Sitting of 25 March 1886

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES, Vote 11—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered — First Reading—Cape Race Lighthouse* [151]; Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* [152].
Second Reading—Contagious Diseases Acts Repeal (No. 2) [147]; Army Annual* [150].
Committee — Report — Compensation for Damages [120].
Committee — Report — Third Reading — Drill Grounds* [143], and passed.
Considered as amended—Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment [10].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2),* and passed.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (BARROW IN FURNESS).
MR. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from Sir William Ventris Field, knight, and Sir John Charles Day, knight, two of the Judges selected for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Barrow in Furness:—
The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1883.
To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Honorable Sir William Ventris Field, knight, and the Honorable Sir John Charles Day, knight, Justices of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that upon the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, and 23rd days of March 1886 we duly held a Court at the Town Hall, in the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the County of Lancaster, for the trial of and did try the Parliamentary Election Petition for the Borough of Barrow in Furness aforesaid, wherein Henry William Schneider was the Petitioner and David Duncan was the Respondent, which Petition prayed that it might be determined that the said David Duncan was not duly elected or returned, and that the Election of the said David
1776
Duncan was null and void, and that the Petitioner was duly elected, and ought to have been returned to serve as Member of the said Borough in the next Parliament. We report that the Petitioner's claim to the seat was abandoned during the course of the Trial and the recriminatory charges withdrawn by the Respondent, with our approval.
And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said Trial we determined that the said David Duncan, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected and returned, by reason of illegal practices, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, having been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent, in reference to the said Election, and also by the Election Agent of the Respondent (with the like knowledge and consent), and we do certify in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at such Election.
That the following persons were proved at the Trial guilty of illegal practices, namely, illegal employment, to both of whom we have furnished Certificates of Indemnity:
David Duncan, the Respondent;
Abraham Langhorn Garnett, the Respondent's Election Agent.
We further report that there is no reason to believe that either corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the Parliamentary Election for the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the County of Lancaster, to which the said Petition relates.
Dated this 23rd day of March 1886.
WILLIAM V. FIELD.
JOHN C. DAY.
And the said Certificate and Report were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — MR. BARRON, COUNTY COURT JUDGE, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN(for Mr. T. M. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to certain proceedings at the recent Monaghan Assizes, when Lord Chief Baron Palles had before him for adjudication, by way of appeal from decisions of Judge Barron, County Court Judge for the county of Monaghan, certain cases, four in number, in which one George Blackburne, a receiver appointed by the

  1777
  order of the County Court over a farm of land in the townland of Carrowkeel, county Monaghan, the property of a man named Sherry, was, in consequence of the irregular order under which said receiver acted, mulcted in damages and costs in said Civil Bill appeals in a sum amounting to over £40, and did the Chief Baron, who tried the cases, state, in delivering judgment, that neither the County Court, the highest court in the land, nor the House of Lords itself could make such an order as that under which the said Blackburne acted as receiver, and that Blackburne had no more right to bring an action for trespass on foot of the said order than that his butler would have to bring an action against him (the Lord Chief Baron), and did the Lord Chief Baron further caution litigants in future from using orders framed in such an illegal manner as that, if they did, they would certainly get themselves into serious trouble; and, what course the Government propose to adopt in future so as to protect litigants at Monaghan County Court?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Mr. Barron is a County Court Judge, and the Executive, as an Executive, have no control over him, and would not be justified in calling upon him for an explanation of any particular judgment. It appears that in this case he has made a judgment which was erroneous; and probably the reversal of the decision complained of, coupled with the observations of the learned Chief Baron, will have the effect of preventing similar erroneous decisions again.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CARDIFF COUNTY COURT—WELSH WITNESSES.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that, in a case tried on the 3rd of March instant, in the County Court held at Cardiff, the defendant, Ann James, said that she was but imperfectly acquainted with the English language, and claimed to give her evidence in her own, the Welsh language; and, whether His Honour, Judge Owen, declined to allow her to do so, and peremptorily stopped her when she attempted to give her evidence in Welsh?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): It is a fact that Ann James, the defendant in the case referred to, told the Judge that she was imperfectly acquainted with the English language. As, however, in a previous case, tried before the same Judge, she had given evidence in English, the Judge asked her if she would again do so, whereupon she was sworn in English, and answered every question without hesitation, and in such a way as not only to satisfy the Judge, but, as I am informed, also her own solicitor.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—DEATH OF CORNELIUS COSGRAVE AT EDGEWORTHSTOWN, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it has come to his knowledge that on the 13th of September last a man named Cornelius Cosgrave died in the constabulary barrack at Edgeworthstown, in the county of Longford, from congestion of the brain; that he had been taken up the previous day in a state of coma, from which he never recovered, and placed with prisoners arrested for drunkenness for seven hours in the strong room; whether it is the fact that, at the inquest which followed, the jury empannelled in the case expressed themselves in strong terms on the unsanitary condition of the lock-up, and its unsuitability for such a purpose; whether their observations were confirmed and deposed to by the local sanitary officer, and whether, in their verdict, the jury directed the attention of the authorities to the matter, "in order to have it remedied;" whether the defective state of the strong room was brought under the notice of the grand jury of the county, of which the landlord of the premises is a member, at the last assizes; whether steps have been or will be taken to improve the condition of the barrack at Edgeworthstown; and, whether instructions will be given to the constabulary to take care that cases of comatose persons have proper medical attendance?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that Cornelius Cosgrave died at Edgeworthstown on the 13th of

  1779
  September last from congestion of the brain, brought on by cold and exposure previous to arrest, and accelerated by excessive drinking. He was placed with other prisoners, where he remained six hours and a-half, and where he was visited frequently. He was attended by a doctor during the night, and a second medical man was called in next morning. The Coroner's Jury attached no blame to the Constabulary. On the contrary, they stated that they discharged their duty well. In the course of his evidence the sanitary officer spoke of the unsanitary condition of the barrack, which the jury endorsed. The matter was brought before the Grand Jury, of which Mr. Barron, the landlord, is a member. Steps had since been taken to remedy the matter complained of.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether a Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had not promised to issue instructions to the Constabulary regarding the imprisonment of persons in police cells; and whether the instructions had been issued as promised?
  MR. JOHN MORLEYwas unable to say.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (IRELAND)—EXTENSION OF LEGISLATION.
  MR. T. FRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session of Parliament, to bring in a Bill similar to that mentioned in the Queen's Speech opening the Session of 1884, and subsequently introduced by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, making the Irish Sunday Closing Act of 1878 permanent, and extending its provisions to the five cities and towns exempted from its full operations?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It would be more convenient if my hon. Friend would be good enough to ask the Question on Monday next.

  NAVY—PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
  MR. H. G. ALLENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether an additional dry dock, greatly needed at Pembroke Dockyard, will be constructed there?
  THE CIVIL LORD (Mr. R. W. DUFF): In reply to my hon. and learned Friend. I can only say that, while recognizing the desirability of increasing the dry dock accommodation at Pembroke, the Admiralty are not at present prepared to commence such a work.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—TELEGRAPH OFFICE, SHANAGOLDEN, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a postal telegraph office will be established in Shanagolden (Limerick county), the nearest office in Foynes being three miles distant, and the cost of transmitting a telegram eighteen pence?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Inquiries are now being made on the question of opening a telegraph office at Shanagolden, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as the decision is arrived at.

  NAVY—H.M.SS. "NILE" AND "TRAFALGAR."
  MR. C. H. WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether facilities can be given to Members for the inspection of the plans of the Nile and Trafalgar; whether he can say what defence they are to have against torpedoes; and, how many new engines are being built for ships of the Royal Navy, and to what extent they are of the most modern construction, that is, worked by steam of not less than 150 pounds pressure, used expansively in three or four cylinders?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. HIBBERT): Arrangements will be made for enabling Members to inspect the plans of the vessels referred to at the Admiralty if they will be good enough to apply in writing to Admiral Graham, the Controller of the Navy. These vessels will be defended against torpedoes by internal sub-divisions and strong passage bulkheads, as well as by torpedo steel net defences. In 1885–6 engines were ordered for 19 ships. These are all of the most modern design and construction, on the triple expansion type, to be worked with steam of

  1781
  130 lb. to 140 lb. pressure. Money is also taken in 1886–7 for the completion of the machinery of 16 other ships ordered in previous years. These are of the compound type, to be worked with steam of 90 lb. to 130 lb.

  THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL—THE COINAGE DUTIES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum of £16,216 15 s. 1½d. paid annually to the Duchy of Cornwall for compensation for duties on coinage of tin, ought, in accordance with the Treasury Minute of 15th February 1839, to have been reduced, as from the 5th April 1841, by the sum of £634 14 s. 2d. in lieu of post groats; and, whether, for nearly 45 years, an annual excess of £634 14 s. 2d. has been paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Duchy of Cornwall; and, if yes, what steps Her Majesty's Government will take in the matter for the recovery of such excess, and in restraint of future over payment?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to inform him that pursuant to the provision of the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 120, the Treasury, by the Minute to which the hon. Member refers, fixed the annual payment to be made to the Duchy of Cornwall at £16,216 15 s. 1½d. The Minute also proposed that after April 5, 1841, a deduction of £634 14 s. 2d. should be made, as stated in the Question. The Council of the Duchy of Cornwall objected to this deduction as illegal. The Treasury acquiesced in the objection, and there is no doubt that the view taken by the Council of the Duchy was the correct one.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether there was any official record at the Treasury as to the Minute referred to; and whether that record did not show that the payment of £634 14 s. 2d. ought not to be continued?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension of the facts of the case. There was an official communication pointing out unanswerably the illegality, and the Treasury at once acquiesced in that view, and have continued to do so for 40 years.

  POST OFFICE—ABBREVIATED TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Committee of the New University Club (St. James's Street, S.W.), recently registered an abbreviated telegraphic address, "Oxbridge," for which they paid the usual fee; that, subsequent to the said payment, they were verbally informed that it would be necessary to add the words "care of," in order to complete the address, involving an additional payment for each telegram sent, thus practically rendering useless the above abbreviated address; that numerous telegrams, addressed to members of the Club under above address, have not reached their destination; whether a member of the aforesaid Club does not come under the definition of "person" in the Post Office Rules, for whom the aforesaid abbreviated address "Oxbridge" would be sufficient; and, whether the Post Office authorities can adopt some means to prevent the payment of fees for valueless and inoperative abbreviated telegraphic addresses?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): My attention has been called to the fact that the Committee of the New University Club have registered the word "Oxbridge" as the abbreviated telegraphic address of the Club, and that subsequent to the registration they were informed that the words "care of," or the symbol c-o, would be necessary for messages addressed to members at the Club; but I cannot admit that this addition renders useless the registration of the abbreviated address. I am not aware that numerous telegrams have not reached their destination. It is absolutely necessary, when any addition is made to the word registered with the Post Office, as in the case of a message addressed to a member of a Club, that the name should be divided from the registered address of the Club, which can be done by the addition of the symbols c-o, the payment for this being a half-penny. As the Club fee appears to have been paid under misapprehension, the Postmaster General will repay the amount.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER—THE VESTRY CLERK OF ST. PANCRAS.
  MR. BAGGALLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the fact that the honourable Member for the East Division of the Borough of St. Pancras, in his capacity of vestry clerk and clerk to the directors of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras, conducted by himself and his clerks the preparation of the present Register of Parliamentary Voters for the Borough of St. Pancras; and, if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to provide that in future no person act as a paid official in preparing the Register of Voters in the constituency which he represents or for which he is an accepted candidate?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS)(who replied) said, he had communicated with the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Gibb), who stated that it was not a fact that he conducted by himself and his clerks the preparation of the present Register of Parliamentary voters for the borough of St. Pancras.
  MR. BAGGALLAY: Can the hon. Gentleman state who did prepare the Register?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The hon. Member for St. Pancras is in no way under the Local Government Board. I will, however, make further inquiries, and will get the information required.

  THE PHŒNIX PARK (DUBLIN)—PRIVATE ENCLOSURES.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the documents by virtue of which private clubs, associations, or individuals have been allowed to occupy or to enclose portions of the Phœnix Park, Dublin, for their private purposes; and, whether he will consent to lay upon the Table, a list of any official investigations that have been held within the last twenty years into the conduct of Phœnix Park officials, with the names of the persons charged, the names of the persons composing the tribunals, and the nature of the
  1784
  charge and result of investigation in each case?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said, that if the hon. Member would be good enough to call at the Treasury, he would be afforded the opportunity of inspecting the documents referred to; but he did not think it of advantage to the Public Service to lay them on the Table. As to the second part of the Question, during the last 20 years there had been only two official investigations into charges against Phœnix Park officials. One was in 1868, and was held by two of the Commissioners of Public Works into a charge against a park keeper. The second, in 1875, was held by two Commissioners, and was an inquiry into charges of intemperance against a park bailiff. In the first case, the official was allowed to remain in office; in the second case, the bailiff was called on to resign his appointment.

