Commissary General concerning the Egyptian War, that officer had stated that, no doubt, candles were more useful than oil lamps, but that if they did send out

511
oil lamps, it was just as well to send out oil to put in them. He (Dr. Cameron) had put a Question on that subject in the Select Committee, and was told that the Woolwich authorities, although they sent out oil lamps, had not sent out oil, but had sent out candles. The matter was, after all, only a trivial one; and they would probably have heard no more about it but for the fact that the Acting Director of Supply and Transport, who had nothing to do with the lamps, but had sent out the candles, thought it incumbent upon him to show the Committee, once for all, that the assertions which had been made with regard to the lamps were not to be believed. That official, consequently, placed a lamp before the Committee. It so happened that the Acting Director of Supplies did not know what sort of lamp was referred to from the technical description given by the Commissary General; and when he appeared before the Committee, he brought with him what was called a "distinguishing lamp," and he showed how, by taking out of the lamp the socket intended for the wick, and by placing a candle in its place, it could be made to burn very well. But the Commissary General said—"That is not what I meant." Accordingly, next day, a witness was sent from the Ordnance Stores to show how little a matter it was that so great a fuss had been made about; and as the lamp he then brought before the Committee lay about the Committee Room for a long time, he (Dr. Cameron) put it on one side in order that he might show it to the House, as he thought hon. Members would agree with him that there was nothing like ocular demonstration. Here (producing a lamp) was the identical oil lamp referred to, and here (pointing to one portion of it) was the place where the wick should be. The witness from the Ordnance Stores had brought with him a candle, and the candle which he (Dr. Cameron) now produced was as near the size of the genuine article as anything he was able to procure. A cut had to be made in the side of the candle to admit the tube intended to admit air to the oil reservoir. The candle was then put into the lamp by the witness, who said—"There you have it." But the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Guy Dawnay), who was one of the Members of the Committee, was not quite satisfied that an oil lamp con-
512
stituted the Lest means of burning a candle, and he said—"Light it." The candle was then lit by the witness, and it was seen that the top of the candle reached high up into the brass chimney which surmounted the glass globe of the lantern, and that it made the metal almost red hot, so that the lantern could not be held by the hand, while the smell given out was so acrid that the Committee would very soon experience it if he (Dr. Cameron) were now to attempt a similar experiment. The result was that the flame from the candle did not become visible until after the Commissariat candle had burnt down to within an inch of the end, and then the thing became a useful lantern. That was the sort of attempt that was made on the credulity of the Committee. Sir John Adye was produced as a witness, and he was asked—"Had you any trouble about these candles and lanterns?" Sir John Adye replied— "I never used them." "What did you use?" was the next question; and the answer was —"A candle stuck in a bottle;" and then it came out that the lantern was intended for out-door use. The Committee might easily imagine what was to be expected if the men had to go about looking after their horses among hay and forage with candles stuck in bottles. The chances were that under such circumstances they would be very likely to set fire to the hay and roast the horses. His (Dr. Cameron's) experience in regard to matters such as these was that the Parliamentary Representatives of the War Department seemed to become fascinated by the influence of their permanent officials, as birds wore said to be fascinated by snakes. His hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance had fortunately entered upon his Office with the advantage of a preliminary training that might possibly enable him to resist that fascination; and he (Dr. Cameron) earnestly trusted that that would prove to be the case. If the hon. Gentleman would only apply his energies to the reform of the Department over which he presided, the result would be that his name would be held in veneration by coming generations of the British Army. He now begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, of which sum £500 was in respect of the salary of the gentleman who sent out the bad biscuits, and the other

513
£500 in respect of the salary of the gentleman who had sent out the cartridges which were improperly pocked.
Motion made, and Question proposed
"That a sum, not exceeding £463,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments, Wages, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."—(Dr. Cameron.)
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow had made a very kindly reference to himself (Mr. Dawnay) in the course of his speech; and he must thank him for the manner in which he had done so. It was one of the somewhat curious results of the change of side9 by the two Parties in that House that he should have found himself in the position of having to reply, as Surveyor General of Ordnance, to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He did not wish for one moment to conceal from the Committee the fact that he had sympathized most heartily in the course the hon. Member had taken when he had moved for a Committee to inquire into the management of the Commissariat and Transport Service during the Egyptian Campaign of 1882. He (Mr. Dawnay) had himself sat on that Committee, he believed he had attended every meeting of that Committee, and he had certainly come away at the close of the inquiry with a full conviction of the propriety of the action adopted by the hon. Member who had raised this question. His hon. Friend, in the course of the speech he had just made, had alluded to the somewhat unexpected collapse of the inquiry entered into by that Committee; and he (Mr. Dawnay) must say that he had first heard of the collapse of that investigation with feelings of very considerable disappointment, and with a good deal of doubt as to the wisdom of such an issue. But he felt bound to state that during the fortnight that had elapsed since he had first occupied the post he now held, he had considerably modified the views he had at first entertained on that point; and he was fully persuaded, from what he knew of the candour and intelligence of his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), that he would have come to the same conclusion, and owned to the same conclusion, if he had been placed in the same
514
position. Under similar circumstances, he was very sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow would have appreciated as fully as he (Mr. Dawnay) did at the present moment the enormous strain put upon the energies of the Heads of Departments, and on the efficiency of the work depending upon those energies which was entailed by constant attendance on a House of Commons Committee during the time Her Majesty's Forces were actually in the field. His (Mr. Dawnay's) only wish, and he believed also that of the hon. Member, had been, not merely to substantiate the charges brought against a Department for the mere sake of substantiating them, not merely to justify their own action, but to secure the permanent improvement of the Services their inquiries dealt with, and, as a result, the increased comfort and the increased efficiency of our Forces in the field. Those results, he was happy to say, had already been attained. The hon. Member for Glasgow had placed upon the Paper several Motions for the reduction of various items of the Estimates; and he understood that the hon. Gentleman had taken that course in order to afford himself those facilities for pressing home the charges he had brought forward, of which the sudden collapse of the Committee's labours had deprived him. He would, however, appeal to the hon. Member not to press those charges further. One of those Motions was for the reduction of Vote 16, with regard to the Heads of Departments; and ho would specially appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to make invidious references to the Heads of Departments, whose energies he (Mr. Dawnay) was in a somewhat better position to appreciate than he had been when he sat on the Select Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was also a Member. He would briefly refer to certain mistakes which the hon. Member had asserted were made during the last Soudan Campaign. The hon. Gentleman had brought before the Committee the case of supplies in the shape of sugar, salt, and biscuits, which were stated to have been improperly packed. That had occurred during the preparations for the Nile Campaign; and as he (Mr. Dawnay) could not speak upon the matter with any personal knowledge, ho would prefer, for his own part, to say nothing on the subject. He would,

515
however, refer the hon. Gentleman to what had been said by Lord Wolseley in regard to the manner in which the Army was provided. Lord Wolseley said, in his despatch of April 16—
"I have never served with, or heard of any Army in the field that was as well fed as that under my orders on the Upper Nile. The quality of the food and the quantity of the ration allowed left nothing to he desired."
And he added that, speaking generally, the manner in which the food was packed was satisfactory, and was a great improvement, on the whole, upon the packing in former Campaigns. The hon. Member for Glasgow had also made some remarks on the way in which the camels were watered and managed, and had stated that it was abominable. He (Mr. Dawnay) was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that assertion, because he himself was for some time responsible for that management. With regard to the camels at Suakin, he (Mr. Dawnay) had landed about 4,000 camels himself, and could speak from his own personal experience.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he had referred to the keeping of those camels without water, and for that he did not think the hon. Gentleman was at all responsible.
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCEsaid, the allegation that those camels were kept for three days without water before being sent on the march was one which he could most distinctly deny. He had travelled a good deal with camels, and, speaking from his own experience in desert travelling, his opinion was that those animals should not be watered more than once in two days if they were to do useful work. If he found any fault on this point it was that the camels at Suakin were taken to water every day, though, owing to the difficulties of water supply, it was possible that they did not every day get as much as they wanted. It was, however, true that the camels at Suez had left that place without proper veterinary inspection; but it should be remembered that the circumstances were those of very exceptional pressure, the troops being sent out in a great hurry, and camels having to be got with all possible expedition, so that they were obliged to take such animals as they could; and it being impossible at first to get Indian camels, they were compelled to take the Delta camels,
516
which were the very worst they could have had for the work required in the Soudan. There was, however, no choice in the matter, as it was necessary to send camels to Suakin to meet the troops, and the Delta camels were taken as a matter of necessity in the case. That so many Delta camels should have been sent was, he thought, a mistake, as it would have been much hotter to have waited for camels from Berberah and India; but, under the pressure of circumstances, the course taken was one which was supposed to be unavoidable. He believed there were only two veterinary surgeons in Egypt at the time, and neither of those were available; and, in consequence, camels that could never have passed a proper inspection were sent down the Red Sea from Suez to Suakin. He (Mr. Dawnay), being the Transport officer at the spot, had taken upon himself the responsibility, in conjunction with a veterinary surgeon, and with the approval of the General, of sending back a number of camels that arrived at Suakin suffering from the mange. There were two sorts of mange to which camels were subject—the ordinary mange, and what was called the red mange. The ordinary mange was not a very serious complaint, but the red mange was; and some of the animals, when sent from Suez, were afflicted with the latter disease. The result was that, in the absence of a sufficient veterinary staff at Suez, no proper notice was taken of the cases of red mange, and animals suffering from that disease were put on board with the rest, so that a certain number having it at starting, others caught it on the voyage, and during a detention of five days in the harbour at Suakin, rendered necessary by the inadequacy of the landing stages; and when it became possible to land them, a very great number were found to be suffering from a most virulent form of the disease he had named. Under those circumstances, he certainly did think it far better and more economical to at once reject and send back the whole diseased cargo, rather than risk infecting with so fatal a malady the thousands of healthy camels they had already got on shore. The hon. Member for Glasgow had also referred to another matter as coming under the head of the present Vote—namely, the bayonets with which the troops sent out

517
to the Soudan had been supplied. Upon the whole, he (Mr. Dawnay) believed that those weapons had stood the test to which they were put exceedingly well; but those who had never seen bayonets in actual use could hardly realize the tremendous strain they had to bear. When a soldier bayonetted an enemy with such a weapon as the regulation bayonet fitted to a long Martini-Henry rifle, under certain circumstances the leverage was so great that the bayonet must either bend or break; and, for his own part, he would prefer that it should do the former rather than the latter. As to the jamming of the cartridges, he himself had had no opportunities of seeing the worst cases which seemed to have happened in the Nile Expedition; but he could not help thinking that a great deal of the jamming was due to the men themselves. When a man went into action for the first time he was excited, not unnaturally; and he had himself, not once only, but many times, seen rifles fail to throw out the cartridge cases properly, because the men in their hurry and excitement failed to use the lever with the proper jerk. Now, ho (Mr. Guy Dawnay) was not at all concerned to excuse any mistakes with regard to the Soudan or Egyptian Campaigns. He went through the Campaign of 1882, and he was himself the first to suggest an inquiry into the working of the Medical Department. He shared to the full the hon. Member's (Dr. Cameron's) wish for an inquiry into the working also of the Commissariat and Transport, and he had done so with a view to insuring increased efficiency in those Services in any future campaign; and this now was his answer to his hon. Friend—and it was one he gave, not as happening to hold at the present moment the Office of Surveyor General, but with far better authority than any mere Office could confer—and he asserted that it was a full and sufficient and satisfactory answer, and it was this—that having been present throughout the 1882 Campaign and condemned the arrangements in various points, he had now again taken part as a Transport officer in the very last Expedition that the country was concerned in; and although the Campaign was a short one, and though the distance traversed was but small, yet he could say that never in the his-
518
tory of campaigns was an Expedition ever sent from these shores, or from the shores of any other country, in which. the arrangements for the supply and transport of our troops, and for the care and cure of the wounded, wore more admirably arranged for, or more perfectly carried out. He did not think he was at all a lenient critic in those matters. He thought that all that could possibly be done for their soldiers should be done. His position as a Transport officer—of one who was only a volunteer Transport officer—in the Soudan Campaign did not in any way warp his views; but it certainly gave him unceasing opportunities of observing individuals and of criticizing arrangements; and while he thought that much in the Egyptian Campaign was open to censure, he asserted that the last Expedition reflected the very highest credit both on the Commissariat and Supply Department at home, and on the individual officers who carried out the arrangements. He did not for a moment say that no mistakes were made; he did not deny that there were many points in which matters might have been improved in regard to which there were still lessons to be learnt—if he did that he would be claiming a perfection which was impossible, or would stand convicted of the blindness that would not see. He did not say there were no points of organization, for instance, in which improvement could be effected. He would be very foolish or very hasty if, after so few days' Office, he expressed any decided opinion on such a subject. The inquiries of the Committee which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) caused to be appointed last year had had a great effect in perfecting the transport and supply arrangements, and he trusted that the hon. Member would now be contented with that effect, and would not press all his charges on the succeeding Votes; and in asking the hon. Gentleman not to press them he would further say—and he said it by no means as a mere idle compliment, but as a frank avowal of his own candid opinion—that the country owed a considerable debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for the manner in which he directed his abilities and energies last year to calling public attention to the points in which the Transport and Commissariat Services could be im-

519
proved. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman and the country on the improvements in those Services which the late Campaign had most clearly demonstrated, and which were, in his (Mr. Guy Dawnay's) opinion, owing not a little to the hon. Member's exertions.
MR. BRANDsaid, he wished, in the first place, to thank his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Guy Dawnay) for the generous manner in which he had spoken of the arrangements made for the last campaign; and, perhaps, if he were to leave the matter there, and to be content with the speech of his hon. Friend in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), he should do well. But after the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, the Committee, he was sure, would grant him its indulgence for a few minutes. He thought he could prove that the hon. Gentleman's speech was composed of such a tissue of exaggerations as to be almost removed out of the category of a serious speech. The hon. Gentleman had also been extremely clever in the way in which he had proceeded. On a recent occasion he made a speech in the House in which he alleged that there had been a great many failures in the Egyptian War. That speech—one also full of many exaggerations—was made to its very conclusion, and then the Chairman ruled that the whole debate was out of Order. In consequence of that ruling, he (Mr. Brand) had not the opportunity of replying; and now the hon. Gentleman, having made an attack upon the Department, having received no reply, because it was not in his (Mr. Brand's) power to make a reply, carefully abstained from saying one word with regard to the arrangements for the Egyptian War. [Dr. CAMERON: On a later Vote.] He was in possession of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman now made a fresh statement with regard to the arrangements for the Soudan War, many details of which, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, he had no acquaintance with, some of which he had acquaintance with, and with which he should deal presently. He maintained that the hon. Gentleman's speech that night must be judged in conjunction with a speech he made the other day. He had no wish to weary the Committee; but he would take one or two instances to show how the
520
hon. Gentleman had dealt with this case. He had here a statement made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, made not in the heat of debate, but made deliberately—it was contained in a pamphlet which the hon. Gentleman published with a view to instruct the public as to the arrangements made in the Egyptian War. Speaking of what was called the "iron ration," the hon. Gentleman wrote for the instruction of the public—
"One topic constantly coming before the Committee was the iron ration. This, Colonel Tulloch explained, was the name given by the Germans to the celebrated erbswurst, or pea soup sausage ration, which each German soldier is compelled to carry, which he is only permitted to consume on an emergency and by order of a superior officer, and which if ho makes away with without permission he is liable to be shot. Tinned erbswurst and tinned tongues were sent out to Egypt as an iron ration. They did not arrive till September 8, then they were carried on to Suez, and they were not available for issue till we got to Cairo. Finally, of 9,300 lbs. of erbswurst sent out only 4,445 lbs. arrived fit for use, the other 4,865 lbs., owing to faulty packing, being so damaged in transit that they had to be condemned."
Now, that statement was entirely erroneous. The facts were that complete iron ration for the Force went out in the first ships with the Force itself, and were available from the date of landing. The details were given on Page 68G of the Report. As to the alleged loss of erbswurst the statement was equally erroneous. The condemnation, as shown in the accounts of the Expedition, showed a loss of about 50 lbs., out of a total sent out of about 50,000 lbs., the 50 lbs. amounting in value to a little under £2. All he could say with respect to the speech of the hon. Gentleman was ab uno disce omnes. He did not wish to speak of this matter at all in a personal way. He quite admitted that the hon. Gentleman had shown great public spirit in moving for the inquiry, and that he had shown remarkable ability in conducting it. He would go further, and admit, with his hon. Friend the Surveyor General, that great good had come out of the inquiry; but when he had said that, he still complained that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow should make statements which were, to say the least, exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman and some of the Members of the Committee never would take into account the evidence of Sir

521
John Adye, who was the Chief of the Staff of the Expedition, and who was also Surveyor General in the War Office. Roughly speaking, Sir John Adye's defence was in this wise—"It is true I took certain decisions at the War Office, which have since been contested; it is true I did not send out the labour which some thought I ought to have sent out; it is true I did not do this and that which you think I ought to have done; but, with my experience as an officer, what I did I did deliberately, and if Iliad to go through the matter again I should do the same. He (Mr. Brand) was not there to say whether Sir John Adye was right or wrong; but he thought that at any rate the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that if sufficient labour was not sent out to Ismailia it was not owing to any fault of the system, but owing to the decision taken by Sir John Adye himself. Then there was another matter which the hon. Member would never take account of, and that was that Lord Wolseley deliberately kept the base secret; that there was a change of base; that there was an immense pressure in sending out all the supplies for the Egyptian War; and, further, that Lord Wolseley, owing to military exigencies, deliberately advanced in front of his transport, and before the base was organized. If questioned on the point, Lord Wolseley and Sir John Adye would say—"It is true that there was a certain amount of strain during the first seven days; it is true, if you like, that there was a certain amount of discomfort borne by the troops; but in the end we succeeded; in the end we obtained the object which we had in view, and we deliberately went out with less transport than we should have taken in ordinary cases, because we intended to trust to the Railway and Canal, and as soon as they were in operation things went perfectly smoothly." He (Mr. Brand) felt himself in a rather difficult position that night, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow had on many occasions touched on the subject of the Egyptian War, of which he (Mr. Brand) imagined the Committee must be very tired. At the same time, ho thought the Committee would allow that he had every claim to answer some of the statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman. Now, the Committee was appointed for two purposes—to inquire into the failures, if any, in the Egyptian War,
522
and if those failures were proved to decide what changes should be made in the organization of the Commissariat and Transport Departments. Well, when the Committee was appointed, he told the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow that the War Department admitted certain failures; and he warned him at the time that when he got into the Committee upstairs he would not be able to show there were any great failures outside those cases—that wa3 to say, failures connected with the Supply Department of the War Office. The hon. Gentleman had every advantage given to him; he had, as his chief witness, the Commissary General of the Expedition, who spoke without reserve, and gave the hon. Gentleman all the information he could; he also had the evidence of Mr. Lawson, who was the Assistant Director of Supplies; he had the evidence of Mr. Nepean, Director of Contracts; he had the evidence of the Chief of the Staff; indeed, everything was told the hon. Gentleman that could be told, and yet he never discovered anything beyond the three cases admitted—namely, the flour, the Liverpool hay, and the Turkish mules. Well, now, he wished to say a few words with respect to some of the statements which the hon. Gentleman made in the speech he delivered on the Civil Service Estimates. In The Times of the 5th of June the hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
"He wished to draw attention to the shameful character of the hay which had been supplied by a Liverpool contractor for the use of our Forces in Egypt."
What were the facts with regard to the hay? No bad hay was delivered to the troops in Egypt during the Campaign. The hon. Gentleman would admit, at any rate, that there was no complaint of any hay issued to the troops during the campaign. Only a portion of the hay, or certain portions of the hay, bought in Liverpool was condemned as bad. A great proportion of this hay was found sound and fit for use in Egypt, after it was exposed to deterioration from climate and accidents in transit. A wholesale condemnation of 100 tons was made by the senior Commissariat officer; but, upon detailed investigation, a large proportion of it was found fit. After another condemnatory Report, it was added that the percentage of bad hay could not exceed 3 or 4 per