  PRIVILEGE—FORGED SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS.
  MR. CLANCYasked the honourable baronet, the Member for Walsall, with reference to the statement in the Third Report of the Committee on Petitions, that the Petitions presented by the Member for South Belfast, against a separate Parliament for Ireland, contained many names which were "in the same handwriting," Whether he will state the number of names to which this statement applies; and, what course he is prepared to take with those Petitions recently presented to which forged signatures were attached, to prevent the recurrence of such irregularities?
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, it was an undoubted fact that the document purporting to be a Petition against a separate Parliament for Ireland, and presented by the Member for South Belfast, contained a large proportion of signatures which were in the same handwriting. Of 5,428 signatures, 1,268 appeared to be written in batches of three and four in the handwriting of 324 persons. His duty in the matter was purely Ministerial. They had not the power to reject spurious Petitions when the Rules were complied with. All they could do was to mention the facts of irregularities in their Report, according to their usual

  1785
  practice. He was sorry to say that this was the third Petition of the kind, and that the practice of putting forward fictitious Petitions appeared to be on the increase.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House whether it is not a fact that in the Petitions against Home Rule there are a large number of signatures of infants less than a month old?
  MR. CLANCY: To make the answer clear, is the House to understand that of the 5,428 signatures all but 324 are fictitious?
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER: No; out of a total of 5,428, 1,268 appeared to be in the handwriting of 324 persons.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—OMAGH DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inquire into the management of the Omagh District Lunatic Asylum, particularly into the circumstances under which a female patient, who was admitted on 25th November last, committed suicide a few days after admission, and whether the resident medical superintendent hept a portion of the remains without the knowledge of her friends, and was exhibiting them after the body had been interred; if it is true that a female patient, to whose case the attention of the resident medical superintendent was specially directed on the 15th February last, died on that day, during his absence from the Asylum, without the ministrations of a clergyman; and, have the friends of patients frequently complained of the treatment by which patients have been subjected by the resident medical superintendent?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that the first case referred to was one of suicide, the facts of which were so painful that he would not trouble the House with them now. The case was investigated by the Coroner and a jury, who found a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony, and added that the patient received every care and attention from the doctor and the other officials. The woman's husband, who was present at the inquest, expressed
  1786
  himself perfectly satisfied with the attention shown. The portion of the remains was never shown to any outsider, except the Coroner. The second case was one of syncope, in which death occurred in the absence of the doctor, and when his assistant was in charge. The doctor was summoned; but the woman was dead. She had been seen in the morning, and, though not well, death was not expected so soon. The Chaplain was informed, and the Coroner was also communicated with. The latter did not think it necessary to hold an inquiry. In none of these cases did it appear that complaints were made by the friends of the patients as to the treatment they received in this asylum. These two cases were reported to, and investigated by, the Board of Governors of the Asylum concerned.
  MR. O'HANLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, do the Government in tend to hold an inquiry into this asylum in Omagh; and whether—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Gentleman is exceeding the Rules.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MESSRS. J. W. PAYNE AND JOHN E. PAYNE.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision the Lord Chancellor has come to relative to the complaints made against Messrs. J. W. Payne and John Orpen Payne for their refusal to attest the signatures of voters to claims to vote at Poor Law elections of guardians?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had called on the gentleman last mentioned for an explanation, which was furnished, to the effect that one of the signatures which he refused to attest was that of a girl of 10, and the other of a youth of 18. When the Lord Chancellor was making the inquiry, Mr. Payne sent a letter resigning his commisssion, and he has ceased to be a magistrate. No complaint has been made against Mr. J. W. Payne.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN ATHENRY AND GORT.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What

  1787
  steps, if any, are being taken to improve the Mail Service between Athenry and Gort, in connection with the "Midland" accelerated Mail Service between Dublin and Galway?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the Post Office was in correspondence with the Railway Company on this subject, and no conclusion had yet been arrived at.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—"BRYCE V. RUSDEN"—SIR ARTHUR GORDON.
  MR. COBBasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a case "Bryce v. Rusden" recently tried before Mr. Baron Huddleston; whether it is the fact, as stated therein, that Sir Arthur Gordon, being at the time Governor of New Zealand, did address a letter to the defendant conveying serious imputations on the character of Mr. Bryce, who was at the time one of his ministers, with a view to the publication of the matter of the letter in a history of New Zealand written by the defendant; and, whether Sir Arthur Gordon is now Governor of Ceylon; and, if so, whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I have no knowledge of the case of "Bryce v. Rusden," beyond what I have derived from a newspaper report of the trial. From that report it appears that Sir Arthur Gordon, who was at the time Governor of New Zealand, and who is now Governor of Ceylon, did address a letter to the defendant conveying serious imputations on the character of Mr. Bryce, then one of his Ministers. But as the letter appears to have been marked "private," I could not undertake to say that it was written with a view to publication. I understand that an application for a new trial is now pending; and as the matter is, therefore, still sub judice. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they can properly take any action in the matter.
  MR. COBBasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the new trial was only applied for with the view to the reduction of
  1788
  damages, and did not affect the cause of action?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he was not aware of that fact.
  MR. COBBgave Notice of a further Question on the subject.

  6 & 7 WILL. IV. c. 85, s. 17—REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES AT CONWAY.
  MR. KENYON (, &c.)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Rev. James Spinther James has been appointed a Registrar of Marriages at Conway; if this is the same person who, on the 27th of May 1885, before the Bangor Bench of Magistrates, pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness in the public streets, and was fined 10 s. and costs; and, on whose responsibility these appointments are made?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS)(who replied) said: I have made inquiry of the Registrar General, and find that the Rev. James Spinther James has been appointed a Registrar of Marriages at Conway. He was appointed by the Local Superintendent Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, under the powers given by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, s. 17. The appointment was reported to the Registrar General; and, as the person appointed appeared to satisfy the requirements of the Regulations, the appointment was approved by him as a matter of course. The Registrar General had no knowledge of any such conviction as that referred to. He would, no doubt, consider any representations which the hon. Member, or persons in the locality, may think it right to submit, to him on the subject of the appointment.

  BANKRUPTCY—APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT RECEIVERS.
  MR. LIONEL COHENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Assistant Receivers in the Department of the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy have been appointed without competitive examination; and, if so, why the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade should be excepted from the Orders of the Commission, which prescribe open competition to give entry to the Civil Service; and, whether, notwithstanding

  1789
  such exception, Civil Service certificates have been issued to gentlemen so appointed, and, if so, upon what ground have such certificates been issued?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): It is the case that assistant Official Receivers in the Department of the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy have been appointed without competitive examination. The Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade is not, however, as such, exempted from the Regulations with regard to admission to the Civil Service. The Civil Service Commissioners have dispensed with examination, and have issued their certificates to the gentlemen so appointed, in pursuance of the powers vested in them under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of the 4th of June, 1870, upon a representation being made to them by the Treasury and the Board of Trade that the qualifications in respect of knowledge and ability deemed requisite for the situation of Assistant Official Receiver under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, are wholly professional and peculiar, and are not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service. The Commissioners also state in their certificate that they have satisfied themselves that the gentlemen appointed to these posts possess the requisite knowledge and ability, and are duly qualified in respect of age, health, and character.

  ARMY—OFFICERS OF THE RESERVE CORPS.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will take into consideration the expediency of publishing in the monthly as well as the annual Army List the names of the Officers forming the Reserve Corps, seeing that space is found for the Warrant Officers and Sergeant Majors of the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): The full list of Reserve Officers is given in the official quarterly Army List. The monthly Army List is intended to be a distribution list of the officers in active employment, and as such it properly contains only such of the Reserve Officers as are actually employed at the time of publication. I am afraid that if this principle is departed from there would be no valid reason for refusing to
  1790
  insert everything which is in the quarterly list. In which case the monthly list would not only be increased in cost, but become far too bulky to fulfil the object desired.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—LOSS OF THE "OREGON," CUNARD LINER.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state what was the net registered tonnage of the Oregon; what proportion the registered tonnage bears to the number of passengers a vessel may carry; what number of persons were on board the Oregon; and, what number could have been accommodated in her ton boats?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The net registered tonnage of the Oregon was 3,529. The number of passengers a vessel may carry does not depend upon her registered tonnage, but on the extent of her passenger accommodation as to light, ventilation, space, and other circumstances. The number of persons on board the Oregon was 878, and her boats were capable of accommodating 365.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked, whether the House was to understand that if the vessel had foundered in mid-ocean only 300 out of 800 passengers would have found accommodation in the boats? He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the case of two vessels of identical registered tonnage, one carrying 500 passengers and the other 1,300, they were both obliged to have the same number of boats?
  MR. FORWOOD: I should like to ask, at the same time, whether it is possible for large steamers carrying passengers to carry as many boats as they carry passengers?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have answered all the Questions which have been put to me on the subject of the Oregon. Now I am asked whether, if she had gone done down in mid-ocean, her boats would have been sufficient. Certainly not; and every man who goes to sea knows that passenger vessels do not have sufficient boats for all their passengers. The Channel steamers, for instance, probably accommodate 300 or 400 passengers; but the boats they carry would only be sufficient for 40 or 50 passengers. But the Oregon had boat accommodation largely in excess of the

  1791
  statutory requirements. I may add that the Board of Trade are not at all satisfied with the present statutory requirements. When the loss of the Oregon was reported I ordered an inquiry to be made by practical men as to how far it would be possible to enlarge the boat accommodation of such vessels; but I do not want the House to suppose that any large sea-going ship can carry as many boats as will accommodate all her passengers. The effect of that would be either to render the vessel unseaworthy or to quadruple the charge to passengers.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the United States there was a law which required that all passenger ships should carry boats or lifebelts sufficient to accommodate all their passengers?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was not aware of any such law, and much doubted whether any such law existed. If there were such a law he would have no faith in its being carried out.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked, whether the President of the Board of Trade would lay on the Table of the House a copy of section 4,488 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which required that every ship should carry a sufficient number of boats and life-saving apparatus?
  MR. SPEAKERruled that Notice of the Question must be put on the Paper in the usual way.

  ARMY RECRUITING.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the success of the experiment in certain regiments, he will consider the expediency of trying more generally the plan under which recruits are permitted to enlist for three years, and are practically not liable to be sent to India, but have afterwards the option of accepting long service if they desire to do so, and are found to be likely to make efficient soldiers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): The necessity for providing every year large drafts for foreign service makes it desirable to treat with great caution any further application of the system of enlistment for three years. The Foot
  1792
  Guards, to which regiments it has been applied, are during peace essentially for Home service; and I should prefer to have longer experience of the proportion of men extending their service in those corps before going much further.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE CURTIN FAMILY.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on Thursday last two men proceeded from Killarney to Firies Chapel for the purpose of erecting there a new pew for the Curtin family, their previous one having been broken in pieces by a crowd of men and women on a former occasion; that they were seen by a large number of men who were engaged in tilling land belonging to the mother of the moonlighter whom Mr. Curtin shot; that they immediately turned on them, took the pew from them, and smashed it to atoms against the chapel railings, at the same time seriously assaulting the two men; and, whether any arrests have been made?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It appears that a carrier in charge of a new pew for the Curtin family was seriously assaulted, and that the pew was broken in pieces by a crowd of men, who had assembled for the purpose of tilling the farm mentioned in the Question. The police were not made aware of the intention to convey the pew to Firies on that day; but immediately on hearing of the affair they took the necessary steps and succeeded in arresting two men who have been fully identified for the assault on the carrier.

  SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE—THE GRÆCO-TURKISH FRONTIER.
  DR. CLARKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any information has been received by the Foreign Office to the effect that both the Porte and the Government of Greece, or either of them, would learn with satisfaction that steps were being taken by Great Britain to submit the still unsettled questions as to the Greco-Turkish Frontier to mediation; and, if so, whether the Government proposes to take any steps to promote such a settlement of the question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): If, by the expression "unsettled questions as to the Græco-Turkish frontier," my hon. Friend refers to the desire of the Greek Government to obtain further extensions of territory to the North, I may inform him that Her Majesty's Government are fully convinced that the Porte would not agree to the re-opening of these questions, which were settled by the Convention of May 24, 1881. If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend refers to certain questions which have arisen under that Convention with respect to legislation by Greece on the subject of the Vakouf or religious property in the districts ceded by Turkey, I may inform him that the Porte desired these questions to be submitted to the Powers; whereas the Greek Government maintained that their action was within the terms of the Convention. For the last few months the discussion of this subject has remained in abeyance.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been drawn to a recent case in the county Longford, wherein three orders for attachment had been issued against three persons for contempt of court; whether the contempt of court consisted in forcibly retaking possession of a farm from which they had been evicted; whether the Sheriff had only been successful in arresting one of the parties, John Clarke, now in Sligo Gaol; whether, in alluding to the other two cases, Judge Boyd had said, as follows:—
  "That it was a strange state of affairs to which the Country was reduced, when there was a warrant issued by one of Her Majesty's Courts, and the authorities refused to give the police authority to execute the warrant. The idea of a sheriff making a return that, in consequence of the refusal of the authorities to give police protection before 8 a.m., the two persons could not be arrested;"
  and, whether the Irish Executive contemplated taking any steps to carry out the Law?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that the local Constabulary authorities acted as stated, relying on a
  1794
  section of their Code, which provides that in certain cases protection parties are not to start in winter before 8 in the morning. I am advised, however, that the section relied on does not apply to proceedings such as were contemplated on the occasion referred to, and the Constabulary authorities have been so informed.

  MADAGASCAR AND FRANCE—THE TREATY OF PEACE.
  MR. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received from their consular representative in Madagascar any official account of the recent negotiations between the French and the Malagassy authorities; and, whether they have received from the French Government any special communication as to the nature of the authority which France now claims to exercise in Madagascar; and, if so, will he lay these Documents upon the Table?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The Consular officers at Antananarivo and Tamatave have reported the conclusion of the Treaty; but having taken no part in the negotiations they have forwarded no account of them. The French Government has confined itself to notifying verbally through the French Ambassador here the ratification and publication of the Treaty, and to stating that its conditions would henceforth govern the relations of the Hovas with foreign countries.

  METROPOLIS—PROCESSIONS OF THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. BRISTOWEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention bas been called to processions of men, describing themselves as unemployed, parading the streets of the southern suburbs of London, and collecting alms from the inhabitants; and, if such precessions are in accordance with the police regulations; and, if not, if he will give directions for their suppression?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to these processions in the suburbs of London

  1795
  for the purpose of collecting alms. It does not appear that the persons composing them are amenable to the Vagrancy Law, this having been expressly decided in the High Court of Justice in February, 1884, in the case of "Pointon v. Hill," when a conviction by a Stipendiary Magistrate was quashed by the Court. The police have been instructed to caution these men "not to beg, as it may get them into trouble;" but they cannot otherwise interfere, except in the event of pressure or threats being used, or any disorder arising.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BOERS AND THE SWAZIES.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the Boers have captured ten waggons of merchandise en route for Swazieland, stating that, as the Swazies have refused to pay them taxes, they will not allow them to trade with the English; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to keep open a road so important to the commerce of Natal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): We have not received any information which I can identify with the statement quoted by the hon. Baronet; but a despatch was yesterday received at the Colonial Office from Natal, reporting that three waggons were stated by Natives to have been seized by Boers, two of them in the Usibebu country, which is near to Swazieland; and that on explanations being demanded, Mr. Esselen, who styles himself the "Government Secretary to the new Republic," replied that one waggon only, belonging to a man called Weber, who was not a British subject, had been sent to Vryheit to be dealt with, and that the owner had since been fined £10 for trading without a licence, and ordered to pay £7 10 s. for the cost of a licence; that to defray this charge the goods had been sold for £21 12 s. 5d., and that the balance. £4 2s. 5d., would be paid to Weber. With regard to the last Question, Sir Arthur Havelock, the Governor of Natal, is about to enter into personal communications with the Boers for the settlement of the Zululand Question; and I trust that, as part of those negotiations, satisfactory arrangements will shortly be made for keeping
  1796
  open the trade route from Natal to Swazieland.