523
cent. It was North of England hay, which, as a matter of notoriety, was not equal to South country hay. Then the hon. Gentleman said—
"It was found that the trusses of hay were largely composed of brickbats and other rubhish."
[Dr. CAMERON: Will the hon. Gentleman say from what he quotes?] He was quoting from The Times report of the hon. Gentleman's speech. [Dr. CAMERON: I am not responsible for that.] Then where was he to find a correct report? At any rate, what the hon. Gentleman was reported to have said was asserted by one of his witnesses. No corroboration of the assertion could be obtained by the Committee, and he (Mr. Brand) did not believe there was a word of truth in the statement. "Some of the hay," the hon. Gentleman went on to say
"that had been condemned as fodder, and which it was intended to use as bedding, smelt so offensively that the men refused to lie upon it."
That statement came from the same officer as the preceding one. The facts, if as stated, were explained by the official Report (page 638) of the senior Commissariat officer at Cairo. It there appeared that a quantity of hay was completely perished and black through contact with salt water. He (Mr. Brand) might go on answering one after another the statements of the hon. Gentleman; but he would only deal with the question of flour, to which the hon. Gentleman had constantly invited the attention of the House. What were the facts with regard to flour? The flour which was complained of was sent from this country in the first ship to Alexandria. The same description of flour had been used in Cyprus in 1878, it had been used in the Zulu and Transvaal Wars, it had been recommended by a Committee on which the Commissary General sat. As the base of operations was kept secret, the Department was obliged to send the flour with the troops. Well, the flour was sent to Alexandria, and the Commissary General who was in charge of the Expedition, and who gave evidence before the Committee, knew that the flour was there, and yet it was kept in the hold of the ship for nine days. After that treatment, it was sent round in the hold of the ship to Ismailia, where, no doubt, it turned out to be bad. It was
524
an extraordinary fact, however, that the Commissary General, although he knew the flour was lying unexamined, actually telegraphed to the War Office to send a second supply of the same article. Now, the statement that the bulk of the flour was sold for manufacture into starch was not correct; the supply in the first ship, which was detained at Alexandria harbour, was; but the supply in the second ship was issued and used by the troops. He had mentioned a few of the cases which occurred in the Egyptian War, in order to show the Committee what amount of accuracy the hon. Gentleman was likely to have employed in the statements he had made respecting the arrangements made for the Soudan War. Speaking of the Soudan Expedition, the hon. Gentleman said the Commissary General had made a great many recommendations to the War Office before the Soudan Campaign, none of which were adopted; and he mentioned, amongst others, the recommendation that supplies should be sent out in separate ships. In the case of the Egyptian War, with a few exceptions, separate ships were employed for supplies. As the hon. Gentleman was well aware, it was necessary, when an Expedition left this country, that certain reserves of supplies and stores should go out with the troops. Then the hon. Gentleman said that the packing of the biscuits was bad. Lord Wolseley, in his despatch which was read by the Surveyor General (Mr. Guy Dawnay), said that, generally speaking, the supplies were properly and well packed. [Dr. CAMERON: Oh, oh!] What did the hon. Gentleman mean? Did he mean that Lord Wolseley had written what was not the case?
DR. CAMERON: I said the buscuits were so badly packed that when they arrived they were mouldy and unfit for use.
MR. BRANDsaid, there was one failure, and that was in the case of certain biscuits bought from a contractor; but they also passed through Woolwich. He was not there to say that mistakes did not occur in every war. There would be a certain percentage of mistakes; but he objected to the hon. Gentleman, on the slightest basis of truth, setting up a large structure of exaggeration. For instance, the hon. Gentleman said that all the tea and sugar went bad. [Dr. CAMERON: I said 25 per cent of it.] The

525
hon. Gentleman became excited in his speech, and he said—for he (Mr. Brand) took down the words at the time—"of the tea and sugar all went bad." He (Mr. Brand) believed that the state of the case was that 5 per cent of the supplies went bad — in this estimate he spoke from memory, and did not include the supplies destroyed by transit. Again, the hon. Gentleman said that all the sugar and groceries wont bad. [Dr. CAMERON: Sugar and salt.] He heard the hon. Gentleman say sugar and groceries. He should like to know if that was the case, what the Army really existed on? The hon. Gentleman made it out that the Army in the Soudan had no supplies at all. Then the hon. Gentleman came to the question of clothes. He (Mr. Brand) knew where the report as to the lack of clothing came from. There were certain articles in one of the daily papers, and he believed the writer of those articles was a correspondent at the front who fell foul of the Ordnance Store Department, because the troops were without clothes and boots. The hon. Gentleman knew very well that the head of the Ordnance Store Department had nothing to do with the transport of the stores to the front. Of boots and clothes there were plenty on the Nile. It rested entirely with the General in command of the communication whether the boots and clothes should be sent up to the front or whether supplies should be sent first; and he (Mr. Brand) presumed the real explanation of the circumstance was that the General in charge of the line of communications considered that at the particular time it was more important that the troops should have supplies and ammunition than boots and clothes. That he believed was the correct explanation of the fact. The Ordnance Store Department had no more to do with the sending of the stores and supplies to the front than the hon. Member himself. And now he (Mr. Brand) thought he need only refer to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman with respect to the purchase of camels. The hon. Gentleman said that the Director of Supply and Transport was at the head of the Department which had to do with the purchase of camels. In the case of the Soudan War that was not so. As a matter of fact, when the base of supply was removed from London to Cairo orders were sent
526
out to the General Commanding in Chief in Egypt to purchase transport animals for the use of the Army. He believed the General did the best he could under very difficult circumstances; but he was not there to deny that there were a great many camels purchased for the Soudan War which were not quite fit for the purposes for which they were bought. The hon. Gentleman said that cartridges had been sent out which were found to be useless; but that was the first time ho (Mr. Brand) had heard of it if it were so. It was true that some of the cartridges had jammed in the rifles and machine guns at Abou Klea; but the reason for it had been explained. With regard to candles for oil lamps, the explanation was very simple. The facts were these. The service lamps were intended to burn oil; but it appeared that the Commissary General had suggested to the Director of Supplies and Transport before the Expedition sailed that candles were preferable to oil; but the Director of Artillery and Stores who supplied the lamps was not referred to. The Director of Supplies and Transport, presuming that the suggestion would not have been made without referring to the Director of Artillery and Stores, sent out candles instead of oil, hence the mistake. He contended that it was not true to say that there had been a breakdown in the transport connected with the Egyptian War; and with reference to the Soudan War, he believed that what the Surveyor General had said was correct —that, considering all the difficulties of transport, the Army was well supplied. In the case of the Egyptian War there had been a great strain. A large body of troops had to be sent out without proper wharfage, and without proper appliances for the landing of the stores. The difficulties were considerably enhanced by the decision taken by Lord Wolseley to advance on account of military exigencies in front of his transport, before his transport was landed, the railway cleared, or his base organized. The strain lasted seven days, as he had said before, and after that everything went smoothly. The Chief of the Staff had declared that no necessary movement had been prevented, that supplies of all kinds had been ample; and, in his opinion, officers and men of all ranks and departments had done their duty remarkably well; and that there had been

527
no breakdown. In judging of this Campaign the Committee must have regard not only to the rapidity with which the Expedition was equipped and launched, but to the rapidity with which it advanced and terminated. No war ever took place without some miscarriages; but neither in Egypt nor the Soudan had miscarriages occurred which would at all justify the language used by the hon. Member. He maintained that if the failures or mistakes which had taken place in Egypt and along the Nile had never been exceeded, the Department might be justified in considering that it had not merited condemnation.
MR. CARBUTTsaid, that in saying a word or two on the subject of the Ordnance Establishment, he did not wish to be considered as desiring to make a personal attack on one side or the other. They were all at liberty to express their own opinions—
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: The discussion on the subject of guns should be taken on Vote 12. This Vote 9 has nothing to do with guns.
MR. CARBUTT: I am going to speak on the Ordnance Establishment. Am I ruled out of Order?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the discussion on warlike stores must come under Vote 12; at least, it would more properly come under that Vote.
MR. CARBUTT: Do you, Sir, rule me out of Order in raising the subject on this Vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member would be out of Order, because the subject of ordnance might in some way be connected with this Vote; but guns are specifically mentioned in Vote 12, and it would be more regular to refer to them under that Vote. Vote 12 is for guns and warlike stores.
MR. CARBUTT: With all deference to your ruling, Sir—of course I bow to it—I would submit that my references will be to the Establishment at Woolwich and the officers who conduct it, and that I should be perfectly in Order in speaking on the point now.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before you decide the point, Sir, I would draw attention to the fact that the Vote does not cover the salaries of the officers of the Manufacturing Department. The Ordnance Store officers referred to in the Vote are those who have
528
the custody of warlike stores. They are not the officers engaged in the manufacturing of guns. The whole of the service connected with the production of guns, whether by contract or at Woolwich, will come under Vote 12.
DR. CAMERONsaid, ho wished to offer an explanation on a single point contained in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand). The hon. Gentleman had quoted a paragraph concerning the "iron ration" from a pamphlet he (Dr. Cameron) had written. The hon. Gentleman had put it forward as a specimen of his (Dr. Cameron's) statements, and had declared that it was absolutely false and unfounded, and that the other statements were to be taken in the same light. He would refer the hon. Member to page 576 of the Evidence—to the Appendix. It was evident from that that the sausages and the "iron rations" did not arrive at Ismailia until September 8. With regard to the condition in which they arrived, it would be seen from Question 941 of the Evidence, and the answer of the Commissary General thereto—
"That not one single case was in proper order when it was received, which statement could he confirmed by the individual Reports of the Commissary officers at the front. The cases were broken, and the inside tins were left knocking about, so that there was scarcely a complete ration opened."
MR. BRANDsaid, he could not leave the statements there. The details of this matter would be found on page 686 of the Report; and if the hon. Member would refer to them he would find that the erbswurst arrived as he (Mr. Brand) had stated. As to the condemnation, the accounts of the Egyptian Expedition showed a loss of about 50 lbs. out of a total sent out of about 50,000 lbs.—the loss being of the value of a little under £2.
DR. CAMERON: My complaint is that the accounts of the Egyptian Expedition are not worth a straw.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he had not been a Member of the Committee that the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) had moved for. He had not been responsible for the despatch of stores to Egypt or the Soudan; and as one of those who had not initiated the mistakes of the War Office during the past five years, he might be allowed to say a few words in regard to a Department with which

529
he was at one time connected. He thought he could honestly say, so far as the officers were concerned — whether military or civil, and he had had to do with both—he had always found them ready to help him with their experience. They were all very hard working; they thoroughly know their business; and if they committed mistakes they only did what all mortals, high or low, sometimes did in their lives. The Expeditions to Egypt and the Soudan had been of a novel kind. There was no doubt that the transport to that country, although it was understood by those who had been in hot climates, was not altogether familiar to the War Office. There had been an idea of sending Flanders carts, or, more properly, waggons out for the transport of stores; but he believed it was afterwards found that the transport to be obtained in Egypt was far more efficient than anything which could be sent from home. Then, with regard to stores, he had pointed out, at the time the Committee was moved for, that, in his opinion, the only effect of granting the inquiry would be to make a very large Blue Book, which nobody would read, and that it would all end in nothing. He believed, though he did not pretend to be a prophet, that his prediction had turned out to be perfectly true. He had said, when the Committee was moved for, that any mistakes would be prevented by sending with each ship a supercargo, who would take note of the stores and see that they were delivered in their proper order. That would prevent anything like the unfortunate mistakes which took place in the Crimean War, by which stores were found at the bottom of the ship which should have been at the top, and a great many articles which were urgently needed were discovered everywhere but where they should have been, mistakes which excited a great amount of attention and public dissatisfaction at the time. But, on the whole, as had been well pointed out by his two hon. Friends the present and the late Surveyor General of the Ordnance, the mistakes of the Commissariat and Transport Authorities had been comparatively few. He held that whatever their faults were—and, as he had said already, no one could be altogether free from error—those faults must be shared by the General Commanding in Chief in the field. The General Com-
530
manding in Chief was, as everyone knew, supreme in all matters of war; and when the stores were actually delivered, wherever it might be—at Alexandria or elsewhere—the General Commanding in Chief and his Staff became responsible for their due delivery. If, therefore, the troops suffered seriously from any cause—from famine, or from want of proper clothing or want of medical stores—theresponsibility,though not the whole of it, but the responsibility in chief, must be shared by the Military Commander. He thought it only right to say that on behalf of the Commissariat and Transport officials, because he often noticed a tendency not only in that House, but also in the newspapers, to hit them hard because they had no friends. The Ordnance and Stores Department had been spoken of in not very polite terms in one of the magazines the other day—in fact, as utterly rotten, in consequence of some mistake which had taken place in the Department of the Director of Artillery and Stores. No doubt, the work of that Department was very responsible and very heavy; but, in his (Lord Eustace Cecil's) experience, there had never been a better officer at the head of it than the present Director General. He might say that the two officers who had been so much referred to in connection with this subject had had considerable experience in their Departments. He was sure that if any mistakes had taken place they had been unintentional and through press of business. He believed that a certain amount of the responsibility was due, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), to the sudden manner in which the Expedition had been determined on. He knew that, with regard to the Egyptian Expedition, the orders sent out for the troops and the necessary stores wore very sudden indeed; and, no doubt, there had been some mistakes through the absence, on board the ships carrying the stores, of supercargoes to regulate the deliveries. But he thought that before they condemned the unfortunate Commissariat and Store officers, some criticism should be passed on the sudden manner in which they were called upon to carry out duties to which they were not accustomed—such as fitting out an Army with every necessary—nay, almost every

531
luxury. He ventured to say that no troops in the world had so many luxuries as were served out for Her Majesty's soldiers on foreign service. His criticism on all this would be that if any change was effected in any of the Departments, it should take the appointment of additional assistance in the War Office itself under the Director of Artillery and Stores. The Commissary General, as he was then—Sir Henry Gordon, brother of General Gordon— whose services he (Lord Eustace Cecil) had had the advantage of having for some considerable time, had always been very much in favour of having a civilian Director of Stores under the Surveyor General; and there were, no doubt, a great many arguments in favour of such an arrangement. But what he would certainly suggest was that the Director of Stores should be strengthened as far as possible by having an Assistant Director of Stores, as there was an Assistant Director of Artillery and an Assistant Director of Clothing. Such an appointment would be a great advantage to the Surveyor General and the Secretary of State for War. The time was coming, he thought, when they would have frequent changes of Government; and with all the knowledge and zeal that Parliamentary officials might possess—and he could only say that listening to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, one on the Front Opposition Bench and one on the Front Ministerial Bench, showed how well acquainted they were with the subject—and with all the knowledge and zeal that their successors might also possess, it would be perfectly impossible to prevent these mistakes occurring unless the Departments were well manned. Mistakes occurred in the War Office as elsewhere, because the staff was hardly sufficient for what might happen. Mistakes might be prevented by a little management—by a little extra help and aid, perhaps merely by the payment of an extra salary to a junior officer, and appointing to a responsible office one who was capable of giving assistance in time of need. Because the Departments were undermanned those mistakes were made, and the cry was heard—"Oh, the Ordnance and Store Department is utterly rotten; the boots are all bad, the coats are all in rags," and every sort of complaint was made, the real reason for things
532
being in that condition being the accidents of war, and, probably, the Government having decided upon hostilities suddenly and without due notice to the Departments themselves. He was sure the Departments had done their duty, and he was sure that every Surveyor General of the Ordnance and every Secretary of State for War who had held Office during the past five years would bear him out in saying that the Departments had done all they could do, and that it was wrong and improper to expect them to do that which no mortal man could do.
MR. HICKSsaid, that before they went to a vote on this Amendment he begged to ask one question of Her Majesty's Government; and that was whether they would, at the commencement of the nest Parliament, renew the Committee of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron)—a Committee which, by the showing of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, had effected great good? He could remember, as other Members could, that in the early part of the Session the hon. Member for Glasgow moved for the re-appointment of that Committee. That reappointment was refused by Her Majesty's then Government, he believed on the sole ground that Lord Wolseley was not here. But that refusal was most strongly censured by all the Military Authorities then sitting on the Opposition side of the House. Those authorities pointed out the very valuable information that the Committee had obtained. One after another the same charges of want of provision by the Commissariat Department were reiterated, and the evidence which had been brought before the Committee and before the country was pointed out; and he did think that though the moving of this Amendment might be the only way of raising the question or of obtaining a vote on it, it was not the best way to move in the matter. The question ought to be met by a renewal of the Committee which had been, to his mind, so improperly burked by the late Government.
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he quite agreed in the words of the hon. Member, that this Committee had been "burked" at the beginning. The Committee last year had taken a great deal of trouble over its investigations; besides, it had been