  IRELAND—GOVERNMENT LOANS FOR IRISH PURPOSES.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House what is the amount of the loans guaranteed by the Government, for Irish purposes, since the year 1840 to the present time; what amount has been paid off; what amount has been remitted; and, what is the total amount still outstanding?
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can inform the House what is the amount of the loans granted by the Government of England from time to time for Turkish purposes, for Greek purposes—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must give Notice of the Question in the usual way.
  MR. PARNELL: I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he can, in his reply to the hon. Member, distinguish between the loans granted respectively to owners of land in Ireland and to the occupiers of land in Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I must ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Grey) to postpone his Question for a week, in order to give time for the compilation of an accurate Return, and I shall be glad to include any information asked for by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Does my hon. Friend only refer to loans guaranteed by the State, or does he also refer to loans advanced by the Government?
  MR. ALBERT GREY: To both.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I would ask the hon. Member whether he would consent to the Return, of which I gave Notice some days ago, and which could not be granted in consequence of the opposition of certain Members of the House?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I have no objection to the Return; but I have no control over hon. Members.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Cannot the Treasury lay the Return on the Table?
  MR. SEXTON: In his reply, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what parts of the loans

  1797
  were due to the occurrence of a famine between the period of 1846 and 1849?

  POST OFFICE—ABBREVIATED TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will take into consideration the expediency of reducing the fee now charged for registered telegraphic messages in provincial towns to one-half, with a view to increase the revenue by augmenting their number, and lessening the charge to each individual who may wish to register?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): It is found that the fee now charged does not cover the cost to the Department and the loss of Revenue by the curtailment of the address. At the same time, the use of abbreviated addresses leads not only to delay in the delivery of messages with abbreviated addresses, but also necessarily causes delay in the delivery of messages containing a full address. The Postmaster General desires me to say that the use of abbreviated addresses is detrimental to the general public service, interferes with the regular working of the Telegraph Service, and largely increases its cost. Since the introduction of the 6d. tariff the practice of registering addresses has so enormously increased, and the Departmental difficulties which have arisen have been so great, that it is a question with the Postmaster General whether, after a certain date, it would not be well to abolish the use of abbreviated addresses, at all events for inland messages; and he cannot, therefore, lessen the present charge.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether statute 23 and 24 Vic. c. 100, and other Acts relating to the Army in India, are included in the Acts referred to the proposed Select Committee?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The Act mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question is not one of those we propose to refer to the Committee.

  BURMAH, UPPER AND LOWER—THE MILITARY COMMAND.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the military command in Lower Burma is under the Madras command, and that in Upper Burma under the Commander-in-Chief; and, if so, when it is proposed to put an end to this divided control?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The military command in Lower Burmah is certainly under Madras, and the Viceroy is in communication with the Secretary of State in Council as to placing the whole of Burmah under the Commander-in-Chief in India.

  MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is in receipt of a Letter from the editors of The Labour Tribune, containing suggestions from practical working miners for the amendment of the Mines Regulation Act, and if such suggestions will receive attention; and, if, considering the present state of the Law as to Coroners' Courts, and the numerous Bills that have been introduced to regulate the proceedings of such Courts, the suggestions as to power being given to attend and examine witnesses might be acted upon, by such power being given in the event of the Mines Bill not being passed during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes; I have received a letter from the editors of The Labour Tribune, and the suggestions contained in it are before a general meeting of Mines Inspectors which is now being held at the Home Office. The question of the attendance of witnesses at Coroners' Courts is a very important one, and will be dealt with in the Mines Bill, which is now being prepared by the Government. I do not see how power could be given to alter the procedure of Coroners' Courts, except by legislation. I could not undertake to bring in a special Bill for this purpose.

  POST OFFICE-TELEGRAMS—INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES.
  MR. FORWOODasked the Secretary to the Trea

  1799
  sury, Whether the Postmaster General has been able to relax the instructions given to postmasters not to deliver telegrams for the delivery of which a reference to a directory is required, so far as to allow such search being made in cases where the senders have evidently done their best to give a full address?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In reply to the hon. Member, I will read a copy of an Instruction which the Postmaster General has caused to be issued for the guidance of officers of the Department—
  "The Postmaster General has had his attention called to certain cases in which, although the addresses were incomplete, the senders had evidently made no attempt at curtailment, and had done their best to give a sufficient address. His Lordship considers that a distinction ought to be made between cases of this kind and cases in which the addresses had evidently been cut down with the view of saving expense; and he desires that the responsible officers at the various telegraph offices throughout the country will endeavour to seeure the delivery of telegrams of the former class, even although this should involve a reference to directories. It may be somewhat difficult to distinguish in all cases between the one class of incomplete addresses and the other; but where a doubt arises the public mind should be given the benefit of the doubt, the message being delivered and the case reported to headquarters."

  HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE.
  MR. FORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the Returns from the Goldsmiths' Company show that, out of 26,053 gold watches marked by that Company between May 1884 and May 1885 with the Hall Mark, no less than 4,812 were of Foreign make, and, of the 153,408 silver cases so marked, 32,339 were also of Foreign manufacture; and, if, in the proposed Measure dealing with marks on Merchandise, he will consider favourably a proviso to prohibit this use of a Mark, generally recognised as a Mark applicable only to British manufactures, being affixed to Foreign products, thus misleading the public in this Country, as well as the people in our Colonies?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): Sir, 21,241 gold and 121,069 silver watch cases were marked at Goldsmiths' Hall between May 29, 1884, and May 29, 1885, of which 4,812 gold, and 32,339 silver, cases were of foreign manufacture. The
  1800
  hall-mark is a test of quality and not of origin, and is not, as the hon. Member supposes, "a mark applicable only to British manufactures." Hall-marking is compulsory, and foreign plate cannot be sold in this country without it, as it is part of the machinery employed for the collection of duty.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE — FOREIGN BOUNTIES ON SUGAR PRODUCTION—RETALIATION DUTIES.
  MR. KIMBERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that another sugar refinery, employing 1,000 hands, at the East End of London has recently closed its doors, another firm having closed and discharged 300 hands, and two others having discharged about 270 each, and that they attribute the necessity of closing these works to the Foreign bounties on sugar; whether the Board of Trade possess, or will make any, calculations to show whether the destruction of such an industry, and the several other industries which more or less depend on it, involves a loss to this Country greater or less than the alleged gain in the price of sugar to the consumer actually attributable to the bounties; whether, if such industry has been so destroyed, there is anything to prevent the same system being applied by Foreign nations to each of our other industries in turn; and, whether, without entering on any war of tariffs, more energetic efforts of diplomacy, such as succeeded in the cases of Germany and the United States against Spain, can be adopted with the prospect of equal success by this Country?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): I have no information of the facts stated in the first Question of the hon. Member, except such as is given in the daily papers. As to the influence of bounties upon this and other industries, I understand the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade purposes making a complete investigation into the subject. The question of the loss or gain arising to this country from the sugar bounties was considered by a Committee of this House in 1879–80, and has also been dealt with in a Report of the Board of Trade on the progress of the sugar industry in 1884. I must refer the hon. Member to these Reports for informa

  1801
  tion on the subject. I cannot enter into a dissertation of a contentious character in answering a Question.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to when the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade is likely to report on this subject?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am afraid not. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman himself will be able to inform the House.
  MR. RITCHIE: Would the Board of Trade reconsider the question of calling a Conference together to settle this question of sugar bounties, as was suggested by the Earl of Derby?
  MR. MUNDELLAhad no personal knowledge of the suggestion, and desired Notice of the Question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the Board of Trade possessed, or would endeavour to obtain, calculations showing the extraordinary burdens thrown on the French consumer and the French taxpayer by the present system of bounties?
  MR. KIMBERasked whether the Reports to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred as having been made to the Board of Trade would be continued; and whether the statistics that might be collected might not induce the Board of Trade to alter the conclusion at which it had arrived?
  MR. MUNDELLAasked for Notice of these Questions.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE — BRITISH COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ABROAD—INSTRUCTIONS TO H.M. AGENTS.
  LORD WILLIAM COMPTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to give to the House any further information respecting the Treasury minute, stated by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, in a speech at Manchester on the 4th of March, to have been issued by the present Secretary of the Home Department, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the detriment of British trade, and also respecting the special instructions which the noble Lord added had been sent to Her Majesty's Agents abroad, with a view to the encouragement of British commerce?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): I may confirm the accuracy of the reply which on the 11th instant I gave to the Questions addressed to me by my noble Friend himself, and the hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and I can now positively assert that no such Treasury Minute or Special Instructions to Her Majesty's Agents abroad, as those referred to in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), exist. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, informs me that, so far as he is aware, the only expressions of his which could possibly have given rise to such a statement are words which he used in observations written on certain despatches from Pekin, forwarded to him for his perusal, in which he condemned the interference of Her Majesty's Representatives in cases whore British subjects were attempting to induce Foreign Governments to borrow from them money at exorbitant rates of interest—a practice which he conceived to be most objectionable, especially in the light of our experience in other countries.

  VACCINATION—THE ISLAND OF RUGEN.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will obtain information respecting the vaccination with humanised lymph of seventy-nine children in the Island of Rügen in June last; whether it is true that seventy-six of them were attacked in a few days with contagious disorder, which was communicated to their parents, brothers, and sisters, to the number of three hundred and twenty; what number of the children died; and, whether the lymph was obtained from the Royal Vaccine Institution at Stettin?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been instructed to report on this subject; and I shall be glad to communicate the Report, when received, to the hon. Member.

  PRISON DISCIPLINE—TREADMILLS.
  MR. RUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home De

  1803
  partment, Whether it is the fact that treadmills are now being constructed in Her Majesty's Prisons; whether they are practically the same description of instruments as were, many years ago, discarded in our Prisons as inhuman and wasteful; is it intended to use these treadmills for the infliction of hard labour sentences; has he any objection to state what reasons have led the Prison authorities to re-introduce this method of punishment; and, what are its advantages over crank labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS)The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that treadmills have ever been condemned as inhuman and wasteful. On the contrary, a Committee, which was appointed after the Prison Act of 1877 to consider this question, reported that the treadmill was the most suitable form of hard bodily labour. It is now being used for this purpose, and was never, as far as I am aware, generally discontinued. The crank is used in some prisons instead of the treadmill; but I am not aware that the one form of labour has any marked advantages over the other.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—ANNUAL REPORTS FROM THE COLONIES.
  MR. HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, The nature of the Instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to the Governors or other officials of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates with respect to annual Reports being transmitted to Her Majesty's Government relative to the commerce, industries, and products of, as well as to emigration to these Colonies and Protectorates where they hold appointments; and, what is the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government and by the Colonial officials relative to these instructions, as also relative to Parliament receiving periodical and early publication of the Reports?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN):: I think I can best answer the Question of the hon. Member by reading the Instruction given to Governors of Crown Colonies, which is as follows:—
  "The Governor shall punctually forward to us from year to year, through one of our prin
  1804
  cipal Secretaries of State, the annual Book of Returns, commonly called the Blue Book, relating to the revenue and expenditure, defence, public works, legislation, civil establishments, pensions, population, schools, course of exchange, imports and exports, agricultural produce, manufactures, and other matters with reference to the state and condition of the colony."
  The Instructions sent to the Governors of self-governed Colonies, except Canada, are to the same effect, except that the Governor is requested to forward the annual Returns, which are prepared by the Colonies themselves. These Returns, or summaries thereof, or Reports on them under the title of "Papers relating to Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions," are laid before Parliament as soon as practicable after their receipt, and every effort is made to produce them without delay. It will be found, I think, that they give full information upon the subjects referred to in the Question; but more detailed and more recent particulars can at all times be obtained at the offices of the High Commissioner for Canada, and of the Agents General of the other Colonies represented in London, who have always shown themselves ready, and, indeed, anxious, to supply all the information in their power.

  NAVY—ROCHE'S POINT COASTGUARD STATION.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Roche's Point Coastguard Station, which is inhabited by fifty-one persons, is provided with a pier, a boat harbour, or a boat slip; whether the want of any one or all of such structures involves risk of the lives of the men employed on boat service in tempestuous weather, as well as the boats in use, the property of the Admiralty; whether it is true that the inhabitants of the station, being unprovided with drinking water, have been obliged to utilise as such the water collected from the roofs of the houses in the station during rainy weather, and if it is a fact that the Naval authorities considered this water to be so bad that they issued orders that all water so collected should be boiled prior to its being used by the men or their families; whether the Naval authorities have been repeatedly urged by the inspecting officers to remedy the existing dangerous state of affairs by sinking a pump; and, if the present Lords Commissioners will

  1805
  recommend, without further delay, the providing for some means of preventing any outbreak of sickness which might ensue from the want of fresh water on the station?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF)(who replied) said: No pier, boat harbour, or slip exists at Roche's Point Coastguard Station. The boats are not used in rough weather, and therefore no accident is likely to occur. The well at the station yields brackish water, and the occupants use rain water, boiled to insure purity. Representations have been made to the Admiralty as to the desirability of sinking a new well; but the negotiations entered into for that purpose have hitherto failed, owing to the rent asked for the ground being considered excessive. There has been no sickness at the station for the last two years.