533
composed of Members of some authority and experience. It had some distinguished officers upon it; the late Surveyor General of the Ordnance had presided over it; the present Minister of the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) had been a Member of it, and there were many other distinguished persons upon it, including the present Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Guy Dawnay), who had since been in the Soudan. The first duty which the Committee had addressed itself to had been to find out the faults which had existed in the Commissariat and Transport arrangements during the Egyptian War, and the second part of their investigation would have been to find out the way to prevent those faults from recurring in the future. Well, after they had found out a certain number of faults, which were admitted to be such, they had been prevented from ascertaining the reason for them and the best method of correcting them. It had been acknowledged by the late Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Brand) that there had been faults in connection with the hay, the flour, the mules, &c, and all those were very important matters. If it had only been for the sake of finding a means to put an end to the faults in regard to those subjects in the future it would have been worth while to re-appoint this Committee. A Select Committee was not an expensive institution—in this case the cost was almost nil. The Committee had done a great deal of good, and he believed it would have done infinitely more if it had been re-appointed. One effect it would have had would have been to have spared them the necessity for the present debate. Of the speakers who had preceded him three had held the Office of Surveyor General of the Ordnance—in fact, all the Gentlemen in existence who had held that post had spoken. It was natural that each of those Gentlemen should have sympathized with his Department, and it was natural that neither of them should want a Committee of investigation. They defended the Department of which they had been the head, particularly the late Surveyor General of the Ordnance, who took upon himself responsibility for everything connected with the Department—who would not tell them that he was not responsible for the things which had gone wrong. The hon. Member
534
could not possibly be responsible for everything which had occurred, for be was not in Office during the whole period over which the complaints ranged. It was mere chivalry on the hon. Member's part to come forward and take all responsibility, and defend the Department for everything that had taken place. Where the organization of the Department was most defective, there those Gentlemen wore more anxious than anyone else to defend it. The attitude of the present Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Guy Dawnay) was most remarkable. The hon. Member had worked most indefatigably on the Committee. He had been convinced of the errors of the Department and of the mistakes committed during the Campaign; but the moment the hon. Member took his seat on the Treasury Bench he told them that his whole opinion had changed. [Mr. GUY DAWNAY: No, no!] At any rate, he had gathered from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he had changed his opinion. He had understood the hon. Member originally to challenge the working of the Supply Department in the Egyptian Campaign. Not only had the hon. Member's conduct on the Committee, of which he had been a most active Member, impressed him (Colonel Nolan) with the opinion he had stated, but the hon. Member had clearly shown that night that he had changed his views and his opinions. The hon. Member had told them that according to his own experience they had had in the Suakin Campaign the most perfect transport in the world; but that statement on the part of the hon. Member could not amount to much, seeing what a little the transport had been called upon to do. As a matter of fact it had never had to go 20 miles from the ships, except when a small expedition had been sent out about 15 miles from the main body for some purpose or other. It did not seem to him (Colonel Nolan) that the transport had in this campaign had anything like a test applied to it. It was well known that its camel branch was the worst in the world. There might have been some difficulty experienced in having to feed troops 20 miles away from the ships and supply them with water; but when the work had to be done by the worst camels in the world he did not see that there was much to justify the statement of the Surveyor General of

535
the Ordnance that this transport was the best any country could produce. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had only spoken of one Campaign; but there was a great deal to be said with regard to the transport in connection with other Campaigns. Why the flour was so bad was this. There was one description of flour which was unsuited to hot climates. That was exactly the kind which had been selected by the Authorities to send out to the troops. There had been I plenty of other kinds of flour in the market; but this, that was remarkable for its unsuitability to a hot climate, was the one selected. Then, again, during the Egyptian Campaign there had been an immense quantity of bad hay sent out— hay not only bad in itself, but mixed with rubbish, and containing even brickbats. He did not suppose any of the hay was altogether made up of brickbats, although one witness had said that there were a lot in it. Then it had been shown that the mules had been badly selected, and that no proper system had been devised for servants to attend to them. During the Egyptian Campaign there was really no transport except a railway and a canal, which were in the hands of the enemy. That was clearly shown by Sir John Adye, who had declared as much. Nothing could be worse than the system of transport for this Campaign. Fortunately, the operations conducted by Her Majesty's troops had succeeded, and there was an end of the matter. It behoved them, in his opinion, to see that in the future, in regard to transport, they got good value for their money. It was the fault of the organization that they had not secured that in the past. The idea of several Members of the Committee had been that responsibility in regard to supply and transport was not sufficiently centralized, as it was in the case of the Artillery under the Director General. When they came to supply and transport they had no one responsible. They had a Director of Contracts, and a Director of Supply; but the Commissariat was not under the War Office, and the Director General managed everything. The fact was that no one person was responsible all through. No one controlled the supplies when they were sent out from England, or managed them while they were in transit. The remedy was as simple as possible. There ought
536
to be a Commissariat officer in charge of the Commissariat arrangements at the War Office—he did not mean to say for regulating the prices for large contracts, because that could be done otherwise. But they should follow the precedents of the Artillery and Engineers, and have a Commissariat officer responsible for transit, who would be afterwards responsible, or one of his deputies would be responsible, in the field. As matters stood at present, there was one man managing at the War Office, and somebody else managing in the field. The evidence of Sir Edward Morris showed that when he was told to be responsible in Egypt, he went to the War Office and said—"I should like to see how the stores are packed; "but the War Office officials replied at once—"Oh, no! You must go away from the War Office. You can manage everything in Egypt, but not here. This is our business." Of course, there was a great gap. Things were managed at one end, and at the other end; but there was no connection between the two. And that would have been prevented if there had been someone in the Surveyor General's Department responsible to him, and that man was also responsible in the field, or had a deputy there. The Surveyor General stood in a totally different relation to the Commissariat Department to that in which he stood to the Artillery or Engineers, for in the latter case he had a responsible man to advise him—the Director General of Artillery or Engineers; but there was nobody to advise him for the rest. The Artillery and Engineers were not satisfied to have a man at the War Office under whom the whole thing broke down. They had a man at the Horse Guards who looked after things, who was at hand when things went wrong, and who saw who was to blame. There was no necessity with them for somebody to be continually making speeches to defend somebody else—the late Surveyor General defending Sir John Adye, and the present Surveyor General defending the present official, and all of them combining to defend the whole Department among them. There should really be someone to advise the Surveyor General when things went wrong, and the Surveyor General should not be only politically responsible. At the present moment there was nobody of any kind, sort, or description to ad-

537
vise him. The whole thing was in a state of chaos. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Cameron) had not stated one-half or one-third of what might he stated—he could not bring down all the stores with the same ease with which he had brought down a lantern—and there were half-a-dozen more cases all of which were quite as bad, and which would show the existence of an even worse condition of things than did the lantern.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought there was great reason to be dissatisfied with the explanations which had been offered by the Surveyor General. It was quite true that there always would be accidents in carrying out such extensive transactions; but the complaints which were made were not due to mere accidents, but to absolute incompetence on the part of a certain Department—it was incompetence that was the real cause of complaint. As he understood it, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) made any complaint of the Commissariat or Transport Service in the field; the fault which the hon. Gentleman found was with the Department at home, and the charge against the Department was that some of its heads had proved themselves to be incompetent. The charge did not arise out of questions of expense; it arose out of questions of judgment. It was indispensable that the persons who were charged with the important duty of supplying stores to an Army ought to be acquainted with what was best for the purpose, and should send only that out. It was true that the General in charge had to be satisfied; but anyone who read the evidence which was laid before the Committee on the Commissariat Department would at once come to the conclusion that the Commander-in-Chief must be easily satisfied if he were satisfied with the arrangements which were made in this case. It was all very well to say that the Army Campaign was successful; but if Lord Wolseley had had an enemy to meet at Ismailia, he would have found a very different state of affairs prevailing. All that the General was able to do was to maintain his Army when they had no enemy opposed to them; and he (Mr. Barclay) did not think there was any great reason to feel proud of such an achievement as that.
538
What the Committee would like to know was, whether any change was to be made in the system, so that all the mistakes that had hitherto been made might be avoided for the future. Large railway contractors who had to conduct operations and send out expeditions to foreign countries always took care to choose competent assistants to see that the work was properly carried out; and if any assistant failed in that duty, the services of that individual were promptly dispensed with. There had been several failures in connection with both the Expeditions to Egypt. In the first Expedition there was a failure in respect both of flour and hay; and as to the case of the hay, the more it was investigated the worse it became. There was not only proof of incompetence in that case, but there was very great reason to suspect that there was corruption also. In the last Expedition it was found that the packing was insufficient for the protection of the stores. Now, that was not a matter which was the result of accident. Proper packing was such an important matter that the officer who neglected to attend to it properly ought to be superseded, and it was only by taking such a step as that that they could hope to have any improvement in their various Departments. If the Select Committee had been allowed to sit for another Session, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) would have been able to prove a very large proportion of his statements. It was very easy for the late Surveyor General (Mr. Brand) to come down to that House, and, with well-simulated indignation, repel charges which had never been made; but was the Surveyor General prepared to defend the hay contract, and would he say that the hay sent out was of sufficient quality and properly sent out, in the face of all the evidence which had been collected? This was not the place for going into details on the point; but if the Select Committee were allowed to resume their labours at some future time, he (Mr. Barclay) had not the slightest doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would be able to prove to the satisfaction of the non-official Members of the Committee that his charges were substantially correct. He (Mr. Barclay) would like to hoar from the present Surveyor General whether he was sa-

539
tisfied with the arrangements of the Departments—whether ho did not think that some improvement should be made—whether there should not be some more condensed responsibility, some means of bringing home to some responsible individual such complaints as those about our stores in both the Egyptian Campaigns. If the Surveyor General of Ordnance would give some indication of that kind to the Committee it would be received with considerable satisfaction; but it was very disheartening and disappointing to the country to find one Surveyor General after another getting up and saying that things were in the most perfect order and condition; that all the arrangements were complete, and that they could not be improved; when at the same time an investigation showed that gross errors had been committed, and that they would be made again and again until there was some really strong man appointed to the Office of Surveyor General—a man who would make himself responsible for the whole of the work of the Department, and for its being conducted with ordinary business despatch and security. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would proceed to a division, for that was the only resource which the Committee had of expressing its opinion upon those mistakes. Whether the Heads of the Department condoned it or not, the conduct of the Department was not such as to entitle it to the confidence of the Committee.
COLONEL MILNE-HOMEsupposed that the object of the hon. Member in placing this Amendment on the Paper was to enter a sort of protest against the non-re-appointment of the Select Committee on the Commissariat and Transport Services. He (Colonel Milne-Home) well recollected the last debate which took place on this subject, when the re-appointment of the Committee was moved for by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and the late Surveyor General of Ordnance used as his main argument against the re-appointment the fact that Lord Wolseley was not in this country.
MR. BRAND: I never spoke at all upon that occasion.
COLONEL MILNE-HOMEsaid, it was probably the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) who used the argument, and told the House that Lord
540
Wolseley was not at that time in this country. Lord Wolseley's was the main evidence required to complete the evidence before the Committee; and, therefore, said the noble Marquess, it was not possible to re-appoint the Committee with any good effect. He (Colonel Milne-Home) was not going to suggest that, because Lord Wolseley arrived in London that afternoon, the Committee should be re-appointed to-morrow morning. The Session had now reached too late a period for the taking of such a step; but he did think, with his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), that they should have some kind of announcement from the Government —from the present Secretary of State for War—as to whether it was proposed to re-appoint the Committee next Session to go into the organization of the Commissariat Department. It was well remembered that the Committee had two points to inquire into—first of all, matters of fact which happened in the Campaign of 1882, and, in the next place, the organization of the Commissariat Department; and there was ample evidence brought forward before the Committee to prove that there was great room for improvement in the organization of the Commissariat Department. He believed himself, from all he had heard, that it would give great satisfaction to the officers of the Commissariat Department themselves if some inquiry were made; and he therefore hoped they would have a few words from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) to show that that inquiry would be proceeded with next Session. He believed that such an assurance would facilitate the discussion of the Army Estimates, and generally influence himself (Colonel Milne-Home) and others in the vote they would give on the Amendment now before the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman would give any hope that the Committee would be re-appointed next year, and would go on with the inquiry, and enter into the organization of the Commissariat Department, he (Colonel Milne-Home) should not, on that occasion, vote with the hon. Member for Glasgow; but if the Select Committee was to be allowed to have all its labours overthrown, he should be disposed to vote for the Amendment of that hon. Gentleman.
DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had done good service by bringing this question again before the Committee; because, although ho had been taunted with making old speeches over again, they could not have too much of a good thing, and the hon. Gentleman, to use an expressive vulgarism, must go on "pegging away" until he attained his point. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) and the hon. and gallant Member for Berwickshire (Colonel Milne-Home) had both impressed on the Government, in the strongest possible way, the necessity of re-appointing the Select Committee either that Session or next. It was said that the only two reasons for the non-appointment of the Committee were, in the first place, that the different Departments had been so extremely overworked of late that it would be hardly generous or just to ask them to undertake the heavy additional labour which would be involved if the Committee resumed its inquiry; and, in the second place, that Lord Wolseley, whose evidence was looked upon as of primary importance, was not here. But those reasons had now happily disappeared. The strain upon the Departments had now been removed, and Lord Wolseley returned to-day. It might be possible to have the Committee re-appointed even for a short time that Session, and if it could not be done that year it might be done next. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had told them that mistakes were made, but that they were few in number. But was it necessary to have any mistakes at all? Was it not possible that they might be avoided by better organization? He did not mean to say that many of those gentlemen who had been working as Departmental officers had not done their work well, loyally, and energetically, and he would admit that the work in the field itself had been done admirably, considering the conditions under which it had to be done. But the question was whether it was not possible to have a better system under which the work might be better done than under the old system of organization? The Select Committee had done good work up to a certain point; but it was stopped before it could report, and therefore its labours were abortive. If it could be appointed again,
542
and recommence its investigations, a great and valuable service would be performed, and many valuable reforms might be brought into being without much friction or clashing.
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCEsaid, it seemed to be thought that he had been guilty of some inconsistency—as if he had attempted to defend now that which he condemned last year. But he altogether denied that he had done anything of the sort, or that he had in any way, as to matters of fact, changed his opinions. He condemned entirely now that which he condemned then, and he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had done good in the course which he had taken. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had attributed to him an observation he never made, to the effect that it was impossible to improve the organization of the Department. He had said nothing of the sort. What he did say was that he had not been sufficiently long in Office to be able to express any decided opinion upon the subject. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) did, however, mean to take steps to appoint a Committee to consider the lines of communication, and the supply and transport of the Army. That Committee would sit at once, and during the Autumn the Government would look themselves into all the questions involved.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONpointed out that owing, no doubt, to the very short time that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had held Office, he did not seem to be aware that a Departmental Committee had already been appointed, and it had sat for a considerable time. Its investigations were suspended when Lord Wolseley left this country for Egypt. He (the Marquess of Hartington) thought it was extremely desirable that any Committee of Inquiry into such a subject should be of a very practical character. He himself anticipated much more satisfactory results from the deliberations of the Departmental Committee than from the Report of a Committee of that House; but, of course, if the opinions he had formed should not be realized, it would be competent for any hon. Member to propose the re-appointment of the Select Committee, or the appointment of a new

543
Committee, to go fully into the subject. He had only one other observation to make. He thought that Mr. Haliburton and himself would be the very last to admit that any failure occurred owing to the calamity under which that gentleman suffered. No one had spoken in higher terms than himself of the capacity and ability of the Assistant Director of Supplies. What he (the Marquess of Hartington) contended was that the mistakes which had taken place were extremely few in number, and that it was possible that they might find themselves no better off under any system that could be devised.
MR. CARINGTONsaid, they heard that evening of an inquiry which had taken place concerning certain occurrences in the Soudan; but he wished to know whether any inquiry was to be made into the conduct of the gentleman who was intrusted with the buying of the supplies for the Army? That gentleman bought bad hay and bad flour. That was clearly proved before the Committee; and he wished to know whether any inquiry was to be made into that gentleman's conduct? If a man bought bad hay and bad flour for a mercantile firm he would probably not be continued in their service any longer. It was with great reluctance that he asked that question; but he felt it his duty, as a Member of the Committee, to do so.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he trusted that the Committee would be assured, so far as the present Government were concerned—and he believed it might have been said for the late Government—that every effort would be made to place this portion of the Administration on a satisfactory footing. It-would not be contended that no mistakes had been made and that no inefficiency existed; but he did not understand that corruption was imputed to officials in the Service. [Mr. CARINGTON: I did not wish to imply that.] Of course, such a charge ought not to be advanced unless there was good ground for it. Whatever errors had been committed, there was reason to believe that the Public Service was free from corruption. It might be that there was a want of individual responsibility, and if that was the case he would admit that no effort ought to be spared to secure it.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that having had for some years the pleasure of serving with Mr. Lawson, the Deputy Director of Supplies in the War Office, he believed there was no one in the Service who would be more willing than the gentleman referred to to assist with information that would clear up this question. In consequence of the illness of the Director of Supplies, the duty of providing the Army in 1881 devolved on the Deputy; and it must be to his honour and credit that the vast stores had been laid in with a rapidity and excellence never previously surpassed.
DR. CAMERONsaid, if had to deal only with the statements of Ministers in that House he should not divide the Committee upon his Motion; but, unfortunately, he had to deal not only with them, but with statements which had come from the present occupants of the Front Opposition Bench. Not many days ago he had been obliged to attack the administration of the Admiralty Transport Department, and had been very sharply taken up by the hon. Gentleman who represented the Department under the late Government (Mr. Caine). He was told that everything was on the most satisfactory footing, and that it was absolutely wicked to bring forward such accusations; but the next day, when his comments were made public, came the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in the Admiralty accounts, as taken up to a certain date, there had been a mistake of £500,000 sterling. His remarks of that evening had been treated in the same manner; he was reproached with not having repeated what he had said before, just as a few days ago he had been told that he was reverting to ancient history for his illustrations. The speech of the late Surveyor General of Ordnance was in his customary style; the hon. Gentleman said that his statement was absolutely without foundation. Why, that was exactly what the hon. Gentleman said last year when he (Dr. Cameron) moved for the appointment of a Committee. The then Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) on that occasion told him that his statement with regard to camels being offered on the spot was founded on hearsay, although it was shown that he was quite correct in saying that, because the offer

545
was made at Ismailia, and the camels were at a point only 40 miles distant. Again, he had also said, having the Report of the Commissary General in his pocket, that that officer had stated that his Department was altogether in an unworkable condition, and that it was going from bad to worse. That, of course, was too good an illustration of his inaccuracy for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brand) not to refer to. All the hon. Gentleman could then say was that the Report was not within his knowledge. But he (Dr. Cameron) would point out that the Report was before the Committee, and that it formed the basis of their deliberations; and he asked whether that Report was too strongly described when he summarized it in the way he had just mentioned by saying that the Department was unworkable, and that it was going from bad to worse? At all events, he knew that the Commissary General considered it a fair description of his Report. He must warn the Members of the late Government that if they wanted hon. Members on those Benches to follow them they must not set themselves up as defenders of everything in the nature of maladministration, but must tight the battle of reforms, and of other popular principles which they professed on the floor of the House, and not only on public platforms.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 121: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 221.)
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—{Mr. M'Coan.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the hon. Member for Wicklow would not press his Motion, but allow the Vote to be taken.
MR. M'COANsaid, he would withdraw for the purpose of allowing the Vote to be taken.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, he wished to bring under the consideration of the Committee the insuffi-
546
ciency of the Transport Service, to which of late years the breakdowns which had occurred with respect to the Army were attributable.
MR. M'COANsaid, that he withdrew his Motion on the understanding that Progress would be reported as soon as the Vote was taken. He moved that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
MR. ONSLOWrose to Order. His hon. and gallant Friend was speaking on the Vote before the Committee. The hon. Member for Wicklow had said that he agreed to withdraw the Motion as soon as the Vote was passed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WARsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press for Progress then. The Committee had been engaged upon the Vote for three hours. His hon. and gallant Friend had only to make one or two observations, and the Vote would then, he hoped, be taken.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, in a highly-civilized country—full of roads, railways, and canals—like this, it would always be difficult to organize transport in peace time; hence the Commissariat of the country had be6n, and would always be, at the outset, insufficient for the purpose of war. The question, then, was as to how this insufficiency could be best supplied. There was no doubt that the Commissariat and Transport Departments understood their duties very well; but in consequence of the insufficiency of the transport branch of the Commissariat, it became necessary in every war for a number of animals—horses, mules, and camels — to be handed over to Infantry regiments in order to supply the insufficiency of transport. Those animals were handed over to men who knew nothing about their management; and the consequence was, as had been the case in recent wars, that they either died, got sore backs, or in other ways became inefficient. The Committee would be aware that there was great art in saddling a horse, and especially in putting on