  GUN LICENCES (IRELAND).
  In reply to Mr. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)This is a Question regarding a gun licence being erroneously given. My answer briefly is, that the Reports disclose considerable irregularities on the part of the magistrates concerned, of which notice will have to be taken. I have decided to refer the action of the Local Justices to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

  REGISTRATION ACT (IRELAND), 1885—NON-PAYMENT OF POSTAGE OF REQUISITION FORMS.
  LORD ERNEST HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether complaints have reached him from various Boards of Guardians in Ireland with reference to the great expense to which the ratepayers are placed, owing to the fact that numbers of the Requisition Forms (Registration Act (Ireland), 1885), requiring the names of inhabitant occupiers, are returned to the clerk of the Union without the postage prepaid, thus putting the ratepayers to the expense of twice the deficiency of postage; and, whether, in consideration of the fact that these forms must be dealt with (under statute) by the clerk of the Union, whether returned stamped or otherwise, the Government will consider the advisa
  1806
  bility of allowing the Requisition Forms to be transmitted free through the Post Office?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I must ask the noble Lord to postpone this Question, as I am endeavouring still to gather the materials for the answer.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the space provided for the clerical establishment of the Post Office Savings Bank is insufficient for the needs of the Department, and unhealthy to the staff; and, whether, considering the permanent nature of the overtime work in that Department, the Lords of the Treasury will, with the assent of the Postmaster General, sanction the application of the seven hours' scale to the Savings Bank Department, as recommended by the Treasury Minute dated 19th June 1884?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The present Savings Bank premises are not unhealthy; but the space is insufficient, and active steps are being taken, under an Act passed last Session, to acquire an additional site, and in the meantime to provide temporary accommodation. As regards the latter part of the Question, I am informed that the subject to which the hon. Member refers is under consideration.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—REPORTS ON FOREIGN TRADE—INSTRUCTIONS TO H.M. AGENTS.
  MR. HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, The nature of the instructions given to Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Agents abroad with respect to Reports on the Trade and Industries of the place where they reside, and as to the course pursued by the Foreign Office with respect to these instructions, and to Parliament receiving periodical and early publication of these Reports?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Her Majesty's Consuls abroad are required to furnish, as soon as possible after the termination of each year, a General Report on the commerce and navigation of their districts. It is directed that such Reports shall show the

  1807
  amount and character of the trade carried on, and the special circumstances which may have caused fluctuations; that means of developing trade shall be suggested, and notice taken of all public works undertaken for advancing the interests of the port at which the Consul is stationed; that Consuls will enumerate the various articles of British and Colonial produce or manufacture for which the market seems to be favourable or unfavourable, together with opportunities for return freights, industrial institutions, new patents, inventions, or appliances which may affect manufactures and industry, harbour improvements and dues, landing and embarking facilities, public announcements for tenders for works, and so forth. These Reports are sent immediately to the printer, and issued in parts from time to time as soon as possible. It will be seen, on reference to Blue Books No. 20, 21, and 22, Commercial of last year, that three of these parts were issued in the month of August alone. I may add that, in addition to the Annual Trade Reports to which I have already referred, both Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular officers are instructed to furnish Reports on subjects of commercial and general interest when and as occasions arise, and it has hitherto been the practice to publish these as a separate series. Secretaries of Embassy and Legations are also required to furnish Reports from time to time on the trade and finances of the country to which the Head of their Mission is accredited, and the same course is followed with regard to their publication as that described in regard to the Consular Reports.
  MR. HUTTONasked what was the usual course of procedure if the Consuls did not carry out these instructions?
  [No reply.]

  IRELAND—A SEPARATE PARLIAMENT.
  MR. DE COBAIN, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the "Ulster Liberal Convention" on Friday last; and, if not, whether he is aware that the resolution stated that the Liberal party in Ireland would offer a most determined opposition to the establishment of a separate Irish Parliament, as it would be
  1808
  certain to produce a disastrous collision between sections of the people holding conflicting views on social, economic, and religious subjects, and would produce a feeling of insecurity which would jeopardise all industrial and commercial pursuits, and that the maintenance of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland was the best safeguard for the peace, prosperity, and liberty of all classes in Ireland; and, whether he would endeavour to produce a copy and lay it upon the Table of this House, the declaration of the opinions from those who were the adherents of the Liberal party in Ireland? said, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman he would postpone the Question until to-morrow.
  After a pause,
  MR. SEXTONsaid, if any of the Ministers intended answering the Question, he would also ask whether at this Convention an amendment favourable to a separate Parliament was not moved by Sir Thomas Esmonde?
  MR. SPEAKERobserved that the Question had already been postponed until to-morrow.

  IRELAND—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I am sorry to say the Prime Minister is unwell, and unable to be in his place to-day, though he hopes to be so to-morrow. He has desired me to state that on Thursday, April 8, he proposes to bring forward the subject of the Irish policy of the Government in this House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give us anymore definite information as to the statement to be made on April 8—whether the Prime Minister intends to bring in a Bill, or in what way he intends to state his policy to the House. But the Question I wish particularly to ask has reference to the Business of the House between this date and April 8. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what Business will be taken next week, and also when the right hon. Gentleman himself proposes to move his Budget? I see the Crofters Bill is the second Order for to-night; but I understood yesterday evening there was an

  1809
  understanding that it would not be taken till Monday.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As regards the method in which the Prime Minister will introduce the question of his Irish policy, I am not able to state definitely. What I understand is, that he will state the views of the Government with reference to the Irish policy on the 8th of April. With reference to next week—and I do not know that I can go further than that—we propose not to take the Crofters Bill to-night, but on Monday, and we desire to go on with that Bill and complete the Committee stage as early as possible. If the Crofters Bill in Committee is not completed on Monday, of course we shall go on with it on Thursday. The next Bill in point of order it is desired to press forward is the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. I cannot say anything as to Thursday, as I do not know anything of the condition of the Crofters Bill on Monday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to name a day for the Budget a little later; but it will probably be introduced in the first fortnight in April.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Will the Crofters Bill be the first Order on Monday?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £866,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."
  MR. TOTTENHAM: I was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving the Amendment, Sir, which stood in my name on the Paper of the House the other day; but I believe it is understood that a general discussion upon the Army Estimates is to be taken to-day. The Vote now under discussion is that for clothing; and the understanding was that a general discussion should be taken upon that Vote. Before proceeding to
  1810
  make some remarks upon the Motion of which I had given Notice, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will allow me to congratulate him upon the direction, which I consider is the right one, that he has taken in regard to the number of men he has estimated to be necessary during the coming year. I believe that it is an honest attempt on the part of the Government to grapple with the question which every soldier and everyone who has given his attention to the matter has, almost without intermittence, advocated for many years past. But in saying that it must not be supposed that we are satisfied that enough has been done in that direction. It is, no doubt, a step in the right direction; but it is only a partial one, and one which in the future will require a considerable increase. The increase in the number of men is simply one step; but what we say is that we require not only more men, but more regiments and more units, if the severe strain to which the Army system has been subjected during the last few years is to be relaxed. We require not only, as I said before, more men, but a greater number of units. And you have now, in the year 1866, or will have in 1886–7, notwithstanding the increase proposed in the present Estimates, a fewer number of men than you had 20 years ago, although since 1866 you have largely extended the area of your operations. During the last five years you have an average of 3,000 men more in Ireland than during the five years which preceded 1866. You have now something like 18,000 men employed in Egypt; you have close upon 10,000 additional men in the new stations at Quetta and elsewhere on the Frontiers of Afghanistan, and a largely-increased force in South Africa; and yet with all this, and with an addition of 10,000 men in Burmah, in regard to which you cannot look for a reduction for a number of years to come—with all these additional stations and even additional countries to be provided for, you have now the same number of units which you had in the year 1866. You are trying to do all this work over this increased area of country without the addition of a single unit to the force you had then. I maintain that this involves an undue straining of our military system. It is placing additional work upon

  1811
  both the men and the officers, even supposing that your units are efficient. Unfortunately that is not the case. Your battalions in India are, no doubt, efficient; those in the Colonies and in Egypt are only partially so; but those at home are wholly and utterly inefficient. You have 12 battalions first on the roster for foreign service on an increased establishment; but if they are in the condition in which I recently saw one of these battalions in England, with a paper strength of 916 rank and file, but which had sent out some 180 men to its foreign battalion in the course of a few months, and although it may be ordered on foreign service at any moment, consists only of some 730 effective men—or so-called effective men—because out of those 730 there are some 400 under one year's service, 260 under six months' service, and 400 under 20 years of age. Consequently, the bulk of the battalion are recruits, most of whom are under 20 years of age. Can any man in his senses call that an efficient fighting machine? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, following the precedent set by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who now sits behind him, when he was asked recently for information touching the strength of some of the battalions that were first for foreign service, prudently declined to give the information—I say prudently, because it is no doubt prudent that others should not be in a position to see us as we see ourselves. At the same time, I say that it is a position which the House and the country should fully understand and appreciate, and it is a position in which we should not be allowed to continue. We are living in a fool's Paradise. I am not, however, going to be satisfied with the figures of one battalion alone—I will take the whole of the five battalions which now form one of the largest garrisons we have in England. These five battalions have on paper a strength of 3,450 men; but their actual strength is not more than 2,400—being 1,000 men short of their established strength. These five battalions within the last 12 months of the trooping season—have sent out to their battalions abroad no fewer than 1,500 men, being three-fifths of their present total effective establishment, and what would be, if they were up to
  1812
  their full strength, three-sevenths of the entire body. Now, Sir, the Committee will be further startled to hear that within the past week, and it is only a sample of the previous ones, that these five so-called efficient paper fighting machines were able to turn out for garrison and other duties 398 men; being less than half of the strength of one full battalion on its foreign establishment. Now, I think that the Committee may gather from these figures, as to the accuracy of which I have not the slightest doubt, a fair idea of the state of the rest of the battalions in the Army at home; and hon. Members may be able to form an opinion of the state to which the whole Army has been reduced. I think that a more damning condemnation of the system under which the Army has been groaning so long could not be given than is supplied by the figures I have quoted. The system was well described by the late Adjutant General of the Forces in giving evidence before the Committee which sat some five years ago, in which his opinion was extracted upon the system of one battalion feeding another, or of men being transferred from one battalion to fill up another. He stated that a more pernicious system than that now in vogue the wit of man could not devise. That opinion is one which will be endorsed by every man and officer in the Service. This abominable invention of one battalion feeding another, to the entire destruction of the efficiency of the home battalion, has met with the universal condemnation of every officer who has commanded an Infantry Division, Brigade, or Battalion; aye, and not only of every commissioned officer, but of every non-commissioned officer and private as well. It is a system which is utterly destructive of all efficiency in the battalions, and in the Army at home. It is one which destroys all interest on the part of the officers in their men, and of the men in their officers. It unsettles the men; it makes the officers discontented, and it is utterly destructive of that esprit de corps which ought to exist in the Service, and which has been the means of winning for the country many a fight at long odds. An extract from the letter of a commanding officer, which I will take the liberty of reading to the Committee, is only a speci

  1813
  men, and a fair sample of many which I have received, not only from officers who are now in command, but from officers who have been in command, and from officers of a rank senior and junior to those now in command. This officer is in command of a battalion serving at home, and he says—
  "The system of one battalion feeding others is absolutely destructive of all efficiency. It unsettles young soldiers, and turns every home battalion into a very expensive training depôt. It must be done away with."
  Not only by letters, but in conversations which I have had with other officers, that opinion has been endorsed by everyone to whom I have spoken. In 1879 the Committee, known as "Lord Airey's Committee," was appointed to investigate this and other kindred matters. That Committee, describing the condition of two battalions which had suddenly been sent abroad and brought up to war strength, as all the Home Army would have to be in the case of emergency at the present moment—that Committee, in describing their condition, said—
  "It can only be described as being such that if their services had been immediately required in the field their employment would have been calculated to court disaster. In fact, they were not such troops as could be properly entrusted with the protection of the interests of the British Empire, or with the maintenance of its honour."
  What stronger evidence could the country have than the deliberately expressed opinion of 12 or 13 of the most experienced officers in the Service? Lord Airey's Committee further reported—and I quote the opinion of the Committee freely, because I do not wish the Committee to suppose that I am intruding unsupported views and opinions of my own upon it; but I wish to show what the opinions are of officers of very great experience, and of much greater length of service than myself—and to whose views the Members of this House would do well to listen—Lord Airey's Committee, I say, further reported in favour of training all recruits at training depôts in place of the present system, which they say is, in their opinion, most unsuitable. They also recommend that, once posted, no man should be liable to be removed without his consent; and in the concluding paragraph but one of their Report they say—
  "With a view to prevent the drafting of men from one regiment for service in another to the
  1814
  cessation of a system by which one regiment serves as the depôt for another and for the re-establishment."
  I would ask the Committee to mark these words, for it is manifest that Lord Airey's Committee considered that that esprit de corps which formerly prevailed had departed—
  "For the re-establishment (they say) of esprit de corps in, and efficiency of, regiments, the present system of linking should be done away with."
  In saying that the system of linking should be done away with, they had previously explained what they meant by linking or the transfer of officers and men from one battalion to another; and they expressly stated that they were not attacking, any more than I am, the territorial system which was not in vogue at the time of their Report. The territorial system may be a good one, and I am not to be understood as saying anything against it. What I contend is, that every regiment should consist of three practical units. At the present time it consists of one actual unit and two mythical units, the actual one abroad in a state of complete efficiency, another battalion at home in a state of inefficiency, and a skeleton depôt of 50 men which is utterly useless for all military purposes; and if the home battalion is to continue to usurp its functions, it might, for all the use it is, be done away with. I have said that each regiment should consist of three units; and whether the depôt should be an amalgamated or combined depôt of different regiments, as recommended by Lord Airey's Committee, or whether each regiment should have its own depôt in its own territorial district, are matters of minor consideration comparatively speaking. I am aware that some officers advocate the principle of the home battalion enlisting its own recruits. I am not prepared to say that that would not possibly be the best system, provided the recruits are retained and kept in the battalion after enlistment. That, however, I consider a question of minor detail. As far as my own individual opinion goes, I believe that the old system of a depôt belonging to a regiment itself which is not brought into contact or into connection with another regiment is the true and proper system ot adopt. Some such system as that we shall have to revert to if the efficiency of the whole Army is to be restored. The

  1815
  system which is provided for in the present Estimates, where both the battalions are abroad the depôts at home to have a strength of 600 men, is, in my opinion, one which ought to be followed in all cases, whether there are two battalions abroad, or one abroad and the other at home. But whether it is that, or whether the system of permitting the battalion to enlist and retain its own recruits, is, as I said before, a matter of comparatively small importance. The great point which I wish to impress upon the Committee and the country is, that it is absolutely necessary that we should not deplete the home battalions and destroy their efficiency by turning them into training depôts. I and others who hold the same view as that which I have myself advocated are of opinion that there should be an increase in the number of men at all depôts. I am aware, of course, that this will involve an increased expenditure, and the Committee over which Lord Airey presided was also fully alive to the fact, and stated so in their Report. I have no doubt that they had in their minds what has been running in my own—namely, that there should be no question to a rich country like England equal to that of the absolute efficiency of her small Army; and where the safety, welfare, and honour of the country are concerned, the question of the paltry saving of a few hundreds or thousands in the year should not be put in the balance. It is of the first importance to a country which has a small Army, as compared with the Armies of other countries, that the Army she possesses should be kept in the highest possible state of efficiency; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who has taken the first step in a right direction, has now an opportunity of associating his name with a scheme of reform which I believe will earn for him, not only the gratitude of the Army, but also of every man who is a well-wisher of his country. He will find that he is amply supported by the Reports of various Committees—Lord Airey's, and others which have sat on this and kindred matters—and by the Returns and figures to which he has access. The Report of Lord Airey's Committee was a most exhaustive one. It sat for nine months, and examined no less than 72 witnesses, ranging from the Commander-in-Chief down to the
  1816
  sergeant-majors of several regiments and depôts. The evidence extended over 700 pages, and was presented to Parliament in the year 1881; and the Report was couched in the most unequivocal terms. No notice whatever has been taken of the Report of that Committee since it was presented, either by the Government or by Parliament; and I say that if it is admitted that such an evil exists which makes it necessary to appoint a Committee consisting of the most experienced and capable officers in the Service, it is not treating that body with anything like the respect which is due to the labour they have expended upon it if their Report is simply to be pigeon-holed. To treat such a Report as so much waste paper means withholding from the country the reforms which the country has a right to expect will be applied by the Executive Authority, under the advice of men who have deliberately given their recommendations as the outcome of a lifelong experience and observation. Before the debate closes, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he is alive to the vital importance of the question, and that he will give the Committee and the country some assurance that he will continue to look into the matter, and to see what steps can be taken, before the Estimates for next year are framed, to bring about what I am confident he will find to be a state of circumstances in accordance with the universal opinion of soldiers. I am not attacking the territorial system. I am not touching upon the question of long or short service. They are questions of policy upon which a civilian is as capable of giving an opinion as a soldier; but the question which I have brought before the Committee is one on which only the soldier who has served, or is now serving, and who is acquainted with the wants, the wishes, the hopes, and the essential qualities of the soldier is competent of expressing an opinion. A soldier is fully aware of what can or cannot be done in practice; and I think that the opinion which has been or probably will be enunciated by others besides myself will be one which every soldier in the Army will adopt. So far as the Government are concerned, they cannot afford absolutely to ignore the opinion of old and trusted servants solemnly and deliberately given; and I