547
pack-saddles, which, if not properly adjusted, would be sure to cause a sore back. Then, again, there was great art in properly attending to camels. What occurred in the Egyptian War was that batches of Infantry soldiers were sent down to Cavalry regiments for three days' instruction in the care and management of horses. He asked whether it was possible to conceive any system more likely than that to be inefficient in war? He never wanted to increase the amount of the Estimates, and the remedy he had to propose for this was that 30 men should be taken annually from each of the Infantry regiments at home and sent to Cavalry regiments for instruction. He knew that there might be some objection to that being done in the summer; but he believed the men could be very well spared from their regiments for six months in the winter. It might be thought that the Cavalry regiments might object to being burdened with those 30 Infantry soldiers; but he could say, from his own experience, that there was no jealousy between the two branches, and he believed, on the contrary, that the Cavalry would be exceedingly glad to have Infantry men with them. There was, as a rule, a great scarcity of men in every Cavalry regiment after the winter leaves had begun; and for that reason he thought it would be a good plan to give them the assistance of those 30 men, and he believed that the Cavalry regiments would do their best to turn them out efficient men in the time mentioned. That plan would provide a very considerable number of men who would be able to conduct and efficiently attend to the transport, while the expense would be next to nothing. Indeed, the services of the men would possibly repay the expense altogether, because they would be able to perform a number of services, for which at present transport was hired, such as sending to and from railway stations, and other matters, which had to be paid for. Whether or not his suggestion were adopted by the War Office, at least he thought that some endeavour ought to be made to place on a better footing that branch of the Service, which had not only broken down in every case, but had been the cause of great expense to the country. For those reasons, he commended the question of transport to the attention of
548
the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION) BILL.— [BILL 215.]
(Sir Henry Holland, Baron Henry De Worms.)
BANKRUPTCY (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION) BILL.— [BILL 215.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)trusted the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill that night. It was a Bill of one clause to enable the Treasury, out of the surplus of bankruptcy funds, to provide accommodation for bankruptcy offices.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir Henry Holland,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed for To-morrow.

POLEHAMPTON ESTATES BILL.
(Sir Henry Holland, Mr. Attorney General.)
[BILL 216.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, that this was also a very simple Bill. It provided that the Charity Commissioners should, subject to the approval of the Court of Chancery, make a scheme for the distribution of part of the Pole-hampton Estate.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"— (Sir Henry Holland,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill committed for To-morrow.

POLEHAMPTON ESTATES BILL.

  SUPPLY [8TH JULY] REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [9th July],"That the 14th Resolution be read a second time."
  And which Amendment was, to leave out"£830,400,"in order to insert £830,120,"—(Sir George Campbell,)— instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That '£830,400' stand part of the said Resolution."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that as the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha was the act of the last Administration and not of the present Government he thought the House would expect a somewhat fuller statement upon the subject than his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) was able, from the information he then had in his possession, to make a few nights ago. At the request of the Earl of North-brook, who was responsible for the re-instatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would make a short statement on the subject. For many years it had been the policy of the British Government to encourage British officers to take service in the Turkish Fleet. That had been the case with Admiral Walker and Admiral Slade, both of whom served in command of the Turkish Fleet while remaining in the active service of the British Navy, and it was also the case with Captain Mac-killon, who served in the Egyptian Navy while he was in the active service of the British Navy. Now, in 1868 Captain Hobart accepted service under the Porte in connection with the Turkish Fleet without previously obtaining the consent of the Admiralty; and, no doubt, that was a very serious offence on his part. Having done that he applied to the Admiralty for their consent, and the Admiralty consulted in the matter the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary—the Earl of Derby—reported that in view of the Cretan insurrection which was then going on it was not desirable for many reasons that the Turkish Fleet should be commanded by a British officer; and he advised that Captain Hobart be informed that he could not be allowed to continue in the British Service if he served under the Turks. Captain Hobart elected to serve under the Porte, and his name was accordingly erased from the list of officers in the British Navy, and he ceased to have any connection with the British Navy. A year later he applied, to be re-instated, and he was in-formed that when the Cretan insurrection was over his application would be considered. Nothing was done until 1874, when he again applied to be reinstated, and the matter was considered by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Ward Hunt, who consulted again the Foreign Secretary—the Earl of Derby. The Earl of Derby stated on that occa-
  550
  sion, the Cretan insurrection being over, that in his opinion the re-instatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha, as a matter of Imperial policy, would be of material advantage to the country. In accordance with the view of the Earl of Derby, Mr. Ward Hunt re-instated Admiral Hobart Pasha in the British Navy. Therefore at that time his original offence was condoned. He was at that time a captain; but he bad not served for some years as Captain, and accordingly, by the Rules of the Service, he was at once retired, and he became a retired Admiral, receiving retiring pay at the rate of £1 per day. Hobart Pasha remained in that position till the year 1877, and during the three years he commanded the Turkish Fleet. In 1877 war broke out between Turkey and Russia, and it was then considered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—the Earl of Derby—that it was not desirable, in view of the fact that England assumed a position of neutrality in that war, that the Turkish Fleet should be commanded by a British officer, and accordingly he advised our Ambassador at Constantinople that as war had broken out between Russia and Turkey it was impossible for Hobart Pasha to continue to hold his position as a British officer, and at the same time command the Turkish Navy, and His Excellency was instructed to intimate that to Hobart Pasha. On his electing to remain in the service of Turkey Hobart Pasha was again struck off the list of officers of the British Navy. At the conclusion of the war Hobart Pasha applied to be reinstated, and he was informed that the matter would be considered. Nothing whatever was done till this year. In May last Hobart Pasha again applied to the late Government for his re-instatement, and his application was again as previously referred to the Foreign Secretary for his opinion. The gallant officer was informed that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, after careful consideration, had come to the conclusion that there were now even a stronger reasons of Imperial policy for his re-instatement than there were before. The House would not expect him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to go fully into those reasons. He thought it would be obvious to anyone that at a time when they were making preparations for a possible outbreak of war it was not unimportant

  551
  that the Government should he in a position to command information which Hobart Pasha had on very important matters. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed; but at all events Hobart Pasha had information with regard to where possible operations of war might he carried on greater than any other person; and it was considered that it was important that the Government should be in a position to ask Hobart Pasha for that information, and that they could hardly do if he was no longer a British officer. For those reasons, then, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs advised the First Lord of the Admiralty that it would be right to reinstate Hobart Pasha again in the British Navy, and accordingly Hobart Pasha was again re-instated, and his position was exactly the same as when he was originally re-instated by the previous Administration in the year 1874— he at once became again a retired Admiral, with the pay of a retired Admiral. He had no other pay, and could not receive any more. This year the question of his original offence was not raised, because that offence had been condoned in 1874. In 1877 his removal from the list of British officers was not due to any offence on his part, but merely to a desire on the part of the British Government to maintain neutrality in the war then taking place between Russia and Turkey. It had no reference whatever to the original offence—if it were an offence—which Hobart Pasha committed in entering the Turkish Service. This year the only question which arose was whether, looking to the whole circumstances of the case, and taking into account the view which the Foreign Secretary held, that, for Imperial reasons, it was important that Hobart Pasha should be a British officer, he should be re-instated again as in 1874. Those, shortly, were the reasons which actuated Earl Granville and the First Lord of the Admiralty in the matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty had, in fact, pursued the policy which Mr. Ward Hunt pursued in 1874, and for the same reasons—namely, that the Foreign Secretary had advised him that for Imperial reasons it was desirable that Hobart Pasha should be re-instated in the British Navy. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had only further to add that there had been several previous occasions on which
  552
  officers who had entered the service of some Foreign Power without the previous consent of the Admiralty had had their names removed from the Navy List, hut had them subsequently reinstated. There was the case of Admiral Sir George Sartorius, who was removed from the Navy in 1832 and reinstated in 1837; of Sir Charles Napier, who was removed from the Service in 1833 and re-instated in 1836; of Lieutenant South, who was removed from the Navy in 1825 for entering foreign service without the consent of the Admiralty, and re-instated in 1827. Therefore, there were many precedents for the action of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The only other question in the case of Hobart Pasha was that of his retired pay. On that point the Law Officers appeared to have been consulted in 1874; and it was held by them that on re-instatement to the British Navy he was entitled, as a matter of right, to retired pay, although he was in the service of a Foreign Power. Several cases of the kind had occurred, and in all those cases it had been held that officers of the British Navy, but in the service of a Foreign Power, were entitled to draw retired pay in this country, unless a condition was made to the contrary. No such condition was made in the case of Hobart Pasha, and therefore, on his re-instatement as a retired Admiral, he was entitled, as a matter of right, to retired pay. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was not friendly to the views Hobart Pasha had laid before the public, and had at times somewhat resented the attitude the gallant officer had assumed towards the Liberal Administration; yet, in view of the whole case, he thought Hobart Pasha's re-instatement could be justified on the ground of precedent, on the ground of the arrangement made in 1874, and also on the ground of Imperial policy, to which he had shortly alluded.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he thought the House had seldom heard a more inadequate defence of an Executive act than that just made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Opposition were bound to express their opinion, because if the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha had been the act of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, no one could doubt that a great clamour would have been raised by Liberal Members, and perhaps by

  553
  Liberal ex-Ministers, in denouncing the conduct of a Government which condoned and rewarded conduct such as that of Hobart Pasha, and which overlooked flagrant breaches of its own law. The House ought to bear in mind that the late Liberal Government did what the previous Tory Government refused to do; because, if he rightly followed the right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General, the Government of Lord Beaconsfield refused to re-instate Hobart Pasha, but the late Government did not. The right hon. Gentleman had not brought before the House what was really the most important part of the case. He had stated that Hobart Pasha was removed from the British Navy in 1868 and re-instated in 1874; he had stated that Hobart Pasha was again expelled or required to leave Her Majesty's Service in 1877; but he had not told the House the full ground on which the act of 1877 was done. It was done because Hobart Pasha, by taking service under the Turkish Government at a time when it was at war with an Ally of Her Majesty, committed a breach of the Neutrality Laws. The fact was, that Hobart Pasha, having committed, in 1868, an offence against naval discipline and the Rules of the Admiralty, having been pardoned for that offence after a humble apology, in which he said he could not resist the tempting pecuniary offer made to him by the Turks, committed a much grosser offence in 1877, because he broke a law which was incumbent upon every private subject of Her Majesty, and which was doubly incumbent upon an officer. The Act of 1870–33 & 34 Vict. c. 90—provided that every
  "British subject who accepts, or agrees to accept, any commission in the Military or Naval Service of any Foreign State at war with any Foreign State at peace with Her Majesty shall he guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall he punishable with fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments at the discretion of the Court before which the offender is convicted."
  Such imprisonment, by another section, was not to exceed two years—
  "and imprisonment, if awarded, may be either with or without hard labour,"
  and the Royal Proclamation issued when war broke out between Russia and the Turks recited this Act, commanding that no person should do anything con-
  554
  trary to the same. Now, this Act Hobart broke when he served under the Turks in the war against Russia. It might be said that he could not well then leave the Turkish Service. Be that as it might, he then made his choice, and could not now come, after such transgressions of English law, asking to be reinstated in the Service of the British Crown. A breach of the Neutrality Laws was no slight matter, because it was one which might easily involve them in serious difficulty with a Foreign Power. They knew that serious difficulty might have arisen if France had gone to war with China, on account of British subjects serving in the Chinese Fleet. There were no laws which ought to be more strictly guarded by them or more respected by the Executive authority of the country than the Foreign Enlistment Act. It seemed to him that Hobart Pasha had, so to speak, played hide-and-seek with the Government. When the opportunity had arisen, he had gone into foreign service in the confidence that whenever he chose to ask for re-admission to the British Navy he would be re-instated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) talked about precedent. Could the right hon. Gentleman produce any case in which an officer who had twice committed an offence of this kind had been restored? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to mention any single case in which a second offence had been condoned, and that offence one so grave as a breach of the Neutrality Laws. Hobart Pasha ought to think himself very fortunate that he was not undergoing the penalty of two years' imprisonment with hard labour instead of being re-instated in the British Navy, and receiving from the taxpayers of the country £36.3 a-year for the rest of his life. He (Mr. Bryce) confessed he could not find that any ground had been put forward yet which was sufficient to justify the re-instatement. It seemed to him that the conduct of the late Government indicated a great contempt both for naval discipline and the law of the country; and if he asked himself what their grounds of action were, ho could only suggest two. It was not a case of forgiving faults in respect of eminent services rendered, for he could not find that Hobart Pasha had rendered any particular service; in fact. his most remarkable performances had

  555
  been that at one time he held a place in Her Majesty's Yacht, and. at another time he was an active blockade runner in the American War of Secession. The late Government either thought that a breach of the Neutrality Laws was so trivial a matter that they might overlook it and re-instate the guilty person in the Navy, or else they regarded a service done to the Turks as a service done to ourselves, which was hardly to have been expected of a Government whose leading Members had spoken pretty freely about the Turks in 1876 and 1877. He could not help hoping that the House would mark its sense of an act of this kind, which he did not think the reasons of so-called policy that had been alleged at all justified, by refusing the retired pay which it was proposed should be paid by the Admiralty to Hobart Pasha,. In that way, too, the House would express its respect for the Statute solemnly enacted in 1870, and its disapproval of those who had treated that Statute with contempt.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that he differed wholly from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) in his view of this case, and that even the ex-Postmaster General, while making a perfectly sufficient technical answer, had left unstated one of the strongest grounds in favour of Admiral Hobart's re-instatement. He (Mr. M'Coan) happened to be at Constantinople when Hobart Pasha first entered the Turkish Service, and well recollected the circumstances under which Hobart Pasha was appointed; and he could testify that during that gallant officer's residence in Constantinople, and his service in the Turkish Navy, he rendered not only good service to the Turks, but excellent service to this country as well. [Laughter.] Gentlemen who did not know the facts might laugh, but he spoke of what he knew; and therefore he assured the House with confidence that ever since the decadence of the influence of our Embassy at Constantinople the chief factor in maintaining in Turkey a friendly feeling towards this country was Hobart Pasha. He maintained, therefore, that the influence which Hobart Pasha had for many years exercised for good between the two countries amply justified his restoration to rank in Her Majesty's Service. If objection were taken to the
  556
  re-instatement because of the salary it entailed he need hardly remind the House that Admiral Slade, whose case was one of those referred to, drew pay as a retired officer in Her Majesty's Navy during the whole time he was in the Turkish Service. But he (Mr. M'Coan) felt strongly that the chief ground on which this re-instatement could be justified was the service Admiral Hobart had rendered to this country as a quasi-Diplomatic Agent. He had kept up in Turkey a kindly feeling towards England which, but for him, would long ago have died out. He was, in fact, the one link which kept alive the old friendship between the two countries, and that fact alone was sufficient to justify the action of the late Government.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, no one could feel a stronger detestation of the Turks than he did. He should like to see them cleared out of Europe. No one felt more strongly than be did that there were far too many Admirals on half-pay; but, still, be thought the House must look at the question as one of pure justice. On the grounds of justice, he really believed Hobart Pasha ought to be re-instated. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) said the Liberals would have made a great noise if this reinstatement had taken place under a Tory Government. Well, but Hobart Pasha was re-instated in 1874 under a Tory Government; and he (Mr. Labou-chere) was not aware that the Liberals made any noise on the subject. ["It was a different case."] It was a precisely similar case. He did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) and hon. Gentlemen who sat near him quite understood the case. They seemed to think that Hobart Pasha hopped into the Turkish Service whenever war was to take place, and hopped back again whenever war was over. That was not the case. Hobart Pasha was a Commander in the English Navy, and he took service with the Turks. Turkey was not then at war; but Hobart Pasha was superseded because he had not asked the permission of Her Majesty's Government to do what he did. A few years afterwards—in 1874—he did ask permission of Her Majesty's Government, and ho was re-instated in the English Service. War broke out in

  557
  1877 between Russia and Turkey. Hobart Pasha, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, was then in command of the Turkish Fleet. What could ho do? Could he, as an honourable man, say—"I have accepted your pay; with the permission of the English Government I have accepted service with you during the time of peace, and now when you are going to war I will retire and not fight?" He could not honourably do that, but was bound to stand to his guns. He remained in command of the Turkish Fleet, and naturally he was again superseded because the Foreign Enlistment Act existed. That Act had not always been put into operation. A great many officers, at divers times, had taken service with Foreign Governments without let or hindrance from Her Majesty's Government. Hobart Pasha was, however, superseded. War came to a close; but, as he understood, Hobart Pasha did not come to this country until a few months ago. The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said there were political reasons why Hobart Pasha should be re-instated—that he would be very useful to us. He (Mr. Labouchere) declined to go into the political considerations, because he regarded the reinstatement as a mere act of justice to Hobart Pasha himself. He thought that as Hobart Pasha had accepted service with the Turks with the consent of Her Majesty's Government; that as he was in the Turkish Service when the war took place with Russia and he was obliged as an honourable man to remain in the Service; that as he had only been superseded on account of that war, it was only reasonable he should be reinstated in Her Majesty's Service when the war came to an end. Some hon. Members seemed astonished that Hobart Pasha was entitled to half-pay. They seemed to forgot that a Commander in the Navy had a right to go on the Retired List, and that if he exercised his right he received half-pay; that when he came to the top of the list of Commanders ho became a retired Captain; and that when he became to the top of the list of Captains he became a retired Admiral. A retired Admiral's services were never called upon. Hobart Pasha would never be called upon by Her Majesty's Government; his services could not be asked. [A laugh.] His hon. Friend
  558
  (Mr. Bryce) laughed; but, nevertheless, he (Mr. Labouchere) maintained that it was impossible to call upon the services of a retired Admiral, because when a naval officer went on half-pay he gave up all right and possibility of being employed in the Navy. The system might be a bad one, but there it was. They would be acting with exceptional stringency towards Hobart Pasha if they refused to do to him what had been done to other Naval Commanders. One Admiral more was one Admiral too many; but it was the system itself which was at fault, and they had no right to make a scapegoat of Hobart Pasha.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought his hon. Friends had raised a false issue in this matter, because it was really not a question whether Hobart Pasha had been serviceable to this country as a quasi-diplomatist, or whether it was a question of justice to Hobart Pasha because he had been serving in Turkey. The question at issue was one of principle, and, as regarded the precedents of the case, there could not be a shadow of a doubt that the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was entirely wrong in all of the four cases which he had laid before the House, in order to induce it to support this Vote to the Turkish Pasha, Hobart Pasha. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case of Slade, of Napier, of Walker, and of Sartorius. Now, when Walker and Slade commanded in Turkey they did so with the consent of the British Government, and when they withdrew from the Turkish Service they, of course, were restored to the position that they held before. But the cases of Sartorius and Napier were very remarkable, and had no similarity to that of Hobart Pasha. Sartorius took the command of the Portuguese Fleet, his name was taken off the British Navy List, and it remained off that List for several years. Napier was in command of a vessel cruising off the coast of Portugal, and Don Pedro requested him take the command of the Portuguese Fleet. Napier left his command in the British Navy and took the command oft he Portuguese Fleet. He defeated the adversaries of Don Pedro, and Don Pedro made him an Admiral. The British Government dismissed him from the Navy, and his name was erased from the list of officers. When Napier found he could not get on

  559
  with the Portuguese Government and gave up the command, be came back on the British Navy List, not, however, as Admiral, but as Commander. He served afterwards with great distinction on the Coast of Syria under Admiral Stop-ford. He (Sir Robert Peel) agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) that there never was a lamer case than that made out by the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The right hon. Gentleman told them that Hobart Pasha had been re-instated on grounds of Imperial policy. Why, the debate was adjourned the other night in order that the House might be informed what the Imperial policy was which would justify such an exception being made as had been made in the case of Hobart Pasha. He (Sir Robert Peel) maintained that there was no proceeding in the history of the British Navy to compare with the reinstatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha; and the other night the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) justified the re-instatement by a statement which he was sure everyone in the House must have heard with surprise. The First Lord of the Admiralty said the other night —
  "Hobart Pasha, having left the Turkish Service, has, therefore, been restored by the influence of Earl Granville and of the Earl of Northbrook."
  Well, now, had Hobart Pasha left the Turkish Service? If he had not left the Turkish Service, the contention of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) clearly fell to the ground. Hobart Pasha knew perfectly well that the receipts he got from the Turkish Government were infinitely greater than those he would get as a retired Admiral of the British Navy. He (Sir Robert Peel) feared that the position of the First Lord, that Hobart had been restored to the Navy List because ho had ceased to be in the Service of the Turkish Government, was wholly untenable. Now, after all, what were the services of Hobart Pasha? He did not wish to depreciate that gallant officer's services to the Turkish Empire; but in this country, as he (Sir Robert Peel) informed the House the other night, Hobart Pasha never rose to a higher position than that of Commander. He was a Commander 22 years ago, as had been stated by an hon. Gentleman opposite. He held the command for two
  560
  years of the Foxhound; that was the only service that this Admiral, who was now put on the Navy List, could look back to; that was what had been called by several hon. Gentlemen his very distinguished service. He (Sir Robert Peel) maintained that if Hobart Pasha was to be put on the Retired List, there was a Regulation in the Navy which must be altered. A gallant Admiral, a man of no politics, had pointed out to him that it was impossible for the Government to put back Hobart Pasha unless they altered one of the Regulations of the Service. Now, according to the Table of Regulations published in the Navy List this month, all officers of Her Majesty's Navy claiming half-pay and retired pay were required to make this declaration—
  "I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I am entitled to half-pay at the rate of so and so, and that I have not accepted any employment under any other Government except under the authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty."
  He therefore maintained that they must alter the fundamental arrangements of their Navy List, if they were to give a pension to Hobart Pasha in the manner suggested. He had no feeling, God knew, against Hobart Pasha on this point. He merely raised the question as a matter of principle. He contended that they could not give to this Turkish Admiral, Hobart Pasha, a position on their Navy List, which there was no precedent whatever to justify. The four cases which had been quoted by the late Postmaster General—namely, those of Admiral Slade, Admiral Sartorius, Admiral Napier, and Admiral Walker, bore in no way upon the case in point; and he (Sir Robert Peel) earnestly hoped the House would not make this grant of money, which could not be justified either as a matter of policy, but which was certainly contrary to the Regulations of Her Majesty's Service.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was rather surprised to hear so remarkable a speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as the one he had just delivered. His hon. Friend did not usually disport himself as an advocate of pensions at the expense of the community, and therefore it was a little astonishing he should do so on the present occasion. He (Mr. Rylands) considered that the charge on

  561
  the Naval Vote for retired pay was a charge which all must deplore. It was increasing from year to year, and on many occasions hon. Gentlemen had pointed out that its extent was becoming a positive danger to the State. He felt very strongly that if any officer was tempted by the offer of very large remuneration to go into some foreign service the public should be relieved, by that very fact, from a charge for pension in respect of that officer. But if that could not he accepted as a rule, it was clear that if a man went into foreign service contrary to the Law of Neutrality and contrary to the directions of the Admiralty, he forfeited any right to pension. It was said that Hobart Pasha was no longer in the Turkish Service. He would like his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to go to his constituents and see what they would say when he told them the story; that here was a man who was formerly a Commander in the British Navy; that he went into a Foreign Service tempted by a large salary, but contrary to the Regulations of the Navy, and without the permission of the Admiralty; that he was struck off the Navy List; that after some years during which he had enjoyed high rank and pay, he was by some means or other allowed to come again on the Navy List of this country; that again he entered the Service of a Foreign Power and was struck off the Navy List; that he remained in that Foreign Service up to the present time, receiving, no doubt, very considerable remuneration, and that the late Government—the Government of economy —put this Hobart Pasha as a permanent charge on the country to the extent of £365 a-year. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton rose in his place and asserted that the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha was simply an act of justice. Justice to whom? Justice to the people of this country, who were to be taxed to the extent of this pension without any service having been rendered to justify it? The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) told the House a mysterious story about certain public interests which were involved, and certain great services which might he rendered by Hobart Pasha. What were those services? The right hon. Gentleman could not say. Was it to give them
  562
  the information he had obtained while in the service of the Turks? Was he to be a spy at a salary of £365 a-year? What was Hobart Pasha to be? If the Government got rid of the pension, but came down to the House and said—"Here is this gentleman, Hobart Pasha, he can do great service to the country, and it is worth our while to pay him £365 a-year in return for that service," the House would be quite prepared to consider such a proposition. Bight hon. Gentlemen ought not to come to the House, and, in order to justify a pension which this gallant officer had no right to, to trump up a story about certain duties of a public character they expected him to perform, but which duties were such that they could not be explained. He looked upon this transaction with the greatest possible dislike and disgust, and he should be glad to have the opportunity of recording his vote against it.
  MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, he thought that the point last touched upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) deserved more emphasis than the hon. Gentleman had given it. The other points had been put before the House with clearness and effect. The case presented by the late Government rested entirely upon the one point that Hobart Pasha, owing to his official connection with the Turkish Navy and Government, might, tinder certain contingencies, have been serviceable to this country. That was a most sinister suggestion to put before the House of Commons. Anything more mean or contemptible he could scarcely imagine. The hon. Member for Wick-low (Mr. M'Coan) pleaded the case of this Admiral, because there had been for years strained relations between Turkey and this country, and Hobart Pasha was really the only medium by which the two countries were kept away from each other's throats. They were not told by the late Postmaster General that on his merits Hobart Pasha would have been entitled to a pension. The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to suggest that Hobart Pasha, on account of having been a British Commander, was entitled to come back to his former position and enjoy a pension; but the matter was put entirely on the special ground that they were approaching a period of difficulty with a great Power,

  563
  and it was possible that Hobart Pasta, supposing that they had a pecuniary hold upon him, might render some service to this country. What service could he have rendered to his country, because the right hon. Gentleman did make a reference to the time when they maintained their neutrality? When Turkey was going to war with Russia they were obliged to detach Hobart Pasha lest they should have been implicated in their official relationship with the belligerents. But although Hobart Pasha was re-instated in the British Navy he remained in the Turkish Service. Surely Turkey was concerned in her neutrality, and for us to put her in the position that her neutrality was in danger was anything but worthy of us. From first to last it appeared to him that this proceeding savoured very much of chicanery. He felt more strongly on this matter, because this unjustifiable act had been done by men with whom he had apolitical connection. He could only wish the matter remained where it first stood, or that the responsibility rested elsewhere than on the shoulders of the late Government. He should have great pleasure in voting against the grant.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he intended to vote for this pension, and would like to give his reasons. It appeared to him that the whole question turned upon the importance to this country of there being a British officer concerned in the Navy of Turkey. He must confess he did not see the slightest meanness in keeping up a connection with the Empire of the Porte. It was of the greatest importance from a political point of view, and also from a naval point of view, that they should have, he would not say the control, but certainly something to do, at any rate, with the Navy of Turkey. It was well they should have an officer whom they could trust well acquainted with all the details of the Turkish Navy; and on that ground alone he intended to support the reinstatement of Hobart Pasha upon the Navy List of this country. With respect to the pecuniary part of the question, he thought he would be supported by the hon. Members who had been and were connected with the Admiralty, when he said that Hobart Pasha's claim to retired pay could not be for a moment questioned. When Hobart Pasha was
  564
  re-instated he was without doubt entitled to the pay of his retired rank. He (Mr. A. Egerton) thought the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and the Government would do wisely to support the decision which had been come to after grave consideration by the late Government.
  DR. CAMERONasked if Hobart Pasha signed the declaration which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) mentioned as being required in such cases?
  MR. CROPPERinquired if it was true that Hobart Pasha was still drawing his pay from the Turkish Government? It seemed to him rather too much that a Turkish Admiral should expect to be at the same time an English Admiral, so that if Turkey became bankrupt and was unable to provide him with half-pay he could fall back on the revenue of the English Navy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, he had exhausted his right to speak; but perhaps the House would allow him to answer a question which had been put to him. Hobart Pasha was re-instated in 1874, and he (Lord George Hamilton) understood that the Admiralty then consented to the gallant officer serving in the Turkish Navy. He regretted that when speaking on this subject the other day he stated that he was under the impression that Hobart Pasha had loft the Turkish Service. He was in error. Hobart Pasha was still in the Turkish Service.
  DR. CAMERON: Did he sign the declaration?
  THE FIRST LORD: No, it is not necessary.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 55: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 222.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, before the next Question was put from the Chair, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was not correct, as he had stated, that the declaration he had read to the House was required from an officer before receiving half-pay? With all respect to Mr. Speaker he submitted that he was entitled to ask that question.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That this House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Before you put that Question I submit that I am entitled to ask the Government whether the following declaration is not required to be made by a naval officer before receiving half-pay—
  "I…do solemnly and sincerely declare that I am entitled to half-pay at the rate of…and that I have not accepted any employment under any other Government except under the authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I thought I had answered that question already; but if my right hon. Friend is not satisfied, and will place a Notice on the Paper, I will answer it again. In 1874 Hobart Pasha was in the service of the Turkish Government, and he was afterwards re-instated. 1 presume that the Lords of the Admiralty would not have re-instated him if they had not approved of his being in the service of the Turkish Government.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, as the right Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) had been requested to put a Notice of his Question on the Paper it might be desirable to adjourn the debate.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERasked whether the hon. Member for Colchester had not exhausted his right to speak on this question?
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he would give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their views on that subject by moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Causton.)
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS)said, he thought the hon. Member for Colchester had made his Motion for the adjournment of the debate under a misconception. His noble Friend had answered the question of the right hon. Baronet most distinctly.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that as since 1877 Hobart Pasha had been acting in breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, it was impossible that the Government should not know it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Sir, I hope the hon. Member for Colchester will not press his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The House has already expressed an opinion on the subject-matter of the question; and I am sure my noble Friend will do his best to satisfy the right hon. Baronet to-morrow after further inquiry.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he should be happy to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he asked what other opportunity there would be of protesting against the Vote?
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he should like to hear some explanation of the statement that Hobart Pasha had played the part of a blockade runner.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 184.]
(The Lord Advocate, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 184.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. T. W. BARCLAYsaid, in giving his reasons for moving the second reading of this Bill, which seemed to have been abandoned by its parents, he should not detain the House at length, yet he hoped that on the next stage of procedure hon. Members would be able to have some discussion upon the subject of the Bill. He wished to make one or two remarks in reply to some of his hon. Friends who were of opinion that the Bill was not sufficient to meet the case of the Crofters in the Western Islands. He did not look upon it as conceding all that was wanted, but as one which gave a large measure of concession. It proposed to confer upon the tenants fixity! of tenure. That, he said, was a great advantage. It also proposed to confer on the tenants fair rents; and that, he thought, must be regarded as a great relief to farmers, who had long struggled under a burden which they were no longer able to bear. The next provision of the Bill related to compensation. When the late Lord Advocate introduced the Bill he had objected to this provision, and said that freedom of sale would be much more agreeable to the farmers; and at the same time he remarked that

  567
  the point could be dealt with in Committee.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERrose to Order. The hon. Member was moving the second reading of a Bill on which his name did not appear.
  MR. SPEAKER: When a Bill is an Order of the Day the Bill becomes the property of the House, and it is competent for any hon. Member to move its further stage.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was about to observe, when the hon. Member opposite interrupted him, that the late Government had, in his opinion, made a mistake in omitting free sale from the Bill. He had expressed the opinion before, and he still thought that it would be a great advantage both to landlords and tenants that that provision should be substituted for compensation. But that, as he had said, was a detail which might be amended when the Bill was in Committee, and therefore he did not think it should be recorded as an objection to the Bill being read a second time. Then it was objected by the friends of the Crofters that there was not provision made in the Bill for giving them more land. He admitted that that was a defect in the Bill, but he did not see how it was possible to provide in the Bill any machinery for the purpose of giving the Crofters the land required; neither had the friends of the Crofters who so strongly recommended the giving of land to them indicated any machinery by which that might be done. For his own part, he looked forward to the establishment of municipal government as likely to provide the means of constituting a responsible body with some powers in the matter. But at present no body existed to which control could be given with advantage, or which could undertake the responsibility. Finally, he repeated that if the Bill did not give all that the Crofters desired it gave a great deal; and if it passed through Parliament, as he hoped it would, with a provision contained in it for securing fair rents and a reduction of excessive rents, he believed that in most cases it would give satisfaction. He therefore begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, it was a remarkable thing that a few days ago they had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) announcing that the Bill contained contentious matter, and to-day they found the Bill amongst the Orders of the Day marked as a Government measure. It was very peculiar also that the Members of the late Government were not in their places. Neither the Leaders of the late Government nor the present Government were prepared to support the Bill, and therefore he would ask in what position it stood? The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) said truly that the Bill contained valuable principles; but those principles required something to which they might be applied, and he believed that the Bill as it stood would be no cure for the disease. It was of no use giving people fixity of tenure in land that was insufficient to provide them with the means of living. The great disease in those parts of Scotland was insufficiency of land. To say, here was a holding absolutely insufficient to maintain them, and that they should have fixity of tenure of it was a thing of no value; and he maintained that unless the Bill contained a provision for the extension of land, and, what was more important than that, for the extension of pasture land, the Bill would do no good. There were some people who, having sufficient land, were desirous of having fixity of tenure in it at a fair rent; and those people, who were best off, would derive very great advantage from the measure, while most of those who were crowded and suffocated in wretched localities would derive no advantage from it whatever. Notwithstanding that, if Her Majesty's Government chose to pass the Bill, and if it only did good to 1 per cent of the people concerned, it would meet with no opposition from him. But he told Her Majesty's Government at once that it would be no settlement of the question, and they must be prepared to have it again raised next year. Whether they would proceed with the Bill in view of that prospect it was for Her Majesty's Government to decide. He intended neither to oppose nor support the Bill. He said it would not solve one-tenth part of the problem. Would Her Majesty's Government support the Motion for the second reading, or would they move the adjournment of the debate?

  569
  He was very curious to know what line they would take on the subject. In his opinion, it would be better, fairer, and more straightforward for the Government to throw the Bill overboard at once, or to say they would deal with it as a Government measure. They had reached the middle of July, and there was little or no chance of the Bill being passed. Ho had said when the question was raised last Tuesday week that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant the second reading and carrying; of a Bill to suspend evictions, it would be far more popular in Scotland than the Bill then before the House. Finally, he believed that if they passed the Bill with all its statutory provisions, which would be rigidly adhered to when it became law, without providing for the extension of land, the measure would be worth absolutely nothing.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he was sorry that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary to damn the Bill with such very faint praise. He had never considered it a final measure, or one that would work everything that was claimed for it; but he had always looked upon it as a step in the right direction, and that so far as it went it ought to be accepted. He believed in the maxim which taught people, when they could not obtain all they wanted, to take as much of what they wanted as they could get. They knew the great stress which had been laid upon the passing of this Bill, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) having said that it was absolutely necessary that it should pass for the peace of the country was to be preserved. He regretted that some leading Member of the late Government was not present to assist in getting the Bill read a second time. His hon. Friend who had just spoken said "suspend evictions;" but even that was a detail the settlement of which in Committee might be arrived at. The Government had told them that they could not proceed with such an important measure without due deliberation. It was only that night that they had had the matter pressed upon them, and they had been told that the proper course was to adjourn the debate. But he would point out that the moving of the second reading of the Bill did not put them in any worse position; they had command of the Bill; they would
  570
  have command of it when it left the House; and hon. Members, as was constantly done, could take the discussion on going into Committee quite as well as on the second reading. There was one advantage in moving the second reading of the Bill under the circumstances of the evening—namely, that they would know who wanted the Bill and who did not; those who would vote for it and those who would vote against it.
  MR. E. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped the House would not be led into adopting the dangerous precedent suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who wished them to record their approval of the principles of the measure after a very short debate. He (Mr. Paget) wished to protest against that being done. The course had been occasionally adopted with reference to measures of light importance, but the House had now before it a Bill of considerable importance; and at that hour of the morning, and after such a debate as they had had, it was surely not proper to thrust the Bill hastily upon the House. He maintained that it was impossible for hon. Members to arrive, at that Sitting, at any agreement on the principle of the Bill; and, therefore, he thought it better at once to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had no intention at that hour of the morning (2 A.M.) of unduly occupying the time of the House; but he would like to make a few remarks. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he did not intend to detain the House very long, and when he had spoken hon. Members would be able to consider what ho had to say. It would be better to hear him before objecting. He concurred very much in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane); and he could not conceive that anyone acquainted with the condition of the districts in which the distress had arisen, and which was caused by—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was just putting before the House an argument in

  571
  favour of the adjournment of the debate. He thought the House, when it understood the condition of the population, would agree to the proposal. He would merely state the fact that the whole ground for the introduction of this Bill had been the riotous conduct of the people, who had been distinguished in times past—
  MR. SPEAKERagain rose to Order, and the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay) resumed his seat.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH)said, he would not follow the hon. Member into a discussion of the Bill, but would confine himself to saying, as he had said on Tuesday last, that the Government did not see their way to taking charge of it. What might be the pleasure of the House with regard to it he did not know; but after what they had heard from Scotch Members, two of whom had declared that they were not satisfied with the measure, he did not think there was anything like an unanimous opinion amongst them in its favour, or that anyone in the House could seriously argue that a question of this importance could be properly discussed at such a period of the evening. He trusted, therefore, that the House would be disposed to agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was admitted that there was a deal to be said on both sides as to this Bill. The late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had laid before the House his view that the peace of the country would be endangered if the Bill was rejected. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had said that he had not made up his mind what course he would take. He (Sir George Campbell) would implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Bill to be read a second time, on the understanding that the discussion could be taken on the next stage, which would be a short one. That course had already been taken in regard to another very important Bill before the House—namely, the Federal Council of Australasia Bill. He (Sir George Campbell) had had a Notice of opposition down in regard to that
  572
  measure; but he had been requested by the Government to withdraw his opposition, on the ground that, time being pressing, it would be well to take the discussion on the next stage—that was to say, on going into Committee. He thought it would be an advantage in this case if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the present stage of the Crofters Bill being taken as a formal stage, the discussion to be taken on going into Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had said that two Scotch Members opposed the Bill. Well, he (Sir George Campbell) regretted that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfar-lane)—who, by the way, was not a Scotch, but an Irish Member—had seen fit to make remarks that he thought had gone too far in depreciation of the Bill. As a matter of fact, only one Scotch Member had declared himself opposed to the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that to remove misapprehensions, such as appeared to be entertained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), he wished to say he entirely adhered to everything that he had said on Tuesday last as to the inability of Her Majesty's Government to take up the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 47: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 223.)
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (TERM OF IMPRISONMENT) BILL.
(Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (TERM OF IMPRISONMENT) BILL.