  1817
  hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the Committee he will give to the subject that consideration which I am sure he will admit it deserves.
  MR. MAGNIAC: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a Return which has been given in regard to a portion of this subject, and I desire to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for some sort of explanation in regard to this Clothing Vote. Hon. Members may not have inquired into this Vote, and I think they will be somewhat surprised to find that, although this is called a Vote for clothing the Army, it really includes many other subjects. In fact, it is the entire Clothing Department of the country. So far as the Government is concerned, it comprises not only the Army, but the General Post Office, the Metropolitan Police, the Irish Constabulary, the Custom House, the Board of Trade, Colonial Governments, India, and, in fact, every official in the service of the country. In any other country, I suppose, except a commercial country like this, these so-called clothing establishments would be under commercial management; but it seems to be supposed that because this is called the Army Clothing Establishment and the Army Clothing Vote, that therefore it is necessary that this trading establishment should be managed by colonels in the Army; and I am led to suppose that this is so in consequence of certain reports and rumours of complaints in regard to the matter which has been brought under the notice of the House. The House, as a matter of fact, granted a Return on my Motion, and that Return, which I have already received, is signed by Colonel Ramsey. [An hon. MEMBER: Who is a private gentleman.] Well, I may have been under a misapprehension with regard to that Return; but I do not think that it will very much affect the point I wish to make; because, whether the Director of the Clothing Establishment is a colonel in the Army or only a private gentleman, I do not think that it is less evident on the face of the accounts that a great amount of improvement is capable of being effected in this Establishment. When I moved for the Return I carefully considered the terms in which I couched it, and the House agreed to it. That Return has now been
  1818
  presented, and I regret to say that it is entirely a misleading document. I think it is scarcely respectful to the House that a Return ordered by the House should not only be contrary to the letter of the Motion upon which it was granted, but also entirely opposed to the spirit of the Motion itself. The Return for which I moved was intended to give an account of the number of persons employed in the Royal Army Clothing Factory and of the wages which they receive. I believe it is known to everybody that there have been very great complaints in regard to the management of this Factory. I will not say whether those complaints are well or ill-founded; but in moving for the Return I wanted to ascertain if there were any grounds for those complaints. I find from the Return that there are 5,000 persons employed monthly in that Establishment—that is to say, that an average number of 1,200 or 1,300 persons are employed there per week. The information I asked for was to be a Return showing a comparison between the wages paid in the month of February, 1886, and the wages in the same month in 1885; and my object in making that inquiry was to show whether or not it was true that the work was now being conducted on some different system in this Factory, and that the people were being ground down to a lower rate of pay than that which had been previously given. My hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Woodall), in answer to a Question put to him, said that it would be found the wages had not been reduced, but that, on the contrary, they were somewhat larger now than were paid in 1885. That is absolutely true in the letter, though it is anything but true in the spirit, of the inquiry that was made. A Return has been given for the year 1884, showing the work done during the past year by the workpeople employed in that Establishment. I think it is well known, as is stated in the Return, that the work itself is only partially taken home. A similar Return to 1886 has been given, showing all the work done in the factory hours, and including that taken home out of the factory hours, and done in what may be called overtime. I find that the average rate of pay of the workpeople employed in this Factory in 1885 was 17 s. 11½d. per week; but by the

  1819
  Return it would appear that the average payment is 18 s. 8d. per week; so that I say the Return is true in the letter, but not true in the spirit; and if you eliminate the work done on Sundays, I believe that the average will come out at 16 s. 8d., or nearly 6d. a-week less than the payments of last year. I do not mean to say that the workpeople are underpaid or that they are overpaid; but what I do say is that, when a Return is ordered to be given by the House, it ought to be given so that the House may be able to judge of its accuracy. One particular point I had in my mind is this—It was said that a large number of the persons employed were working at what are called starvation prices. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Woodall) gave a Return in very minute detail, showing the number of persons employed at determined rates and wages, and the Return for the last class shows that a very large number of persons receive no more than 10 s. per week. In a Return given so minutely, I am certainly interested to know how persons who receive less than 10 s. a-week can manage to exist. Taking 10 s. as the minimum, I find that in 1886 559 persons were employed in the Army Clothing Factory who only earned 10 s. a-week, while in 1885 the number was 384. So that I cannot help thinking that some alteration has been made in the Regulations of the establishment which has brought an increased number into that class. I have no wish, Sir, in this House to ask that any person should be paid a higher rate of wages than that to which he is fairly entitled. I would not for one moment make a condition of that kind; on the contrary, I think that every Government Establishment should be conducted upon commercial principles; but, at the same time, I maintain that there are certain commercial principles which ought to be adhered to, and that there ought to be a minimum rate of wages for persons employed in the Government Factories, in order to secure that only competent persons should be employed, and that every person employed in a Government Establishment should be able to earn a suitable and sufficient amount of money to maintain him in a respectable condition of life. Now, I believe that no person can rent decent rooms to live in under 4s. 6d. per week; and what I would ask is, how any person can
  1820
  maintain himself or herself out of 10 s. a-week, if he or she has 4s. 6d. to pay for rent? It is altogether impossible; and I can only infer that there is a system of employment by which persons who are practically incompetent to earn an adequate rate of wages are engaged in the Public Service. We all know, from what we read in the newspapers, how easy it is to cause a fall in wages. There is nothing easier; but I think that an evil of that kind ought always to be avoided in an establishment conducted by the Government. No doubt, such an establishment ought to be conducted on commercial principles; but it should be upon a principle which would prevent any person from being ground down and placed in such a position as to produce a public scandal. Of course, this question of wages must always be governed by the value of labour on the spot; but I would seriously urge upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War the necessity of giving it full consideration. A claim may be made that the rate of wages should be governed by the wages paid in London. I do not think that that is a fair test. On the contrary, I think that the wages paid should be governed by the rate properly paid in the place in which the labour is obtained. I am quite aware that this argument has been used in favour of a similar rate of wages being paid in the country to that which is paid in London; but I trust that that principle will never be acted upon, because it is quite clear that wages very materially depend on the cost of living, and the cost of living in London, as everybody knows, is much more expensive in London than in any other part of England, Ireland, or Scotland. There is another question which I think ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and it is that he should not allow this Clothing Establishment to be converted into anything in the nature of a charitable institution. The object is to give satisfaction, and the only way to give satisfaction in an establishment like this is to conduct it not only on commercial principles, but in a spirit of equity and fairness with regard to those who are employed in it. When we come to look at the enormous magnitude of this establishment I think it will be generally admitted that the management can hardly be expected to

  1821
  be such as would give entire satisfaction. I am quite aware that I may be charged with a desire to increase the expense; but I would ask anybody concerned in commercial affairs whether he thinks that he could conduct a business with a turn over of £1,320,000 by means of a Director, who only receives £1,200 a-year? I do not know how this has been brought about, or how it has occurred that a Director of an establishment like this should only receive £1,200 a-year. I certainly believe that a man who is competent to conduct such an establishment would be worth a great deal more than £1,200 a-year in any manufacturing town in Europe. I am quite aware it may be said that he has a technical assistant at his side. I know that the Assistant Director, whoever he may be, is supposed to be a technical man; but it is very difficult for an outsider to make out who is responsible for anything at all in connection with this establishment. It will be found that the Indian Government receives no less than £270,000 worth of clothing a-year. Who is it who superintends that work? Again, clothing is supplied to the Admiralty and to the Volunteers, and there are many other separate heads in regard to which clothing is issued on terms of repayment, and yet under all of these heads there does not appear to be anyone responsible except the Director of Clothing at £1,200 a-year, with an Assistant Director at £800 a-year. If the assistant is not a technical man then I say he ought to be. A great part of the trade consists in viewing and inspecting clothes which have been bought by contract outside. Anyone acquainted with the woollen trade will be perfectly aware that there are few things which require a more searching examination, or a more competent examiner, than the purchase of woollen clothing. Without a thoroughly competent Director there would be room for any amount of fraud. Only last year, or the year before, we had a great scandal with respect to the purchase of a particular kind of furniture for the Government Offices. That case showed the particular care which was required, and also the necessity for personal and practical knowledge; and if those objects are not secured no amount of technical knowledge in connection with any trade will be of the slightest use whatever. I say that the
  1822
  Estimates are not sufficient to cover the proper amount of pay which ought to be given to the workpeople, and I think it will be necessary to make some additional charge, although, perhaps, not to a very large extent. Having made these remarks, I ought to explain that the Return which I moved for, and which has been laid upon the Table, I shall not ask the House to print, because I do not think that the information it contains is worth printing. It does not appear to me to contain the information which I required. I hope that in another year the matter will be more fully considered, and that a clear and intelligible Return will be given, so that the House, if it is anxious to know, shall know what is being done, and that no charge of injustice in connection with the payment of starvation prices shall in future be made.
  GENERAL FRASER: Sir, the experience of four recent years in command of a Camp of Exercise, during which period some 35 battalions were under my observation, induces me to trespass on the indulgence of the Committee on matters of deep interest to every constituency. The Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting affords complete evidence that the home battalions of the Infantry of the Line on the low establishment—although maintained at a large cost to the country—are utterly useless for garrison duties at home, and unfit for service abroad. This has been the state of the battalions for a long period. The Inspector General of Recruiting remarks—
  "If men are unduly worked, as they always will be in very weak battalions, the Army obtains a bad reputation, and becomes less popular with those to whom we look to fill its ranks."
  It must be borne in mind that "unduly worked" includes the tour of guard coming round much too quickly, thereby reducing the number of nights in bed to an extent that the medical officers strongly deprecate. Sometimes I have seen guard duty come round so frequently that the men have not had more than three nights in bed, while the medical officers say they require at least five. The home battalions have been reduced to a state of absolute inefficiency by being sacrificed to the feeding of battalions abroad, and to the formation of a Reserve. Many battalions at home

  1823
  last year, and the year before, were on a nominal establishment of 520 rank and file, which included bandsmen, pioneers, boys, batmen, garrison and regimental employ. And we had to send abroad each year 300 men—at times between 200 and 300 at one draft. A battalion thus situated has never the chance of being practised in the field—for months and months Commanding Officers have no opportunity of parading their regiments—phantom regiments I may call them. The few men who are not recruits—and some regiments have 300 out of 520—are dribbled away in garrison employ, standing orderlies, hospital, fire brigade, Staff officers' servants, and by other causes; and so Commanding Officers have no opportunity of training the officers and men in their duties in the field. The loss of this practice, consequent on the debilitated state of the battalions is most serious; for unless the troops are exercised in the practice of scouting, outpost duties, protection of their flanks, taking advantage of ground, the skill of attack and defence, and other most important duties, they are worse than useless in a campaign. Theoretical instruction is of no use without practice. The addition to the number of men in these battalions proposed in the Estimates will be of the greatest benefit to the Service—as on the 1st of January, 1886, there was a deficiency of 3,613 men. The prospect of recruiting the extra 10,000 is not promising unless greater temptations are held out to recruits to join and to remain. The Inspector General of Recruiting reports—
  "The waste should be calculated at not less than one-sixth of the strength."
  On January 1, 1886, the strength was 192,929, which would make the waste 32,000. From the Inspector General of Recruiting's Report we learn that 45,613 men will be required in 1886—namely, estimated waste 32,000; proposed increase to Establishment, 10,000; and deficiency on January 1, 1886, 3,613, making a total of 45,613. The strength of the First Class Army Reserve on the 1st of January, 1886, was 41,889. It may be said that though the home battalions are but skeletons the Reserve can be recalled to fill their ranks. They may in case of great national emergency; but where then would be the Reserves?—in the first Line! With regard to deserters. It appears that in 1884
  1824
  4,462 men deserted from the Army, and that out of this number 3,051 were under one year's service. In 1885, 5,147 deserted, and 2,975 remained away in a state of desertion. In 1885, 1,909 recruits bought their discharges within three months of enlisting. This decrease must have caused great expense to the country, and the reason for this waste requires explanation. As a general rule the recruits who purchase their discharge are respectable; they have enlisted not from being badly off, but with the wish to become soldiers. As a general rule they are of a superior class to the ordinary recruit, and their discharge is a loss to the Service. With regard to recruits—the present standard being, height 5 feet 3 inches, chest measurement 33 inches, and age 17 years—it is hard to conceive that—
  "As a rule the men are as good as ever entered Her Majesty's Service."
  To use the words of the Inspector General, we may well believe that a cry has been
  "raised against the recruits because they were not effective as soon as could be wished."
  The rule at Aldershot Camp is that recruits must be returned as fit for duty in four months after joining. As a matter of fact, very few are then fit for the ranks—which is not surprising, as they certainly have not had time to mature; and yet no more time can be allowed, for the Report shows that there were 75,352 men under three years' service on January 21, 1885, out of which 31,758 were under one year's service. With an Army like our own, enlisted entirely on the voluntary system, whose duty calls it all over the world, no pains should be spared to render the Service popular, and to raise its tone and efficiency. Much has been done in this direction of late—much remains to be done. Perhaps the Committee will now permit me to enter into a few details. There is no source of discontent more burning than the arrangements by which a soldier has to accept the cast-off clothing — part worn is the term — of others. A country lad brought up in godliness and cleanliness joins and receives a shabby, stained, greasy suit of part worn, and very much worn, clothing. This system is strongly condemned by Commanding Officers—it leads to crime, as men make away with these articles