  [BILL 180.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had on the Paper a Notice to move an Instruction to the Committee. He did not know whether it was necessary; but, subject to explanation on that point, he would move it. It was as follows:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert an Amendment directing prisoners who propose to apply for a certiorari to he admitted to bail pending the decision of the High Court."
  Within his own knowledge magistrates had frequently been in the habit of inflicting a month's imprisonment upon

  573
  prisoners because there was no appeal, and had done it in a regular manner for that reason. If a prisoner sentenced to a month's imprisonment applied for a certiorari that term of punishment would be over before the application could be decided. As there was no appeal for a month's imprisonment, he contended that in out-of-the-way villages the magistrates were often induced to act illegally: and he thought it necessary, therefore, that prisoners should have the power of applying for certiorari. Ho had had under his notice within the past six weeks no less than five convictions by magistrates, in each of which, if it had not been that the convicted parties had not taken French leave, the terra of imprisonment would have expired before the cases could have come before the Queen's Bench. The Queen's Bench had quashed the convictions ultimately; but what consolation would it have been to the defendants if they had undergone the imprisonment? He begged to move the Instruction to the Committee which he had put on the Notice Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert an Amendment directing prisoners who propose to apply for a certiorari to he admitted to bail pending the decision of the High Court."—(Mr. Healy.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, that the proposal to insert a clause such as that indicated by the Instruction would load the Bill, and tend somewhat to endanger it. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious for it to be raised, he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would not resist the Instruction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.

  [BILL 99.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that before Mr. Speaker left the Chair he desired to move the Instruction to the Committee standing in his name on the Paper— namely—
  574
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that it have power to amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, in respect of the provisions of the First Sechdule thereto, as to the charges of Returning Officers."
  Before he went into this subject, he wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir P. Assheton Cross)—
  MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction the hon. and learned Member would move is not necessary. The Committee will be competent to deal with that question without such Motion.
  SIR FARRER HERSCHELLsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour), who had a Notice relating to this Bill on the Paper, he would move his right hon. and learned Friend's Motion. It was as follows: —
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they' have power to extend the Bill to the expenses of Returning Officers at Parliamentary Elections in Scotland."
  It was obvious that the Bill should extend to Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to the expenses of Returning Officers at Parliamentary Elections in Scotland,"—(Sir Farrer Herschell,)
  —put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, that he and his Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had several Amendments they desired to propose, but which they were not now in a position to bring on. He begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Healy,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow

LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 68.] SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he thought

  575
  that even at that hour (2.25 A.M.) the House would allow him to take the second reading stage of this Bill. Of course, if it did, he should give due Notice of the Committee stage.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would not oppose the second reading though the hour was so late—far from it. There were one or two points in connection with it which he thought were well deserving of the attention of hon. Members in Committee. Clause 9, for instance, which dealt with re-hearing on appeal, should receive the close attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Amongst several excellent provisions was that giving an appeal to the Privy Council; but the clause relating to power to add rent to the houses would require grave consideration. Clause 16 was exceedingly good; but he would request the Chief Secretary to give his attention to it, and also to Clause 18, before they went into Committee. He would take the liberty of blocking the Bill, but desired it to be known why he did so. It was not with any intention of delaying the Bill, but simply for the sake of making sure that there was fair opportunity given for Amendments to be put down and fairly considered, and that the Bill should not be taken at an inconvenient time. He did not intend to press his block, or continue it, if the measure were brought on at a convenient time.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
[Colonel Nolan, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Biggar.)
CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 231.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, this was exactly the same Bill as the Act of last year. Its object was to continue the Act up to May next, and it was proposed on account of the danger of cholera reaching their shores from the Continent.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In obedience to the pledge which I gave the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), I rise, even at this late hour of the night, to explain a Bill which I am about to introduce; but the House will not be surprised if I cut down my remarks to the narrowest limits, and do enough, but not more than enough, to redeem the pledge I gave the hon. Member. I will, therefore, simply content myself with describing to the House the extent to which my Bill agrees, and the extent to which it differs from that brought in by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich. In the first place, it agrees with the Bill brought in by the hon. Member in that it is a Bill to abolish the disqualification of persons from voting for receiving medical relief. It is not an Omnibus Bill dealing with the general question of registration. It is a Bill to deal with a specific grievance, or, at any rate, a specific disqualification; and it will not include any of the questions which were pressed upon us by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). But while it does all the hon. Gentleman's Bill proposes to do, it does something more. It appeared to the Government that if they were going to abolish the disqualification in the matter of Parliamentary Elections in regard to medical relief, it would be impossible to avoid abolishing it also in the matter of other elections. The Bill, therefore, removes this disqualification not merely at elections for Parliamentary Representatives, but also at elections for burgesses, school board elections, and the like. There is but one exception to that general rule. We have not thought it right to allow a man to vote in Poor Law matters—for men to deal with the funds of the Unions—who receives relief from the funds managed by the Poor Law Guardians. And therefore to the general principle of removing disqualification for all elections on account of this relief we have made the solitary excep-

  577
  tion that in the case of the election of the Body which had itself to distribute the funds for Poor Law purposes the disqualification shall still exist. Then, Sir, the only other clause which we have added to the provision suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings) is the clause to make the Bill retrospective. If the hon. Gentleman's Bill were carried in the form he proposes, it would only apply after its passage. The injustice of that is manifest to the House, and we have therefore made our Bill retrospective for the past year. No man will be disqualified at the next General Election on account of medical relief received since last July. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me of an omission in my statement. There is another great distinction between our Bill and that of the hon. Gentleman's. The hon. Gentleman's Bill was only for one year. It appeared to us that if it be just at all—a question I shall argue on the second reading—to remove this disqualification, it is absurd not to remove it permanently. It must be obvious to everybody that if this House gives the power to vote, it will never be able to take it away. And if you are never able to take it away, why not at once make the provisions of the Bill permanent? These are the principles on which we have drawn our Bill, and we trust they will prove satisfactory to the majority of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent Medical Relief disqualifying a person from voting."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had just stated with respect to the permanent character of the removal of the disqualification. Of course, it had always been contemplated that the relief should be permanent; but seeing that a clause to that effect was negatived by this Parliament, he and his hon. Friends were afraid to bring in a Bill having such a provision, lest it should be ruled out of Order. Ho thought that the exception which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned was somewhat illogical. A man in receipt of medical relief was not to have the power of voting in the election of those who administered the relief. The right
  578
  hon. Gentleman seemed to forget altogether that there were many cases in which men had paid the poor rates for years; he knew instances in which men had paid poor rates directly or indirectly for the greater part of their lives; and therefore it appeared rather hard that when old age crept upon such men they should not be able to receive some help from the community in the shape of medical relief, if they needed it, without losing their right to vote for the disbursers of the relief. But he did not wish to detain the House on the matter at present. He was very pleased that his Bill had been taken up by hon. Members opposite, for the reason, amongst others, that advances in the direction he desired would be made a great deal easier. He was very glad to find a Conservative Government had gone so far in regard to a reform he had so much at heart. It only remained for him at that time to ask if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) would, for the convenience of the Members of the House who were very much interested in the question, state when he proposed to take the second reading and the subsequent stages of the Bill? He would also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to put a clause in the Bill instructing the overseers to make out supplementary lists, which lists should contain the whole of the names of the voters who had been left out of the general lists owing to the receipt of medical relief? The overseers were compelled to make out the lists of voters. The lists were being made now very rapidly; they had to be revised, printed, and published by the 1st of August. However rapidly, therefore, this Bill might go through the House, it was evident there was not time to put the men who had received medical relief on the general lists. On that account he was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should give positive directions to the overseers to make out within a reasonable time—say, by the 14th or 15th of August—lists which should contain all the voters who had been left off the general lists. He named the 14th or 15th of August, because claims could be made up to the 25th of August. If supplementary lists mere made out up to the 15th, 10 days would be left in which anyone who found his name off the general or supple-

  579
  mentary lists could make a claim within the statutory time. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer the two questions he had put. He did not ask them for his own convenience alone, but because he knew there were many Members of the House to whom it would be convenient to know when it was intended to take the subsequent stages of the Bill.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that before his right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) answered the questions put by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), he should like to express his fear that the Bill was a departure from those sound principles of political economy by which he had hoped his right hon. Friend was imbued. He supposed, however, that the considerations of political exigencies entered into the calculations of both Parties in the House. That was not the time to discuss the principle of the Bill; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them something like adequate Notice of the second reading of the Bill, and that he would also make sure of its coming on at a time when the Bill could be discussed in a manner proportionate to its importance. Although the Bill was a small one, it contained a principle of far-reaching importance.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) would extend to Ireland the relief in the case of elections other than Parliamentary.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was sorry he was obliged to disagree with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot). Whenever this relief had been proposed he had always voted for it, and therefore he congratulated his right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) upon the introduction of the Bill. He particularly congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that the Bill was a much broader measure than that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). In the measure of enfranchisement which Parliament had recently passed he did not see why those persons who happened to have received medical relief should not be included. The measure which the right hon. Gentleman had just explained was one of a very sweeping character; but he thought the Government had acted wisely in introducing it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the people
  580
  affected by the Bill were not to be disqualified from voting this year. That intention was one thing, and the registration of the people was another. In his Bill the right hon. Gentleman would have to see that the men who had received medical relief during the present year were not only not disqualified, but that they were put on the Register for the Election which was to take place in November next. He (Mr. Onslow) was speaking with some little experience. For many years he had been a member of a Board of Guardians, and he thought it extremely foolish and unreasonable that the poor creatures who had, unfortunately, had to apply for medical relief should be disfranchised on that account. The Government had said they did not intend to introduce any Bill of a contentious character. He hoped that this Bill would not create any contention. Personally, he believed that with very few exceptions it would be acceptable to both sides of the House; while it would undoubtedly please the vast majority of the people.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought some attention should be drawn to the fact that while the Radical Party had made a tremendous fuss recently about the question of medical relief, they never once thought of it until the Irish Party proposed to introduce a clause guarding against the disqualification in the Irish Bill. The Irish Party first raised the question last year on the Representation of the People Bill, but they did not get a tittle of support from the Radical Party. The late Government treated them with scorn, and defeated them on that Bill. Then they raised it on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, but got no satisfaction whatever, because the late President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), a Gentleman, no doubt, of very kind words, would make no promise. Thirdly, they agitated the question on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, and succeeded in inducing the late Government to insert a clause preventing the disqualification. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), or any other Gentleman connected with the Radical Party, did not extend to them the smallest modicum of help or sympathy. But when they got their clause into the Registration Bill, and it passed the Lords, the Radical Party suddenly

  581
  woke up to the importance of the question; and what happened? When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) introduced his Amendment in Committee on the Registration of Voters (England) Bill it was defeated by the then Government, and it was only by the votes of the Irish Party, in a small House and a scratch division, that the Amendment was carried on Report. But for the votes of the Irish Members the proposition would never have got to the Lords, and their Lordships would never have been accused of attacking the rights of the working man. Such was the history of the question. The English Radical Party knew nothing of the question of medical relief until it was raised by the Irish Party.
  MR. PELLtrusted, with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot), that the second reading of the Bill would not be taken until hon. Members and the country had had some time to consider what would be the effect of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Balfour) told them he would give no arguments in favour of his measure—that he would adduce the arguments on the second reading. Now, if they were to have a statement of the provisions of the Bill to-day, and the arguments on the second reading, he only desired to say, in support of his hope that the measure would not be proceeded with without a proper interval, that what was proposed would prove a most momentous change in the law of England in reference to the relief of the poor. People were misled by the generalities which were indulged in as to medical relief. After all, it was not medical relief, but the relief of destitute persons who asked for medicine. There was another class of destitute persons who wanted bread, and that class he understood was not to be affected by the Bill. Before a person could be granted medical relief he must be destitute. He might be ever so ill, but if he was not destitute the Guardians could not give him relief. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to remove permanently the disqualification which had always attached to destitution. He (Mr. Pell) maintained that that would be a most
  582
  momentous change in the law of England; and on that ground he asked that the second reading should not be taken until the Bill had been in the hands of Members and before the country for a time sufficient to admit of its being adequately considered.
  MR. CARINGTONsaid, he recollected a case in his constituency of a boy working in the fields meeting with an accident. The poor fellow was taken to the parish doctor—[A laugh.] The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pell) might laugh, but what he was saying was perfectly true. The boy was taken to the parish doctor and treated for the injury. In consequence of that the lad's father was struck off the Register of Voters. The man was by no means destitute; but it was presumed he was struck off the Register because he held Liberal opinions.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not rise to defend the conversion of the Radical Party, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had spoken. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Courtney) was one of those still unconverted; but if any congratulations upon the introduction of the Bill were due, he thought they were due to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) rather than to the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Balfour). He desired now to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the very great importance of not taking the second reading of the Bill at once. The right hon. Gentleman had enlarged the Bill of the hon. Member for Ipswich in two very material directions—he had made the Bill permanent, and he had extended its provisions to all elections except those of Poor Law Guardians. He (Mr. Courtney) was not aware there had been any application from any part of the country for a relaxation of the law in respect to municipal or school board elections. It was perfectly obvious that the relaxation in reference to school board elections would have a most momentous effect on free education. It was right, therefore, that due Notice should be given of the second reading.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARDsaid, that, by the indulgence of the House, he might be permitted to say it was im-

  583
  portant that the Bill should be pushed on as rapidly as possible. It was not a complicated Bill; on the contrary, a glance at the clauses would give everybody an adequate idea of its contents. The Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow, and he did not imagine there would be any serious objection to the second reading being taken to-morrow evening. ["Oh!" He was afraid that, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), he could not alter the arrangement come to with him. If the right hon. Gentleman were present, he would be able to appreciate the appeal which had been made; but, speaking in his absence, he (Mr. Balfour) could only say it was the present intention of the Government to take the second reading to-morrow evening, not as the first, but as the second Order. Of course, the Committee stage could not yet be fixed. He appreciated the necessity of enabling those affected by the Bill to vote at the ensuing General Election, and he would take care that they should be placed on the Register. He could not state a more definite course than that.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that this was an important Bill to introduce at 3 o'clock in the morning. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) that the Government intended to take the second reading in the course of this very evening. Perhaps it would be better to say at once that he (Mr. Clare Bead) and the few Friends present intended to exhaust all the Forms of the House in order to get the Bill properly considered by the House and the country. He, therefore, moved that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was very pleased to second the Motion for Adjournment. Though he supported the Bill of his right hon. Friend most cordially—perhaps more strongly than many Members even on the other side of the House—he could not give his sanction to the second reading being taken tomorrow. This was a Bill affecting Boards of Guardians, and therefore they should have time to consider its details. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see the enormous importance of the Bill. In a few hours they were about to change the whole system of electioneering in the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Clare Read.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMI-RALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)pointed out that until the Bill was read a first time, it could not be printed. The only effect of carrying the Motion for Adjournment would be to prevent the printing of the Bill. He was sure his right hon. Friend would be glad to meet the convenience of the House as far as he could; but everybody must see it would be convenient to put the Bill down for to-morrow.
  MR. PELLsaid, that he and his hon. Friends would divide the House unless they got an assurance that the Bill would not be taken to-morrow, and that, indeed, a reasonable interval would be allowed for the consideration of the measure.
  An hon. MEMBER said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand to his guns. He was afraid some of his hon. Friends objected to the principle of the Bill; but he trusted that, for the sake of a few, they would not, as a body, be convicted of giving the proposed relief with a grudging hand.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTbelieved his hon. Friends would be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would consent not to take the second reading before Thursday. What was asked was time for the consideration of this most important Bill. It was not a question of giving the relief with a grudging hand, but it was a question of knowing what they were giving.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARDdesired to point out to the House the inconvenience of the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Talbot). The Budget was fixed for Thursday. This Bill could not be taken until the debate on the Budget closed, and they were not sure what time that would be. He thought hon. Gentlemen had exaggerated the importance of the Bill; but would it not meet their wishes if the second reading were taken to-morrow, and the principle of the Bill debated on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair? If his hon. Friends would consent to the Bill being read a second time to-morrow, he was confident his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would give ample

  585
  time before the subsequent stages of the Bill were taken.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, be thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a very reasonable one, and he had no doubt those who were anxious to pass the Bill would be content that the second reading should be taken to-morrow, and the subsequent stages put down for Thursday or Friday next. It was important that the Bill should be passed with the utmost rapidity, because the time was short within which the overseers had to prepare the Registers.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Bill had been extended beyond all conception. This measure, which introduced considerations respecting local government entirely foreign to the principles hitherto approved and adopted by both sides of the House, was brought forward at 3 o'clock in the morning. The country could know nothing of the Bill, for it was now too late for the present proceedings to be reported in to-day's papers, and yet the House were asked to read the Bill a second time to-morrow. He hoped the Motion would be pressed, unless they had a strong assurance that the second reading would not be taken before Thursday.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 33: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he did not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily. If the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would be content to have the second reading of the Bill taken on Thursday, he would agree to it.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. DALRYMPLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 232.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT [COST OF PROSECUTIONS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment of the Costs of Prosecutions incurred
  586
  under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for making further provision for the protection of women and girls, in like manner as the expenses of prosecution in Ireland, of felony, and in Scotland, of a crime, are paid. Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Prince Henry of Battenberg's Naturalization*; Turnpike Acts Continuance*(174); Local Loans (Sinking Funds)*(175); Housing of the Working Classes (England)*(177).
Select Committee—Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (127), The Lord Saint Oswald added.
Committee — Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)*(147): Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)*(156); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)*(157); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order*(143); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders*(114); Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) (131–176).
Committee—Report—East India Loan (£10,000,000)*(164).
Third Heading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2)*(155); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)*(79), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
Mervyn Edward, Viscount Powers-court in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, K.P., having been created Baron Powerscourt, of Powerscourt in the county of Wicklow—
Anthony Henley, Baron Henley in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created Baron Northington, of Watford in the county of Northampton—
The Right Honourable Sir Arthur Hobhouse, K.C.S.I., C.L.E., a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, having been created Baron Hobhouse, of Hadspen in the county of Somerset—
Were (in the usual manner) introduced.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 65.)
(The Earl Spencer.)
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 65.)

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL SPENCER,in rising to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, said, that the question involved was one of great importance to Ireland, and also affected the Standing Orders of the House. Some explanation was, therefore, required of him in asking that the Bill, which had already been referred to a Private Bill Committee, should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. The Bill related to a scheme called the Cork, Coachford, and Blarney Light Railway. It was introduced under the Tramways General (Ireland) Act of 1883, an Act intended to develop communication between different parts of Ireland. It incorporated various provisions of previous Acts relating to tramways, which were passed in 1860 and 1861, but added important provisions

  385
  with regard to local and Imperial guarantees, and enabled the Imperial Government to join the Local Authorities in the carrying out of schemes. The Act enabled any promoter of a tramway scheme to bring the scheme before the Grand Jury of the county where the tramway was to be made, before whom counsel might appear. The Grand Jury in such case had full power to hear the promoters and opponents, just as in the case of an ordinary Provisional Order. After the Grand Jury had heard the scheme discussed, and had passed the Order, it went up to the Privy Council in Ireland. The Board of Works and the Treasury wore required to make a Report on the line to the Privy Council; and after that had been done, if the scheme was not opposed, that ended the matter. If, however, the line was still opposed, an Order was required to confirm it, and the scheme consequently went before the Lord Lieutenant in Council. If the Privy Council approved the scheme, it then came before Parliament as an Order to be confirmed. In the Act of 1869 there was a section — Section 14—which distinctly stated that all these Orders were to be treated with every respect as Public Bills. He did not propose to go into the merits of the particular Bill the subject of the Order; but he would state shortly what was the procedure followed. The scheme was taken before the Grand Jury of the county of Cork and the Grand Jury of the county of the City of Cork, both of which bodies were interested in the measure. The Grand Juries having sat for two days considering the scheme, and hearing the case for the promoters and opponents, unanimously passed an Order in favour of it. It was then found that some irregularity had taken place in the Order, and a short Act of Parliament had to be passed to rectify it. After that Act was passed, the measure again went before the Grand Jury, and they again unanimously passed a presentment in favour of it. It then went before the Privy Council, where its merits were inquired into by three very distinguished members of that body— namely, Mr. Justice Lawson, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, and Vice Chancellor Chatterton. They also sat for two days, and having heard counsel for and against the measure, unanimously passed the scheme. Now, under one of the Stand-
  386
  ing Orders of their Lordships' House—namely, Order 95—it was laid down that every opposed Provisional Order should be referred to a Private Bill Committee consisting of five Peers. This was called a Provisional Order Bill, and under this Standing Order it was, for the third time, referred to an authority for investigation. Counsel were heard for and against the Bill, and witnesses were called and examined. This third inquiry was at Westminster. This course, he ventured to point out, was not consistent with the 14th section of the Act of 1860. Provisional Orders were of various kinds—they were granted under the Labourers Act of last year, under the Public Health Act, 1878, and several others under the Act of 18G0. No reference was made in the Act of 1860 to a Private Bill Committee of their Lordships' House. Under the Act of 1860, the schemes brought forward were of a public, and not of a private, character. If their Lordships looked at the way the inquiries were curried out, they would see that these schemes were different altogether from those for which Provisional Orders were obtained under other Acts. There was the unprecedented mode of investigating a Bill and of bringing it before the Privy Council in Ireland, before whom counsel for and against the scheme were heard. He, therefore, thought it was the intention of the Act of 1860 to have the cases heard locally, and not to have them brought before Private Bill Committees of their Lordships' House. He pointed out that it would always be in the power of their Lordships to challenge a Bill when it was brought before them in the House, and send it to a Committee; but if all Orders under these Bills were referred as a matter of course to Private Bill Committees, instead of encouraging improvements in Ireland as they ought to do, they would impede improvements. He maintained that this was a Public and not a Private Bill, and that the interests of the ratepayers had been most carefully looked after locally and before the Irish Privy Council. There was no precedent for such a procedure as had been followed in this case. There had been no fewer than four inquiries held on this Bill. Thus, the intentions of the Acts of 1860 and 1883 had been frustrated, and instead of facilities having been afforded for the

  387
  construction of light railways and tramways, which, were so much needed in Ireland, penalties were, in effect, imposed. These costly and elaborate inquiries had spread consternation in the South of Ireland. He would only add that nothing would do Ireland more good than the encouragement of such enterprizes as the one before them; and if their projectors were discouraged, one of the best methods of improving Ireland would be destroyed. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Resolution he now begged to move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—{The Earl Spencer.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. It was rather extraordinary that for the first time they should be asked to determine what should be done in relation to an Act passed in 1860. What the noble Earl proposed was contrary to the Standing Order and the practice of the House. The Bill referred to was discussed by a Committee of that House, and was rejected by that Committee more than a month ago. The Standing Order was distinct that this was a Private and not a Public Bill, and it was clear the question had been disposed of.
  LORD FITZGERALDcontended that the Bill was essentially a public one, and that a grave error had been committed in taking possession of it in the Private Bill Department. When all the conditions imposed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council were fulfilled, the Lord Lieutenant was obliged to take up the Bill as a public one, and the Statute directed that it should be dealt with in all respects as a public measure. The object of the Act of 1883, which incorporated the Act of 1860, was to give every encouragement to these small undertakings, and to relieve them of the enormous cost which attached to the investigation before the Private Bill Committee of the House. He knew one small undertaking where the investigation failed, but had cost £14,000, and it might have obtained legal sanction at home for an expenditure not exceeding £500. When the Act in question was passed it was pointed out that what was wanted was a system of light railways, the merits of which could be investigated on the spot—rail-
  388
  ways which would be of great service in conveying the agricultural produce of Ireland. After a scheme had been examined on the spot by the Grand Jury, who could tell in five minutes whether it was a project that ought or ought not to pass, and again investigated before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it would be unjust and unnecessary to have further inquiry in Parliament. The Standing Order referred to by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Redesdale) related to Private Bills, but this was not a Private Bill; and he (Lord Fitzgerald) contended that the Standing Order was not intended to apply to such a Bill as this, which had none of the characteristics of a Provisional Order Bill, and was more properly to be called a Bill to confirm an Order of the Lord Lieutenant and Council. If there was no opposition to one of these tramway schemes it became the law of the land without the intervention of a Confirmation Act. The House would be going in the teeth of the letter and substance of an Act of Parliament if they determined on considering this as a Private Bill.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he remembered that when last year he was most anxious to have an alteration made in a Bill of this character, the noble Lord the late President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) said the proper time to make this alteration would be when the Bill was before the Select Committee.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: I was wrong.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: The noble Lord on that occasion said that it would be dangerous to say that the Provisional Order Confirmation Bills were to be treated as Bills which could not be opposed in their Lordships' House. He (Lord Inchiquin) considered that if they refused to send the present Bill before a Private Bill Committee they would be taking away many of the safeguards they now possessed for proper inquiry. It would be most dangerous if these Bills could not be opposed before their Lordships' Select Committee. The measure was merely a Public Bill in the sense that it was contained in a Provisional Order. If their Lordships refused to send those Provisional Orders before a Private Bill Committee they would be breaking down all the safe

  389
  guards of legislation. The appeal in such a case as this ought to lie, not to the Privy Council, but to Parliament.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the matter was one of exteme importance, because if their Lordships wished to affirm a practice which was opposed to a Public Act of Parliament, in a matter which largely affected the local interests of an important Irish district, they would be giving an immense impulse to the claim for a greater degree of local self-government in Ireland. The proposal of the noble Lord opposite was opposed to both the spirit and letter of the Act of 1860. The effect of not agreeing to the Motion of the noble Earl beside him would be that Parliament, after making elaborate provisions to enable these public works to be executed, and after providing safeguards for their authorization in a way not required in other cases, would convert these elaborate provisions into additional obstacles and additional sources of expense by requiring parties to come over from Ireland to England with their witnesses, and to submit again to the inquiry which had been conducted in Ireland. The clause in the Act of 1860 provided, in a manner different from anything to be found in any of the ordinary Acts as to Provisional Orders, that a Bill to confirm an Order of the Irish Privy Council made under it, which only needed Parliamentary confirmation when opposed, should be "treated in all respects as a Public Bill." What had been done, no doubt through inadvertence, was to treat this, in every material respect, in the same manner as if it had been a Private Bill. Nothing could be more directly contrary to the Act. And why had this been done? Simply because the Standing Orders of this House, as to Private Bills, were, in general terms, made applicable to Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. But the Act of 1860 did not, as far as the letter went, call an Order in Council, made under it, a Provisional Order; and, as to the substance, not only was it beyond the competency of this House, by any Standing Order, to repeal an Act of Parliament, but the Standing Order clearly had reference to those cases only, which were numerous, in which Acts of Parliament, authorizing Provisional Orders to be made, subject to confirmation, had expressly directed
  390
  that, when opposed, they should be dealt with as in the case of Private Bills. He had referred to these Acts, and he had made out a list of not less than ten of them, including the English and Irish Public Health Acts, and the English Tramways Act, which contained clauses to that effect. Nothing could be in more direct contrast than these Acts, and the Irish Tramways Act of 1860. No doubt, any Public Bill might be referred to a Select Committee; but that could only be done upon Notice given by the House itself; and if any Motion to refer this Bill to such a Committee had been made, the House might, and no doubt would, have been asked to reject it, on the ground that, by granting it without some very special reason, they would defeat many of the best objects of the Tramways Acts.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, in answer to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald), that, so far as he knew, the Committee had no objection to the guarantee rate. They rejected the Bill simply on the merits, and would have done so whether the Bill involved a guarantee or whether it did not.
  LORD CLINTONsaid, he hoped the House would not assent to the proposal of the noble Earl. He had been a Member of the Committee to which this Provisional Order had been referred; and the Committee considered that it would be exceedingly hard on the ratepayers of the district, who had exercised their right of coming to Parliament, if the evidence, which had satisfied the Committee that the Order ought not to be proceeded with, should be altogether ignored, and the unanimous decision of the Committee set aside.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, if the question turned on the merits of this particular Bill ho should not interfere; but it was very obvious that the Standing Order had a wider application than this particular measure. It was obvious that the framers of the Statute intended to substitute for the ordinary and somewhat cumbersome proceeding of a Private Bill some compendious form of local investigation; and he thought it must be assumed that the Legislature, in passing the Bill in the form in which it stood, was familiar with the distinction between Private and Public Bill legislation. The Act of 1860 distinctly said that these

  391
  Orders should be treated as Public Bills, and surely this meant that they were not to be treated as Private Bills. He could not help saying that he heartily concurred in the argument of the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne).
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the greatest possible confusion had been caused by two Acts that had been hurriedly passed at the very end of the Session of 1883, with the very best intentions, but with unsatisfactory results —namely, the Tramways Act and the Labourers Act. In regard to this Bill, it had disappeared from their Lordships' Paper a month ago. If it were to be revived at all now, it ought to be by a Motion to refer it back to the same Committee, or to refer it to another Select Committee; but he hoped they would not agree to proceed with it as a public measure. On the whole, they had better abide by the decision of the Committee, and leave the matter where it stood.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 95; Not-Contents 20: Majority 75.
  Resolved in the affirmative; Bill committed accordingly to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 6.)
(The Lord Carlingford.)
POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 6.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD,in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, that it had been referred to a Select Committee contrary to his own recommendation to the House, his desire having been that their Lordships should deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole House. In Committee the Bill had been considerably altered. The Select Committee struck out those provisions of the Bill which they all knew produced the rejection of the Bill on its second reading last year, and led to its reference to a Select Committee this year. He regretted the rejection by the Select Committee of some of these provisions of the Bill; but they had been rejected by very large majorities and supported by very small mino-
  392
  rities. While regretting some of these provisions, he did not intend to ask their Lordships to restore them. He refrained from so doing, because he knew, and their Lordships knew, that it would be a mere formality if he were to make such a proposal. On the other hand, he did not intend to drop the Bill, because he believed that the Bill as it stood, as it had come back from the Select Committee, was a useful measure, and one that might well be passed into law. When last year he presented this Bill, he stated that he did it mainly on the ground that it contained certain provisions which he looked upon as important, and of which he heartily approved, the principal one being the introduction of the ballot into Poor Law elections in Ireland. He did not intend now to go into the merits of the Bill, which had already been largely canvassed, and upon which a large amount of evidence had been taken by the Select Committee. One observation only he wished to make, which was this—that the general effect of that evidence upon his mind was to show that the importance of those provisions which had been rejected, such as those dealing with the machinery of the proxy vote, and the proportion of ex officio Guardians upon Boards of Guardians, had been exaggerated upon both sides, looking at the question from the point of view of the administration and economy of the Poor Law. They had been exaggerated both by the popular Party, and what might be called the landlord Party; and the explanation of this was that the contest between these Parties was a political one. That was the general impression left upon his own mind by the evidence given upon the subject. Although, under special circumstances, and in a time of great excitement, there had been here and there some unjustifiable expenditure of public money by the elected Guardians, on the whole the interest of the two classes was undoubtedly the same—namely, that of keeping down the rates and of administering the Poor Law at the least expense. Before very long these questions must come up again for consideration. No doubt they would soon have to be settled in one way or another in connection with the re-organization of county government in Ireland, which they all knew could not be long deferred. Under all these circumstances he moved

  393
  their Lordships to pass the Bill as it stood.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—[The Lord Carling ford.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he did not object to the Bill; but it was not required as an improvement to the administration of the Poor Law. The result would be that exactly the same class of Guardians would be elected as had been elected before, and would perform their duties in exactly the same manner.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that, no doubt, many of the provisions of this Bill wore most useful; but those which had been cut out of it could not have been passed with any fairness to those who paid by far the greater portion of the rates. For the last five years the Land League had been endeavouring to got possession of all the Boards of Guardians, and there was no doubt that rates were sometimes intentionally raised in order to punish landlords; and, under those circumstances, to reduce the representation of landlords and to take away the right of voting by proxy would be very unjust.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 3 severally agreed to.

PART I.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS.
  Clauses 4 to 7 severally agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Certain sections of the Ballot Act to be incorporated in order).
  On the Motion of The Marquess of WATERFORD, the following Amendment made:—
  In page 2, line 38, leave out clause 8, and insert:
  "Sections three, four, and nine of the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be incorporated in this Act, and shall apply to the election of poor law guardians in the same manner as if elections of poor law guardians were expressly mentioned therein.
  "The following enactment shall he made with respect to personation at elections of poor law guardians:
  "A person shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence of personation who applies for a ballot paper in the name of some other person for whom be is not entitled to act as proxy, whether that name be that of a person living or dead, or of a fictitious person, or, who having voted once in his own behalf at any such election, applies at the same election for a ballot paper in his own name.
  394
  "The offence of personation, or of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation by any person shall be a felony, and any person convicted thereof shall he punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, together with bard labour. It shall be the duty of the returning officer to institute a prosecution against any person whom he may believe to have been guilty of personation, or of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation by any person at the election for which he is returning officer, and the costs and expenses of the prosecutor and the witnesses in such case, together with compensation for their trouble and loss of time, shall be allowed by the court in the same manner in which courts are empowered to allow the same in cases of felony."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Regulations as to claims to vote by proxy).
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDproposed an Amendment to the clause, for the purpose of giving the right of proxy voting to occupiers as well as owners in electoral divisions in which they did not reside. He explained that the Amendment had been drawn up in consultation with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill, and that it had been brought forward in consequence of evidence given at that inquiry. The witnesses had given the Committee to understand that they had no great objection to proxy voting, provided the privilege were allowed to occupiers as well as owners. If this Amendment were not accepted, under the new electoral system, some of the voters would have to be walking over the district throughout the day of the election if they happened to have farms in different parts.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 7, leave out ("After the commencement of this Act,") and insert ("The eighty-fourth section of the Act of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six, shall be and the same is hereby amended; and henceforth it shall be lawful for any ratepayer, from time to time, by writing under his hand in the prescribed manner, to appoint any person to vote as his proxy in respect of any property in the actual occupation of such ratepayer which is not situated in the electoral division in which the said ratepayer has his usual place of residence: Provided always, that.")—[The Marquess of Water-ford.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he considered the Amendment would be an improvement in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNobserved, that the Amendment removed the only valid objection which had been given before the Select Committee to proxy voting—namely, that it was an invidious distinction in favour of one class of voters.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of WATERFORD, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 11, leave out ("not in his actual occupation.")
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDmoved an Amendment, giving occupiers as well as owners power to vote by proxy, provided that the rates be paid two months before the day of election.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 16, leave out ("prior to the date of said election,") and insert ("previous to the day on which he shall claim to vote. The nineteenth section of the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighty-three, shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and after the commencement of this Act no occupier rated to the poor rate, and no owner or immediate lessor rated under the provisions of the Act of the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty, chapter ninety-two, or of the Act of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Her Majesty, chapter ninety-one, or of the Act of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and four, and the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth years of Her Majesty, chapter eighty-three, shall be entitled to vote in the election of Guardians unless he shall two months before the day of voting have paid all the poor rates made and assessed upon him, except such as shall have been made or become duo within six calendar months immediately such voting.") —(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered that the Amendment was a restriction of the present privileges of ratepayers in regard to voting.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, he concurred in the principle of the Amendment, because time was necessary to enable the Returning Officer to make out and revise his lists properly; but whether two months were requisite he would not undertake to say.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsuggested that one month would be sufficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, it was important that the Returning Officers should, have time to make out the lists of voters. However, he would accept the alteration to one month.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that two mouths was recommended by the
  396
  Select Committee; and he protested against an important Amendment like this being brought forward and accepted without any Notice.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 176.)