  1825
  purposely, and thereby render themselves liable to severe punishment. The saving to the Government by this system is not equivalent to its disadvantages. There is no objection to the reissue of great-coats, capes, and tunics, if fit for wear. Forage caps, jackets, and trousers are strongly objected to. There is a very strong feeling in the minds of all soldiers that the clothing given to them, and repaired at their own cost, should be, as of old, their own property. This was the system formerly, and it answered well. It led to thrift and care, and it was a source of great encouragement to the good soldier. Another cause of disappointment to the recruit is that, under the "conditions of enlistment," published "by authority," he is promised a "ration of bread and meat." He finds that it consists of 1lb. of bread and ¾lb. of meat, which includes bone and gristle. This small ration is not enough for growing lads who have to be matured. The ration being so small, men are induced, in many cases, to stay their appetites by drinking. Deferred pay has not been a success. In the majority of cases it finds its way into public and other houses less respectable in a very short time after the man to whom it is paid leaves the barrack-yard, and does neither him nor his friends the least good. This money ought to be spent on extra messing and comforts; it would be more beneficial than handing over a lump sum to a soldier, who will quickly spend it in most instances. Men can always, if so inclined, place their savings in the regimental or Post Office Savings Bank. The discharge of bad characters is of great benefit to the Service. The example of worthless, disreputable men is most injurious to the behaviour and happiness of the young soldier, and their dismissal from the ranks would render the Army much more popular. The bad characters in a regiment are the curse of it. The expansion of the time of service—that is, allowing men to take on for different periods until ultimately they may earn a pension—is a source of infinite gratification to all who take an interest in the Service, and again opens up a career for a soldier. Beyond the loss of strength to battalions at home, occasioned by the passage of men to the Reserve, and the transfer of men to the battalions abroad, the waste is immense from other causes, such as
  1826
  from desertion, purchase of discharge, invaliding, and deaths; 12,726 men were lost to the Service last year by such waste, My experience of the state of battalions inclines me to conclude that the battalions at home should drill their own recruits, and that the regimental districts should furnish the drafts for the battalions abroad. The present system, by which the battalions abroad are fed by the battalions at home, cannot be maintained, as duty calls for a larger number of battalions abroad than are retained at home. Therefore there must be certain regiments with both battalions abroad. There are at present 14 Line regiments with both their battalions abroad. In thanking the Committee for its indulgence, permit me to express a hope that a system of dealing with our soldiers may be adopted which will tend to decrease the number of desertions, to diminish drunkenness and crime, and to induce recruits to come and to stay. Let this old feeling of regiments be brought back. Let all ranks again look upon the battalion as their home, to be happy in, to work for, so that it may excel and take a pride in its old associations, traditions, and renown; to be looked upon as an effective unit of the Army that has gained honour, and will do so again when opportunity occurs.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester who initiated this discussion (Mr. Tottenham) that there cannot be a more important question than the efficiency of our Infantry battalions; but I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend precisely in the manner in which he has referred to these topics. I wish rather to address myself to the general question which has been raised in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and to ask him for further information than the Committee and Parliament have yet received. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the strength of a battalion at home was to be in no case less than 750. There was, I believe, a distinct understanding to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman admitted very much of the contention of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (General Fraser), that the strain on the resources of the Army

  1827
  under the existing system during the last two or three years has been exceedingly great, and that, in fact, it is not possible to continue it. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in all cases in which the two battalions of a regiment were abroad a depôt of at least 600 was to be maintained in this country. That was the arrangement which was, I believe, laid down by the late Government, and was found to be absolutely necessary in order to supply the drafts that were requisite to keep up the battalions on active service. I am exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has followed our advice, and that he has come to a conclusion that it is necessary to maintain that system, so that in case of an arrangement for having two battalions abroad a depôt of at least 600 shall be retained in this country to supply the demand. I think I have given to the Committee an accurate representation of what the right hon. Gentleman stated. The figures themselves appear in the Estimates. I find that the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances, has asked for an Establishment of 148,518 men, and in order to carry out the engagement he has made with Parliament and the country it is necessary that that Establishment should be maintained. I think that follows as a matter of course. The figures are given on page 15 of the Estimates. I find that last year the Establishments were considerably less than they are this year. Last year the Establishment voted was 138,986 men, with a total number of 142,194 men; whereas in the present year there is an Establishment of 148,518 men, and a total number of 151,867 men. The gross Estimates for last year showed an outlay on the Army of £5,542,000. If the right hon. Gentleman makes a rule-of-three sum of these figures, he will find that if 142,194 men cost £5,542,000, then 151,867 men would cost £5,919,000. But the gross Estimate is only £5,657,300, and, on the basis of the same calculation as last year, the money taken is £261,700 less than last year. Therefore, the proportions in the Estimate are wrong to that extent. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself for the modesty of his Estimates. He said it was inevitable that the Estimates should be, to a large extent, conjectural; that it was better, more satisfactory, and
  1828
  more regular that the Government should fix the Estimates on a moderate rate of expenditure, rather than estimate for a larger outlay which might not in reality be incurred. I do not wish in the slightest degree to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman; but, as I understand the Estimates, they are based upon the necessities of the Army, and the obligation of the Government to maintain a certain Force in Egypt. The modest Estimates—the conjectural Estimates—the hypothetical Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman would not do more than keep up an Army of Occupation in Egypt of 8,800 men, and upon that assumption the whole provision for the Army is founded. It is assumed that a Force of 8,800 men will be retained in Egypt, and that the other battalions—eight or nine now there—will be recalled, that they will be added to the home strength, that it will not be necessary to maintain depôts of 600 for these battalions which are abroad, and that a certain number of depôts—I think seven—will be reduced. But that modest Estimate—that conjectural Estimate—based on the lowest Estimate which the right hon. Gentleman deems to be a proper and reasonable one—that modest, conjectural, and hypothetical Estimate, for which the provision of only 151,867 men is taken, shows that the proportion between the Establishment and the total numbers is exactly the same as last year. Therefore I infer that the cost of the soldier, the proportion to be raised, and the expenditure to be incurred, ought to be precisely in the same proportion, and therefore I maintain that the Estimates have been framed not only on a modest and restrictive view of the requirements of the Service, but that they are also framed insufficiently to meet those modest requirements. I now turn to a record of financial wisdom which was given to the world some years ago. I remember, when I was in Office, that I and my Colleagues were severely rated by the present Prime Minister for making further demands on the Exchequer than those which had been estimated for in the first instance. I will read the paragraph from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which lays down the canon law on the subject. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered in Edinburgh, in 1879, he said—

  1829
  "The second rule, gentlemen, is this—and this is, perhaps, the moat essential of them all—that once in the year, and only once, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make his Financial Statement, shall say such was my income and such was my charge for the year that has expired, so that Parliament can judge me upon it; such is my estimated income ond such is my estimated charge for the year that is to come, so that Parliament can form its judgment with reference to the condition of the country, whether it is reasonable, and, if there be need, what measures it shall take in order to supply the means. Now there are great occasions, undoubtedly, when it is necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to depart from such a rule. A war may break out, which could not have been anticipated, long after, months after, his Budget—of course I do not speak of cases like this. If you will look over the Budgets of the last Government, you will see that in almost every case we spent less money than we had asked Parliament to give us. We acted upon this old, well-established—aye, and I will venture to say, conservative principle, not in a Party sense, but in a sense higher than a Party sense—this conservative principle of compelling the Minister to state all the charge that he is likely to incur, in order to maintain the efficacy of popular control."
  I would add further—in order also to maintain the efficiency of the Services for which he was responsible. We notice that in the present case there will in all probability be a Supplementary Estimate, if the Force in Egypt cannot be reduced to the number mentioned in the Estimates. Now, I say that that is a distinct breach of the canon law laid down by the present Head of Her Majesty's Government. We are told that it is the duty of a Minister to state the outside expenditure which he is likely to incur, and rather to ask for more money than he expects to spend than to take less than in all probability will be required. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War excuses himself for not stating the full cost of the services which are likely to be entered into on the ground that it will be in his power to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. It is, at all events, an unsatisfactory departure from the sound principles laid down some six or seven years ago. I will now pass from that subject; but I do hope that, whatever the circumstances may be, the engagement which has been made to maintain the Force at a strength for each battalion at home of at least 750 men will be observed. Let the Committee consider what position we are in. We are now adding 100 men to the strength of each battalion in India. That ad
  1830
  dition of 100 men, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, will involve a large increase of the drafts required from year to year from the country. Perhaps from 170 to 180 men will be required to be sent out to the battalion on foreign service every year. If it has only 750 men, or less than 750 men, you will have something which really is not a battalion capable of service, but a mere depôt, which is nothing but a training machine. You recognize this by saying that in the case of double battalions abroad you will supply a depôt of 600 each. But in many cases last year it is notorious that the battalion at home had only 20, 30, or 40 men for duty, after the drafts for foreign service had been sent out. No one can justify a continuation of such a condition of things. I wish now to say a word or two about another item which appears in the Estimates, and which was spoken of the other night. With regard to Suakin, we are told that £58,000 is to be taken for the garrison of that place. On that point I am anxious to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that Her Majesty's Government, who contribute the full cost of the service, will provide that at least the officers in charge of the troops at that place shall be British officers. I have heard that there is likely to be some difficulty on that point, and therefore I think it is necessary that we should have an assurance from the Government that the troops intended for the defence of Egypt will be thoroughly efficient. While in favour of the employment of Native troops in Egypt, I believe that they can only be efficient and useful, at all events, for two or three years to come, under the direction and control of British officers. I value the Egyptians very highly indeed, and I believe that the Egyptian officers would be of value in the direction and discipline of their troops; but in the recent past they have not been capable of leading their troops, and it is necessary that for the present British officers should be employed. The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks about recruiting. As regards recruiting, it has, I think, been most satisfactory during the past year; and I wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman in giving the highest possible tribute of praise to General Bulwer for the services he has rendered to the country in the matter of recruiting. General Bulwer has been a

  1831
  most able and efficient recruiting officer during the past five years, and his sole object has been to make the Service popular. I will venture to say that in a Voluntary Army the conditions of service must be always such as to attract the soldier himself, and that any attempt to enforce the regulations and conditions which may be possible with a Continental Army would, be quite out of place. In this country we appeal to the public and ask them to join the Colours as volunteers, and not as forced men or as conscripts; and therefore the general condition of the soldier must be such as to be attractive to them, and give them confidence that not only the rate of pay, but every other advantage offered to them, will be maintained. There should be nothing excessive in the way of duty. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lambeth (General Fraser) has told the Committee that under the present system men are kept out of their beds for three or four nights a-week. I believe that if proper care were exercised many of the inconveniences which now arise would be remedied to a large extent. In the first place, the constitution of the recruit should be carefully considered, and there should be no strain put upon him which is likely to lead to an unsatisfactory result, and which frequently becomes the cause of desertion. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that with regard to the Militia officers there have been an increase in the number of 160 or 170 during the past year, notwithstanding the fact that 222 subaltern officers had joined the Line from the Militia. Now, I venture to think that the very fact that these subaltern officers have joined the Line from the Militia goes very far indeed to account for the increase in the number of Militia officers. If Militia officers find that they can get employment in the Line by doing their duty well in the Militia, and qualifying themselves while in the Militia for Line employment, it will undoubtedly render the Militia Service more popular by showing that it is a channel by which young and energetic men can obtain an entrance into the Regular Forces. It certainly affords a source of attraction to young men to join the Militia which has not been previously experienced or realized, and I therefore support the view which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in regard to this particular
  1832
  matter. Another question was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan), who spoke of the compulsory retirement of Captains and Majors. Now, I cannot help drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Non-Effective Vote is growing—perhaps slowly, but growing year by year—and assuming dimensions which are now really alarming, and form good ground for serious apprehension. The Vote is growing, notwithstanding the fact that the charge for pensions, as far as the soldier is concerned, has decreased. The charge for long-service pensions, which was so large some years ago, has been very much curtailed owing to short service; and therefore it comes to this, that the increase we deplore is due to the fact that officers are forced out of the Service at the age of 40, or 45, or 48, when in the prime of life, and quite capable of discharging their duty to the country and the Army. They are compulsorily retired at a moment when they are most anxious to remain, and their retirement is a loss not only to the country, but to the Army itself. I hope, most sincerely, that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues will be given, not alone to the economy which may be effected by extending the period of service, but to the increased efficiency of the Army which may be secured. There are many other ways in which economy may be effected; but knowing that these subjects had not been fully investigated when I left the War Office, I will not now enter upon them. I will content myself with simply expressing a hope that both economy and efficiency will be studied together, and that both will receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, with special reference to the charge for this branch of the Service. I believe that nothing, on the whole, would be more popular in the Service itself, and that there is nothing that would more tend to relieve the disagreeable sensation of a man of 40 years of age who finds himself compelled to be a pensioner for life, and who knows that he has rendered himself unfit for any other useful occupation by the 17 or 18 years of his life which he has devoted to a Military Profession. My right hon. Friend made