THE LANDED ESTATES COURT (IKE-LAND)—PURCHASE OF HOLDINGS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CASTLETOWN,in rising to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, Whether during the proceedings in the case of a sale of a holding to a tenant before the Landed Estates Court on Tuesday 21st June it was stated by the tenant that he was prepared to give a certain price for the holding, but was debarred from doing so by the action of the Land Commissioners, who, refusing to advance three-fourths of the purchase money, would only advance two-thirds, sheltering themselves behind the Act of 1870; whether Judge Flanagan, as reported, stated with reference to this—"Then you might just as well have passed no Act at all;" and concluded the case with these words—
  "Those, then, interested in this case are to suffer because while the tenant was prepared to give £200 if advanced three-fourths of the purchase money under the terms of the statute, he will only give £180 now, as the Commissioners reduced their advance to two-thirds;"
  whether other cases of similar obstructive action on the part of the Commission have not been brought under the notice of the Irish Department of the late Government; and, finally, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to force the Land Commission to utilize such powers as it possesses for facilitating the sale and purchase of land; or whether, if this is impossible, they do not think it would be advisable to appoint a Commission, with plenary powers, to carry out the provisions of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, in a liberal and expeditious manner? said, that since he had given Notice of his intention to put these Questions to the Government on the subject of the proceedings in the

  397
  Landed Estates Court and the action of the Land Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced in the other House the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Purchase Bill. He would, therefore, reserve most of what he had to say until that Bill was before their Lordships' House. He must, however, point out the difficulty of the present position, which was proved by the necessity of his Question, and he desired to draw public attention most urgently to this matter. The Court was established many years ago to carry out the sale of estates, and subsequently a Commission was appointed in 1851 with special power to facilitate the sale of land from owner to occupier; and yet both of them came to almost a deadlock, owing to some legal crotchet and over a trumpery case. This occurred, too, at a time when it was essential that the sale of land should be expedited. Surely it was time for the Government to intervene for the purpose of clearing up this absurd difficulty. If the two bodies he had named were helpless let us get rid of them, and put another body, or an effective amalgamation of both, in their place. This was not the only instance which had occurred of this kind of deadlock, and he felt sure he was correct in stating that similar cases had been brought privately or officially under the notice of the late Government. The Landed Estates Court and the Land Commission cost the country a large sum, and yet their administration was so defective that they could not carry out the sale of a holding of the value of £200 without all this sparring and legal warfare. The whole thing was at present a farce; ho only hoped it might not end in a tragedy for both owner and occupier. The Land Act. though perhaps well-intentioned, had thus far failed to settle the Land Question. That question could only be settled definitely by a liberal and workable Purchase Bill. Both sides—owner and occupier—were ready to come to terms. The case cited in the Question of which he had given Notice proved this. Both were, however, waiting to see what the final offer of the Government would be. Their Lordships must remember that land was the only marketable and, at the same time, the only valuable commodity in many parts of Ireland. This was proved by the exorbitant prices given
  398
  for tenants' interests. Land must, therefore, be made saleable. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships to bear one point in mind which had special reference to the introduction of the Purchase Bill—namely, that there must be no placing the charge for money advanced under such Bill upon Ireland or on the local rates. The question was an Imperial one as long as Ireland remained part of the Empire, and as such it must be treated. He knew that there were those who thought otherwise, and who with a fatuity which was unintelligible to him thought they could fasten upon Ireland a burden which the Empire must bear as long as Ireland contributed one farthing to Imperial taxation. He should reserve any further remarks upon the subject until the Purchase Bill reached that House.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the Questions seemed to him to be entirely on the subject of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. Her Majesty's Government hoped to be able to introduce a Bill dealing with Land Purchase in Ireland; and, under the circumstances, it would be very much better to await the introduction of that Bill before insisting upon an answer to those Questions on the Paper. Some of the Questions put by the noble Lord, he was informed, were not accurate in the statement of facts embodied in them. The late Government had showed that they were not satisfied, with the manner in which the Purchase Clauses had worked by bringing in a Bill on the subject last year, and by promising one for the present year. Her Majesty's present Government were prepared to bring in such a measure, which demonstrated that they also were of opinion that the Purchase Clauses had not worked satisfactorily.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, that after the remarks of the noble Marquess he would willingly postpone his Questions on the subject.

SCOTLAND— THE CASTLE ROCK, EDINBURGH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BALFOUR,in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the War Office contemplate making extensive alterations in, and additions to, the build-

  399
  ings now situated on the Castle Rock of Edinburgh; and, if so, whether any opportunity will be given to Members of either House of Parliament, and others interested, of expressing any opinion upon the design which it is proposed to adopt before the Government is finally committed to it? said, he understood it was the intention of the War Office to make some considerable alterations in, and additions to, the buildings on the Castle Rock of Edinburgh, and chiefly upon the eastern side of the rock near the entrance to the Castle. He believed it was proposed to build some guard rooms and court martial rooms, and some other accommodation which was required for the troops in the Castle, while some further alterations were to be made at a point near the portcullis gateway. The importance of the matter would appear to their Lordships when he told them that that point of the Castle Rock would be visible along the whole length of Princes Street, and any buildings which were put up there must always be an eyesore if they were not buildings of a proper kind. He understood that the money for this work had actually been voted by Parliament, and what he was anxious about was that the proposed buildings should not be put up, or, at least, that the Government should not. commit themselves to any particular design, until the matter had been fully considered. He had considerable suspicion of plans of this kind drawn up by unprofessional architects, and he understood that the plans for the proposed buildings had been drawn up by an engineer, and not by anyone who had made a particular study of the question. It was of the utmost importance that those who knew Edinburgh well, and those who knew the class of buildings which it was desirable to erect on the Castle Rock, should have an opportunity of seeing what the War Office proposed to do. His noble Friend (Viscount Bury), with great courtesy, showed him a photograph of the Castle and a design of the proposed buildings. The drawings which ho had had an opportunity of seeing would not remove the objection he entertained. So far as he could judge, the proposed buildings seemed to him to be an imitation—and a rather poor imitation—of what was called the old Scottish baronial style of architecture, which, in his
  400
  opinion, was quite out of keeping with the buildings now on the Castle Rock, and would be a great eyesore from Princes Street. He did not say that the buildings which went to form the Castle of Edinburgh were in all respects very beautiful, or everything that they ought to be; but he thought this was eminently a case in which it was better to bear the ills they had than fly to others that they knew not of. It did not seem to him that this was a time when it was desirable to make very great additions or extensions to the buildings on the Castle Rock. Some portions of the Castle were of great historical and antiquarian interest; and while these should be preserved, he did not think it was desirable to make any great additions to the present buildings unless on a settled and comprehensive plan. If more accommodation was required, he thought it would be bettor to face the question of removing the military centre to another place, and leave the Castle in charge of a garrison, and use it chiefly for stores and such like. He would respectfully and earnestly urge his noble Friend that nothing should be done to the buildings now on the Castle Rock without the most mature consideration, and without a full opportunity given for opinions being expressed on the part of those who had real intimate knowledge of the Castle.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, before the noble Viscount answered the Question of his noble Friend, he should like to put a Question of which he had given private Notice. He should like to know whether any steps had been taken to clean out the old Parliament House, which was now used as an hospital in Edinburgh Castle? This question was brought before the late Government; but nothing had been clone in the matter at all, except that strict inquiries had been made into the condition of the old Parliament House. It turned out that the hall was still in existence, and very much as it was in the old days of the Scotch Parliament. It had now been converted into an hospital, and it had been sub-divided into different wards and rooms. He was told by those who knew that nothing could be more inconvenient as an hospital than the present building. The patients had no place where they could walk about and get fresh air, except a

  401
  small court in Edinburgh Castle, near where the regalia was kept, which was filled from week to week during the summer with tourists. Ho did not think that was a right place for an hospital, and he was informed that there would be no practical difficulty whatever in removing the hospital out of the present buildings. There was another building in the Castle for stores, and he was told by those who knew that that was a very inconvenient position for stores. It was an enormous expense to the country to have all these stores, first of all, conveyed there from Leith and Granton and afterwards distributed, and it would be an immense public gain to have the stores taken out of the Castle and removed elsewhere. He was informed that if the hospital in the Castle was once given up by the Military Authorities, private individuals would be only too glad to contribute money for the restoration of that most interesting antiquarian building.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSthanked his noble Friend or having called attention to this subject. He had had an opportunity of seeing the designs of the proposed alterations; and he thought it would only be right if the people of Scotland who took an interest in the matter had also the advantage of seeing the design. Some 30 years ago designs had been prepared by Mr. Billings, a celebrated architect of that time, for the improvement and restoration of Edinburgh Castle. He thought the plan then proposed would have been a great advantage to Edinburgh and an ornament to the Castle. He hoped his noble Friend would endeavour to find out where these designs were, and show the two together, so that the public might have an opportunity of judging between them.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Viscount BURY),in reply, said, he was sure this matter must be very interesting to Scotsmen in general. They all felt that Edinburgh Castle was one of those ancient monuments which should not be lightly touched or tampered with. Ho could, however, assure his noble Friend that what was contemplated in the present instance was a very moderate improvement indeed, and would not detract from the appearance of the buildings. The fact was that there was a buy store and a guard
  402
  room right in the middle of the parade ground of the Castle which it was proposed to remove; and at one end of the Castle there was an old tower, known as Argyll Tower, the roof of which was fallen in, or was in a bad state of repair, and something must be done if the tower was to be preserved. He held in his hand a photograph of Edinburgh Castle, and the small piece at the end was all that was going to be altered structurally as regarded the Castle. It was merely a small addition to the roof of the Argyll Tower; and far from being an eyesore, as viewed from Princes Street, it was not expected that it would be noticed at all. His noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) had said, and truly said, that some 30 years ago a considerable alteration in Edinburgh Castle was proposed. He believed the truth about that matter was that two opposing schools of antiquarians interested themselves in the question. One considered that the architecture of Edinburgh Castle belonged to one period, and another held that any alterations ought to be made in the style of another period. The controversy waxed so hot between the partizans of those two schools, that, although great alterations were required in the Castle, it was eventually decided that the matter should be dropped, and that nothing should be then done. Nothing was done in consequence. That, he was afraid, was exactly what would happen now. These alterations, which were really required for sanitary and other reasons, as well as for the preservation of the Castle, would have to be put aside and entirely abandoned if they were to re-open, as his noble Friend proposed, that architectural quarrel which was laid to rest 30 years ago, and which terminated by simply doing nothing. He could only say that the War Office Department, having a sincere desire to consult the feelings of Scotsmen, had determined only to carry out the smallest amount of alterations that could be made consistently with the safety of the Castle. They proposed to make a very small alteration in the roof of the Argyll Tower, and they hoped that this might be done in such an unobtrusive way as not to constitute an eyesore, as was feared by his noble Friend; and if not found palatable to the general body of Scotsmen, he could assure his noble Friend that nothing further would be

  403
  done. The whole Vote for the purpose amounted to £1,200 or £1,300. It comprised the removal of some buildings right in the middle of the Castle, and, as he had already stated, the restoration of the Argyll Tower. As to the question of the hospital, that rather depended on the issue of what they now proposed. If his noble Friend caused them to hang up and abandon the restoration of the roof of the Argyll Tower, and compelled them to remain where they were, then they could not carry out the wishes of the noble Marquess respecting the suggested removal of the hospital to a more suitable position. He acknowledged that this was a matter of the greatest importance, and ought to receive immediate attention. The hospital was not in its right place—there was a better place for it—and if those alterations were stopped things must continue as they were. He trusted the War Office might be permitted to execute the very modest improvements which they at present contemplated. He would be glad to show the plans to Members of Parliament; but he hoped there would be no putting up of the designs to public competition, or inviting undue attention to the matter, as that would in all probability end in nothing being done.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that noble Lords from Scotland must not be surprised if a War Office which sanctioned the construction of a high level bridge at the Tower of London should consent also to the making of a railway station, or anything else, in Edinburgh Castle.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought the subject was one of such great importance to the people of Scotland that he had heard with great regret what he regarded as a practical refusal to allow the general public of Edinburgh to know what was going to be done, and to have an opportunity of seeing and criticizing beforehand the designs of the proposed alterations. He looked with the greatest possible alarm at the idea of erections of such a character being put up without the approval and without the adequate consideration of those who were competent to judge. He was not prepared to say more on the subject at present, beyond the remark that his noble Friend did not answer one Question as to whether the money had been actually voted by Parliament
  404
  or not. If it had been voted, then he was unable to know how to proceed in the matter. But he was quite sure that if the discussion was reported in the Scottish newspapers his noble Friend would hear much more of it than he had heard that evening; and he was bound to say that he, for one, would not be sorry.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD BRAMWELL,in rising to move—
  "That the Petitions of the several Water Companies who supply the Metropolis with water (the New River Company and others), presented on Friday last, be referred to the Select Committee, with leave to the Petitioners to be heard against the Bill as desired,"
  said, that he felt it a matter of duty to endeavour to prevent their Lordships from doing what would be a grievous injustice. He was not going to trouble their Lordships with the question of whether this was a Private or Public Bill; but what he wished to impress upon them was what the substance of this Bill really was. It was a Bill which proposed to alter the bargains made between the public and Water Companies. He would take the case of one Company —the New River Company, for instance. That Company, by its Act, had bargained with the public to supply water for domestic consumption, for watering streets, and for other purposes, and had the right to make certain charges in respect thereof; and this Bill was a proposal to alter that bargain. The New River Company said—"Let us be heard." That ought to be quite sufficient to secure them a hearing, and it ought not to be necessary now to say what was their objection to the Bill. Never before was a proposal made to alter a Private Act without hearing the Company affected by it. The Waterworks Clauses Acts and other Clauses Acts were not laws of themselves, and only became such by being incorporated in a Private Bill; and this Bill said that a Private Act incorporating clauses should be altered as regarded the clauses so incorporated. Was it conceivable that a Company affected by such alteration was not to be heard? It was contrary to the ordinary elementary principles of justice that judgment should be given without

  405
  hearing the person affected. By the law of the land, if he was not heard, the proceedings were null and void. But he must tell their Lordships why the Companies wanted to be heard, and he could show good reason why they should be. At the present time they had a right to charge according to the annual value. The proposal in the Bill was that the expression "annual value" should mean rateable value, as estimated from time to time. If the two things were identical, these unhappy Companies, who were subjected to persecution for no reason that he could understand, except that they supplied the best water in Europe on the best terms and in the most admirable manner, and were paying a respectable dividend, would gladly accept the proposal in order to get rid of the worry to which they were subjected. But the two things were not identical. Rateable value, as settled from time to time, was less than the annual value of the premises. It did not make any difference to a parish whether it raised £1,000 by a rate of 1s. in the pound on an assessment of £20,000, or by a rate of 2s. in the pound, on an assessment of £10000. But a low assessment made all the difference to the Companies, who estimated that on rateable value they would lose one-sixth of their incomes. In his own case he had been first assessed at about half the annual value of his house, and now that assessment had been raised to only five-sixths of the annual value. The Companies ought, at least, to be heard. There had boon some absurd talk about "gentlemen of the long robe." What was wanted was that the facts should be laid before the Committee, and a reasonable amount of argument showing the conclusion to which those facts pointed. If the Bill was passed in its present shape, a largo loss of income would be thrown on the Companies. No doubt the Companies were great and rich; but some of their shareholders were neither great nor rich.
  Moved, "That the Petition of the several Water Companies who supply the Metropolis with water (the New River Company and others), presented on Friday last, be referred to the Select Committee, with leave to the Petitioners to he heard against the Bill as desired."—[The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Earl BROWNLOW)said, the Motion was practically
  406
  the same as that brought forward by the noble and learned Lord last week, on which occasion the arguments addressed to their Lordships failed to convince the House that it was right to accept it. No fresh argument had been addressed to their Lordships that day to induce them to change the opinion they then expressed. At this period of the Session there would be no prospect of the Bill passing if the Water Companies were hoard by counsel and witnesses. It would cause great disappointment outside if this Bill was strangled in Committee. He, therefore, trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Motion.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would not have complained if the noble and learned Lord had moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, for that would have been a straightforward and legitimate opposition; but he did claim a right to complain of what the noble and learned Lord had said this week and last with regard to spoliation and the Companies not being allowed to be heard. As stated on the former occasion, it would be impossible at this advanced period of the Session to proceed with any chance of the Bill becoming law, if counsel and witnesses were heard, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord. It must also be borne in mind that these powerful Companies could fee counsel and obtain evidence to any extent, whereas no such power rested with the 4,000,000 ratepayers, who could not strike a special rate for the purpose; but there would be no objection to the Water Companies being heard by their agents, and that would give an opportunity to the ratepayers of the Metropolis to have the clerks of the different Assessment Committees before the Committee in order to answer any charges which the agents of the Companies might make. Ho did not see the great hardship and injustice of which the noble and learned Lord had complained, for he had found that the rateable value, especially in the case of moderate-sized and large premises, came very nearly up to the annual value; and the Companies as well as the householders had the right of appeal against the assessment.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he did not desire to impose the hearing of counsel on the Committee; but ho desired to give

  407
  them power to hear counsel if they should think fit.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would put it to their Lordships whether last week it was not the understanding that counsel and witnesses should be excluded, but that the agents of the Water Companies might be heard? The public would be grateful to their Lordships for reading the Bill a second time, and referring it to a fair and an impartial Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, ha could not agree with his noble and learned Friend that justice was opposed to the Bill in its present shape. The difficulty arose from the fact that the Waterworks Clauses Act provided that there should be a valuation, but did not say how it should be made. And nothing was more common, under such circumstances, than for the Legislature to explain its own public Act, and to say how that Act should be carried into effect. The contention of the Water Companies appeared to be that the general valuation, which was the basis on which rating for all other public purposes proceeded, should not bo the valuation for the water rate. That appeared to him to be neither just nor reasonable; and the Bill, in his judgment", did not interfere with any rights of the Water Companies, but merely provided in a proper way for the rights of the public.
  Resolved in the negative.

  PRINCE HENRY OF BATTENBERG'S NATURALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to naturalize His Serene Highness Prince Henry Maurice of Battenberg, and to grant and confer on him all the rights, privileges, and capacities of a natural-born subject of Her Majesty the Queen—Was presented (on petition), and read 1a.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the dwellings of the working classes—Was presented by The Marquess of SALISBURY: read 1a. (No. 177.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.