  1833
  some remarks as to the amount of the Estimates which he has submitted to the House. No doubt, they are large Estimates; but he has explained to the House that these Estimates have been rendered inevitable by the fact that the improvements in machinery, and the scientific discoveries of the last few years—the march of invention, in point of fact—have made it absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's Government, if it did not excel, should at least follow, the exertions which are being made abroad in qualifying the Forces of the country for any service they may be called upon to perform. Well, Sir, I must confess that I do regret that some of the work which was in progress has been stopped. I am very far, indeed, from advocating that Her Majesty's Government should at any time offer employment where there is no work to be done that is necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom. I would not advocate, under any circumstances, the addition to the Estimates of a single £1 for that purpose. But the question is—What are the necessities of the country at the present time? Can you undertake to supply her requirements more economically, more successfully, and more efficiently now than you can in a time of panic and alarm? I have witnessed successive panics and successive alarms, and I have been conscious of the fact that, under the pressure of those panics and alarms, the money voted on a Vote of Credit melts away very rapidly, and that the country rarely gets full value for the money it expends. I believe that a judicious expenditure of money now in bringing up the stores required to the amount at which a sound judgment would fix them, would be an economical expenditure of money, because you would expend that money under no pressure, with no panic, with no waste, and with no over-crowded Department of any kind. You would have the full control of your machinery, full control over your materials, and you would be able to produce results which would give confidence and a sense of security to the country. A few days ago a Circular was issued by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Chamberlain) addressed to the various Local Authorities throughout the Kingdom, in which he suggested to them that, in consequence of the exceptional depression
  1834
  which has prevailed, they should undertake any public works that required to be undertaken, and that if they required the consent of the Local Government Board to the borrowing of money that consent would be given. I do not ask even for the application of that principle in this particular case; but the present state of the labour market affords an opportunity which would render a judicious and necessary expenditure in this direction more than justifiable. I do not ask Her Majesty's Government to authorize loans, or any extravagant amount of expenditure; but I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—that Her Majesty's Government are discharging some 400 or 500 men at Woolwich and Enfield, and probably at other Government works. If they will allow the authorities at Woolwich and Enfield and elsewhere, money to carry out those works which are deemed to be works of utility, although, perhaps, not works of pressing necessity, the services of these men might be retained. What I maintain is, that although it might not be an example to be followed except in exceptional circumstances, it would be at the present moment a wise and judicious expenditure, and probably one which would not only be economical but absolutely justifiable in the interests of the country at large. I do not know that I have any further occasion to detain the Committee from the discussion which they are anxious to enter into. One point to which I wished specially to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend was the very slow progress which has been made with the manufacture of the new rifle. I understand that only 55,000 stand are to be produced during the year; and I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that last year the demand from India and the Colonies was very large indeed. Indeed, there is a danger that we may almost come to a stand still for the want of small arms, unless they are produced at a much more rapid rate than the 55,000 stand of arms authorized in the coming year? After the new rifle has been sanctioned, I do not think it will be wise to go on manufacturing the Martini-Henry rifle, for it is quite certain that the Martini-Henry will be altogether superseded in the course of a few years. The new arm is certain to be demanded; and it will be impossible, if

  1835
  the expectations now formed with regard to it are right, for any authority to resist the pressure which will be brought upon it. It is, therefore, most undesirable that the Martini-Henry should be manufactured; but the new arm which is to take its place should be pushed forward with the utmost rapidity. In every respect, thorough efficiency in all matters connected with the Army is of the utmost importance. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to think that efficiency is not needed; but, so far as I am concerned, I would very much rather have fewer battalions and strong battalions than a larger number of weak battalions. So, also, I would prefer to have fewer arms than arms upon which no reliance can be placed. I maintain that it is absolutely essential to maintain your Army in a state of the most complete and thorough efficiency; and rather than reduce the efficiency of your Army I should prefer that you should reduce its strength.
  COLONEL SALIS-SCHWABE: I must congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the clear manner in which he has placed the Army Estimates before the Committee. At the same time, I am prepared to admit that some apprehension has been created among hon. Members at the enormous size of these Estimates, and also at their rapid increase. They have now reached the large sum of £18,000,000; and the taxpayer naturally considers, first, whether the proposed Establishment for the Army is necessary; secondly, whether the proposed Establishment cannot be maintained for less; and, lastly, whether the country gets the maximum amount of efficiency for the amount of money that is spent. Now, a great Conservative Leader has laid down that "Establishments must depend on policy;" and I must say that I, for one, very much regret the meddlesome foreign policy which was really commenced in 1874, and has continued, more or less, ever since. But, considering what our foreign policy has been, and what the consequent requirements are, I do not think the number of men voted for the Army is too many. No doubt, 141,000 men at home and 68,000 in India, making a total of 209,000, is a very large number indeed. ["Hear, hear!"] Those hon. Members who sit here and say "Hear, hear!" ought to
  1836
  keep a jealous watch over our foreign policy, and should remember that the only way of doing that is to avoid a reckless policy, to urge arbitration in lieu of war, and not to undertake to be the police of the world. It is only by pursuing such a course that we can ever hope to be able to reduce our armaments and effect a corresponding reduction in the Army Estimates. I must, however, say that the Secretary of State for War, by increasing the number of men in each battalion, has very greatly contributed to the efficiency of the Army. As has been stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lambeth (General Fraser), the skeleton battalions which we have had are of no good at all, and afford no opportunity for teaching the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men the mere rudiments of their Profession. It is, therefore, desirable to get rid of skeleton battalions as speedily as possible; and I am glad to learn that in future we shall have no battalion of smaller strength than 750 men. But in regard to the second and third points—whether the proposed Establishment for the Army cannot be maintained for less, and whether we get the maximum efficiency for the amount of money we spend—I must say that I entertain very grave doubts. I have no desire to detain the Committee at any length; but there are one or two matters I should like to point out in regard to which I think we might economize. I begin with the pay of the General Staff. The General Staff pay amounts to about £200,000, while that of the Commissariat and Transport Staff amounts to £90,000. Now, I am of opinion that these two Staffs may very well be both amalgamated and reduced, and that the amalgamation would lead not only to economy, but to greater efficiency. Then, again, the War Office Staff costs £88,000 a-year, making a total for the three Staffs, exclusive of clerks, of £378,000. It appears to me that the most sensible plan would be to assimilate our Home Peace Staff, as far as possible, to the system carried out for the Staff on active service. At home, the Military Staff is divided into the Adjujutant General's Department and the Quartermaster General's Department, which it was decided to amalgamate 16 years ago, but which are still main

  1837
  tained as independent Departments. The Commissariat and Transport Department, the Ordnance Stores, the Medical, Financial, Veterinary, Artillery Stores, and other Staffs, are all more or less independent of the Military Staff, and of each other, and are divided in their allegiance between the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of State for War, and the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. The result naturally leads to great expense, very great delay, confusion, want of efficiency, and a certain amount of friction; and I do not believe that the machinery of the Army would work at all if it were not for the fact that all of these various Departments co-operate loyally, and do their best to work harmoniously together. Nevertheless, the system is a very bad one, and in a time of war it is greatly strained. Now, on active service the General in command has a Chief of the Staff, and an officer commanding the lines of communication and base; the Chief of the Staff looks after the duties which are managed by the Adjutant General's Department at home, whereas the officer commanding the lines of communication and base superintends the duties which at home are under the Quartermaster General, the Commissariat Staff, the War Office Staff, and the Surveyor General of the Ordnance's Department. These comprise transport of every description, the Commissariat supply of food, forage, and all requisites; supply of clothing, ordnance stores, such as tents, pay, medical and veterinary arrangements, the telegraph and post-office service, re-mounts, and military police. Why cannot we have the whole of these various Departments amalgamated at home, and placed under that time-honoured officer, the Quartermaster General, just as on active service under the officer commanding the lines of communication and base? At the present moment, in each district of any size, the General commanding has a Quartermaster General, and also a Commissariat Staff officer. It seems to me that if you amalgamated the various Staffs, one Staff officer would do the work of two, and, in addition, he would superintend all the work of the minor Staffs. The Staff of the War Office itself might be much reduced, the Army would be placed in a much higher state of efficiency, and the country would save at least
  1838
  £100,000 a-year. I come now to the question of the clerks, because each unnecessary Staff officer requires two or three unnecessary clerks; and I find that last year—1885–6—the War Office had 391 civil clerks, drawing salaries which amounted to £115,921 per annum. I regret to find that the number of clerks is going to be increased, and that in 1886–7 there will be 406 civil clerks, with salaries amounting to £118,087. Now, the civil clerks are, no doubt, very hard-working and deserving public servants, and I have nothing to say against any one of them. They work very hard, and at present they have a great deal of work to do; but what I maintain is, that they are employed in very useless and mischievous work. In fact, the system of centralization at the War Office has a most paralyzing and pernicious effect, in addition to being most expensive. The officer commanding a regiment, who is perfectly competent to settle many small matters himself, is obliged to refer to the General Officer in command of the district, whereupon the General Officer refers to the War Office, and thus this expensive system of routine, involving much delay and inconvenience, is followed in regard to every trumpery point, which the officer in command of the regiment is quite capable of settling himself. The same system is pursued in regard to Returns. Monthly Returns might be substituted for weekly, quarterly for monthly, and annual for quarterly. A whole army of clerks is kept up, not only at the War Office, but in all the districts and all the battalions and regiments. The regiments and battalions are, in fact, denuded of fighting men in order that they may carry on a constant round of mischievous and useless correspondence with the clerks who are at the War Office. Those 406 civilian clerks are to cost the country in 1886–7 a sum of £118,000, or an average of £290 each; but I find that there are 86 military clerks at the War Office, and that the average salary of each is only £105. All the clerical work which is absolutely necessary, with the exception of that which is carried on in the Accountant General's Office, could be done by military clerks, retired non-commissioned officers, or retired Quartermasters, or even by retired officers who have occupied a higher rank. The

  1839
  country would by this means save not only the difference of pay between civil and military clerks, but the pensions which these retired Quartermasters and other officers are now drawing. I think that, in this way, by reducing the number of the clerks now in the Service and employing military clerks instead of civilian clerks, we might reduce the Estimates for the Army by another sum of £150,000, making, with the reduction I have already suggested, a saving of £250,000, without losing a single fighting man, while, at the same time, the efficiency of the Army would be greatly increased. The existing system has a bad and pernicious tendency to take all power out of the hands of the Commanding Officer. The idea seems to be that some Commanding Officers are not to be trusted. If you find a Commanding Officer is not worthy of trust, let him be ruthlessly sent about his business; but trust those whom you do keep. Commanding Officers naturally wish to get rid of men with bad characters; but confidential instructions are forwarded from the Adjutant General's Office not to allow the men to be discharged except under certain excessively stringent conditions. The consequence is that the same men are tried by court martial over and over again, but are not discharged; and the cost of military law is very great—no less than £35,000. I think that this item, and £122,000 for transport, would be very considerably reduced if the Commanding Officer were more trusted, and were allowed to discharge any bad character he wished to get rid of. In 1885 there were 7,721 courts martial at home, which involved 6,681 sentences of imprisonment; but the number would have been greatly reduced if the Commanding Officers were only allowed to get rid of bad characters. There were 5,096 district courts martial, and 2,622 regimental courts martial. Now, a district court martial costs the country a great deal more than a regimental court martial, because there is a considerable expense incurred in getting the officers together from the out-stations to try the men. There is a rule that no non-commissioned officer may be tried by a regimental court martial. No doubt, that rule was introduced for the protection of the non-commissioned officers; but the non-commissioned officers themselves are quite willing to be fried by their own officers; and,
  1840
  therefore, I think it would be as well to revert to the old system of trying non-commissioned officers for certain offences by regimental courts martial instead of district courts martial, whereby the country would save a considerable amount of expense. Intimately connected with the soldier, after all, is the soldier's weapon. Well, Sir, I think that with regard to the £3,000,000 voted for warlike material and clothing, there is undoubtedly room for saving. Take, for instance, the Cavalry swords. In 1882, a pattern was invented by a Birmingham contractor and an Assistant Adjutant General. A few were issued to certain regiments on trial, and the Commanding Officers reported on their weight, balance, and so forth, but were not called upon to test their quality. No one tested it; and some paramount official in the Surveyor General's Department wrote snubbing letters to every Commanding Officer who objected to his men's lives being endangered by worthless weapons. I, myself, when in command of the 16th Lancers, objected to the swords, and I was told that I had no business to test them, and that if any were spoilt in being tested I was to pay for them out of my own pocket; if I thought them unserviceable, I was to report them. Of course, I could not find out whether they were serviceable without testing them, and the result was that the swords were re-tested by the authorities and withdrawn. Not only was £2,000 paid to the contractor for these worthless swords, but there was also the expense of issuing and taking them in, and engaging persons to test them. The present pattern swords have been, I am glad to say, tested by a proper Committee. They were tested on dead horses and sheep by men riding at a gallop and in every possible way. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) ordered £20,000 worth of these swords in Germany. Now, I do not seriously quarrel with him for having ordered them in Germany, because it is quite true that the taxpayer ought to buy in the cheapest market, whether at home or abroad. But an exception should, perhaps, be made with regard to munitions of war, because in time of war they are contraband, and we might not then be able to get them. Therefore, I think we ought to encourage, as far as possible, the

  1841
  manufacture of warlike stores at home. It seems incredible that there should not be a single manufacturer in the United Kingdom who can make swords by machinery; there is, I believe, only one place where it can be done, and that is at Enfield. It appears that no steps were taken to let the trade know that there was so large an order in the market for swords manufactured by machinery; and I cannot but think it likely that if the trade had known of the order, some manufacturer would have started the plant necessary to produce them, and would have been able to compete with Germany. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has not the same views as his Predecessor with regard to enlarging our Government Manufacturing Establishments. I regret to see that the sum of £30,000 is asked for enlarging the Establishment at Enfield. I would rather this Establishment were reduced, and that the trade were encouraged instead. I should like to see our manufactures for military purposes in the hands of manufacturers at home, so that the country might not be at all dependent upon foreign countries. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), that this is a good time to increase our stores, if you get more stores than you require they will only become obsolete, and there are thousands of obsolete Cavalry saddles now at the Arsenals. Besides, I think the outcry which is raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the employment of men in the Government Factories, because it is a time of distress, is unreasonable, because most of the taxpayers who are artizans are working on short time; and it is hard that these taxes should be increased to employ men in the Government Factories on work which is not required. Now comes the question, whether we get our money's worth for the £4,500,000 voted for pay, and I am inclined, to be a little sceptical on that point. I believe that out of 40,000 recruits, 15,381, or nearly two-fifths, were under 8 stone 13 lbs. in weight. Now, an Infantry soldier has a large weight to carry, and small and weak men are not equal to it. These men are all probably 16 or 17 years of age. All the statements made about age by recruits are valueless. It
  1842
  does not matter what age a recruit says he is; it is perfectly well known what are the limits, and he gives any age between 18 and 25. If these men remain in the Service and develop, no doubt at the end of two or three years they become good soldiers; but in 1885 there were 3,497 desertions by men of under one years' service; and it is very natural that they should desert, for being immature they get sick of being put to do the work of men which they are not fit for. My own opinion is that weak men ought not to be put on full duty—that it ought to be eased for them; but, at the same time, I do not see why they should be paid as men. They are merely boys, and as such I think a reduction should be made in the amount of their pay until such time as they can do the work of men. Of the 88,000 men said to be effective, at home there must, I think, be 20,000 who are immature, and are only growing into effective men. One word with regard to the Non-Effective Vote of £3,000,000. I think there are grave objections, from an economical point of view, to the present system of pensions; but taking into consideration the pay and the pensions of non-commissioned officers and men, I do not think they are at all highly paid as compared with the regular rate of wages. I must consider officers as coming under two categories—purchase and non-purchase. The terms of the purchase officers are finally settled; but I regret that there is an enormous number of officers drawing public money in the shape of half-pay, who are both able and willing to serve. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) made a very strong appeal the other night in connection with these officers. He made an appeal from their point of view, and there was much of his speech with which I quite agree; but I should like to make an appeal from the point of view of the taxpayers of the country. The retirement scheme was drawn up in 1873, after several years of comparative peace, and is totally unnecessary and extravagant considering the flow of promotion which has resulted from the wars of the last 12 years. I would recommend, Sir, that there should be no compulsory retirement except for inefficiency, or after five year's non-employment. Voluntary retirements, too, should be restricted If it were thought

  1843
  that promotion did not go on fast enough in each rank, it would be easy for the Secretary of State for War to say that there should be so many retirements open during the year. I think that plan has been tried in the Navy, and that it has to some extent succeeded. I hope I have drawn attention to some points giving room for economy and efficiency; but I feel that reform from within is hardly to be hoped for, because, probably, no Secretary of State for War single-handed can overcome the vis inertiœ of routine and vested interests, and we must look forward not only to a Parliamentary Committee to go into the Estimates in their complete form, but also to pressure from this House, for a reorganization on the lines I have indicated, which I think will be conducive both to economy and efficiency.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: I think the question of deferred pay was started 10 years ago by Viscount Cranbrook. It was a most excellent idea. It was thought that the soldier when he went back to his native village would, under that system, have a certain sum of money in his pocket, and that this would be an inducement to other young men in the village to enlist. I am afraid, however, that it has not had quite the effect that was hoped for. There are many cases of men leaving the Army who, in the course of a few weeks, and even a few days, come to the barrack-gate to ask for a few shillings to carry them home, having spent the whole of their deferred pay. In this way the taxpayer does not get the advantage which it was intended he should get, because the money does not remain in the man's pocket. I think the country is also disadvantaged by the system, because the six-years' service man when he leaves the Army is at his very best. He is a well-trained, soldier; he has gone through six or seven courses of musketry, and he is probably 25 or 26 years of age—the very age at which you wish to keep him—and one would have thought it wise that he should be offered some inducement to remain. But instead of that you offer him an overpowering inducement to leave the Colours, because it is only by doing so that he can obtain his deferred pay. Therefore, I think we are doing a suicidal thing in offering this money instead of an inducement to remain. The right hon. Gentleman the
  1844
  Secretary of State for War said the other night that when a man is satisfied with his career, it is most unfortunate that any Regulation should debar him from continuing in it. I maintain that this is a Regulation which must have the effect of debarring him from continuing in it, because the only way he can get this money is by leaving the Colours; and I wish to point out how, in my opinion, deferred pay may be made much more beneficial to the soldier and to the country. If there is one thing which the recruit thinks more of than anything else—and the subject has been touched upon by several hon. Members—it is the promise of a free ration. When a man enlists, he is told that he will have 1s. a-day and a free ration; and not unnaturally he thinks he will be supplied with whatever food is thought necessary by the authorities. But the first thing he discovers when he joins the depot is that the authorities stop 3½d. out of every 1s. He immediately thinks he has been let in, and this feeling rankles very deeply indeed; he feels sore about it, and in many cases thinks he has been allured into the Service under false pretences; and it is possible that this accounts for the numerous desertions which take place in the first three months of the soldier's career. It would, in my opinion, be well if the Government undertook this charge of 3½d., and if the recruit were told that he would receive 8½d. per day, and then he would not consider himself deceived. But a better plan still would be that the Government should give the 1s. a-day, together with the extra ration now paid for by the soldier, and that the deferred pay should be discontinued in order to meet the extra expenditure. The Government could buy the things for which the stoppage is made cheaper than the soldier can, because it could buy them without the necessary profit which goes into the pockets of the tradesmen. The Government can also supply tea and coffee duty free, and there is on that ground every reason to believe that it could supply the goods at 2½d. instead of the 3½d. which is now charged. I think this plan would be of great advantage both to the soldier and the country, because the soldier would have the advantage of knowing exactly what he would get, and the country would have the advantage of possessing a sol

  1845
  dier less inclined to desert or purchase his discharge during the first three months of service.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCY: I rise with great diffidence to speak upon military subjects in the presence of officers holding high commissions in Her Majesty's Service; but having held an appointment when in the Army, which gives considerable knowledge as to the interior economy of the Service and of its requirements, I venture to endorse what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lambeth N. (Major General Fraser), with regard to the very great error of insisting upon the present system of feeding the battalion abroad from the battalion at home. We are all perfectly aware of the great improvement which has taken place in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War deciding that there shall be no battalion at home of a less nominal strength than 750 men. Of course, this is a great step in the right direction; but I am afraid that the good effect of that change will be neutralized or destroyed if the present system of feeding the battalions abroad is continued. The stronger you make the battalion abroad the stronger becomes the argument which I lay before the Committee. In the case of a battalion abroad of 850 men—and, of course, many are stronger—it is clear that, as enlistment is for seven years, one-seventh will be transferred annually. You will have 120 men going to the Reserve, and you must allow also for the ordinary waste of the battalion by desertion, purchase, sickness, and other causes, which it is not too much to say will amount to 5 per cent. That will give 160 men whom the battalion abroad will lose annually, and which must be supplied by the battalion at home in order to fill up the vacancies thus caused. But then you must also take the vacancies occurring in the battalion at home. Taking the strength at 750, one-seventh will be transferred to the Army Reserve yearly, and 5 per cent will represent the waste from other causes; and thus the number of men required to fill up the vacancies in the battalion at home will be 140, or a total of 300 men, whom the battalion at home must recruit in order
  1846
  to fill up its own vacancies and those of the battalion abroad. Therefore, you will have in the home battalion only 450 men of over one years' service; and I venture to say that any officer would admit that a battalion of 750, having 300 men under one year's service, is not in a state of efficiency. You must take away all the "casuals," as the hon. and gallant Member for Lambeth has said; and everyone is aware that when a battalion is supposed to stand at 750 on parade it is a very small number who really appear under arms. In addition to what I have shown is the effect of the present system, the constant changes which take place in battalions are ruinous to their efficiency—the men do not know their officers, and the officers do not know their men. It seems to me that there is only one remedy for the present condition of affairs, and that is to make the depôts real, and not mere shams as they are now. Let the depôts supply both battalions; let the recruits be kept at the depots until they are fit, or nearly fit, to pass into the ranks. At the present time the recruits dribble into the depôts; they thus only get a knowledge of the rudiments of drill, and I know Commanding Officers say that they would rather have the men just as they join as recruits than as they come to their battalions from the depôts. In the Guards the system is a better one; they have a large recruit establishment, and the men recruited are sent down to that establishment. There they are thoroughly drilled, and when sent to the battalion they take their place in the ranks almost immediately, and are able to perform their duties. I think that the waste in the Army is a subject which is not sufficiently considered by the authorities. Looking at the Return, we find that, deducting transfers to the Reserve, the net waste averages 20,596 men, or about 12 per cent. We find that in this number there are 5,147 desertions. Desertion is one of the most disgraceful forms of waste, and should be checked if it is possible to do so. At present it constitutes absolutely one-fourth of the total waste in the Army; and, of the number I have given, 1,653 represent desertions in the first year of service. Then must be added the number of those who purchase their discharge. I venture to endorse entirely what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend

  1847
  on my left (Colonel Bridgeman). It is perfectly clear that there is discontent, and the cause of the discontent which leads to this desertion and purchase of discharge, is, I am convinced, the stoppages made from the pay of the soldier. I know, of my own personal knowledge, how much the men dislike the stoppages. I say that stoppages should be confined to punishment. If a man gets drunk, or wilfully damages his clothing, for instance, let his pay be stopped; but it is absolutely unfair and unjust to stop the pay of a soldier to make good accoutrements worn out by no fault of his own, and in the performance of his duty; and that is the condition of affairs at the present moment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Colonel Bridgeman) has spoken of the free rations which the recruit is told on joining he will have, and upon that subject I will not touch; but he is undoubtedly led to believe that he will have free rations and a free kit, but upon joining he finds he receives neither one nor the other, and I am justified in saying that, as a rule, recruits are about £1 in debt at the end of the year for clothing or "necessaries" which have to be replaced by them. Now, that seems to be a very bad system indeed, and nothing can be more disheartening to the recruit than that he should find himself in this position from no fault of his own, but simply because he has been engaged in very heavy duty. Under the present system the soldier is given boots to be kept black, and a belt to be kept white; but in order to do that he has to buy the necessary materials, which I think is hardly fair, and undoubtedly it is the cause of much dissatisfaction. The soldier is stopped 3½d. per day for his evening meal, and ½d. for his washing; so that while the country leads the recruit to believe that he will get 1s. a-day, in no instance can he get more than 8d. This is a most important question, and it is one to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would do well to give his attention. Of course, we shall be told that we are creating expense, and increasing the Estimates; and, perhaps, if the Prime Minister were in the House, he would say that I am taking an unconstitutional course in advocating such a course. But
  1848
  there are many points in connection with which, as has been pointed out by several hon. and gallant Gentlemen, economies may take place; and, indeed, the stopping of desertion would be a saving of expense, as every deserter costs the country a considerable amount. Then with regard to the question of deferred pay. I think there is much to be said in favour of the opinion that the system of deferred pay should be discontinued; and, if it were, it would set free a considerable sum which could be devoted to giving the soldier free rations, and relieve him from the system of stoppages. Another point where a saving could be made would be be by discontinuing the system under which the men who join the Army from the Militia receive, after 42 days, £1 as bounty. Under this system it is to the interest of the man to go into the Militia first, instead of direct into the Line, because, in the latter case, he would get no bounty at all. This seems to me to be a very unnecessarily expensive way of recruiting. With regard to the clothing and accoutrements of the Reserve men, it seems to me that these should be kept at the depôts, where every man's clothing should be ticketed, so as to be known exactly; and not at Woolwich, as at present. In the event of the Reserve being called out, there is great delay and expense in sending the clothing to the depôts. In time of war this mischievous system might have terrible results. In 1878, I remember, the men of the Army Reserve were not clothed for something like two months. As we have a small Army, it is of vital importance that there should be rapidity of equipment, in order that the men of the Reserve may be ready the instant they are required, and a large Force placed in the field as quickly as possible. It may, perhaps, be said that these are small matters; but I venture to remind the Committee that it is upon small matters that the contentment of the soldier depends, and that in small matters of detail the efficiency or non-efficiency of an Army consists.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not think that I ought to allow the present opportunity to go by without making some observations on the increase which the present Government has sanctioned in the num

  1849
  ber of troops in India. I own that it was with an immense feeling of relief that I read in the Estimates that an increase was to be provided for, because the rumours that were about shortly before with regard to the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me a very uneasy moment as to whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might not be forced to curtail or retard that increase of troops in India. However, the right hon. Gentleman has been able to hold his own, and I would respectfully congratulate him upon having been able to overcome any opposition which the Treasury might have offered. I say might have offered; for nothing will induce me to believe that it was not offered. There is nothing that is of more vital importance to the safety of India than that that increase should be carried out, and carried out without loss of time; and I am indeed glad that the Government determined to take steps to raise the Army in India by the end of the next recruiting period by 10,000 men. But there is one remark I am anxious to make, to extract, if possible, some kind of assurance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), and that is, that this 10,000 increase to the British Forces in India shall not be a mere paper increase or an illusory increase. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there have been among the Viceroy's military advisers men of position and authority, who advocate an increase of 15,000 men, which they consider to be absolutely essential. But one of the chief reasons for advocating that larger increase of 15,000 men to the British Army in India was that the Military Authorities felt no confidence whatever that the War Office at home would keep the strength of the Indian Army up to that number which is absolutely necessary for the safety of India, and therefore they asked for a considerably larger number of men than they thought necessary in order to be certain that what they did get from the War Office would be sufficient to maintain their military strength. The Viceroy and his Council, however, were not impressed with the value of that advice, and thought it better to ask for the precise number which were absolutely required; therefore, they did not agree with the Military Authorities to whom I
  1850
  have alluded. But what I wish to impress upon the Committee is that the Viceroy and his Council, in coming to that decision not to ask for more than 10,000 men, have confided in the determination of the War Office at home never to let the Army be practically one man below its strength; and I think it is not at all unreasonable that I should make that remark. The Committee will bear in mind that only in 1884 the Army in India was allowed, from some motive connected with recruiting, or for some obscure reason, to fall no less than 8,000 men below its proper strength. Now, of course, if disturbances with Russia in Central Asia had taken place that year, the situation would have been of a most desperate character; and I do most earnestly appeal to the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Government—as representing a Liberal Government and the Liberal Party—to give an assurance and guarantee that, so far as he is concerned, and so far as his Colleagues are concerned, this increase to the British Army in India is to be a bonâ fide and genuine increase, and that under no circumstances whatever will he, so long as he remains in power, allow the British Army in India to undergo that which took place in 1884. I wish to extract from the right hon. Gentleman a guarantee which shall be binding on the War Office whilst he is there. I see no reason why my right hon. Friend sitting near me (Mr. W. H. Smith) should not be willing to give a similar guarantee. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Northampton may object to the policy of the increase; but I am certain that even he will go with me in this, that if there is to be an increase it ought to be a genuine one. I am certain he would not wish to see the increase, if an increase is decided upon, a sham one. If we are to have an Army in India at all, it should be a real one. The hon. Member may think that we have no need for such an Army. If he does, I shall be quite ready to argue that point with him on a fitting occasion; but I do not think that, nowadays, that point is likely to be very seriously disputed by any man of common sense. What I want is, that all rational beings in the House, or, at all events, all rational beings in the two great Parties, should enter into a covenant that they

  1851
  will not allow the decrease of 1884–5 and the consequent military risks which were run to occur again. There should be an understanding and an undertaking between the two sides of the House that the Government of India shall not suffer through having made upon us a less demand than the Military Authorities deemed it necessary to make. These are practically the only remarks I wish to make to the Committee, with the exception of some observations on the new rifle. I own I join entirely with my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) in the great regret he has expressed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not been able to provide for a more rapid manufacture of the new rifle. It was my earnest hope that before the end of the year 1888 the whole Indian Army, both British and Native, might have been provided with a similar weapon, so that there might be no longer that distinction between the Snider and the Martini-Henry which exists in the Indian Army. I had hoped that the very best weapon that modern science can produce might have been issued to the whole of the Indian troops, Native as well as British; and I think I may say that to bring about that state of things was the policy of the late Government. That was their intention; but now I understand that, owing to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, the new rifle this year will be manufactured in very small quantities indeed, and that it is no use looking forward to the Indian troops possessing in the near future that efficient weapon which is the latest development of modern times. We must rest content with the knowledge that these troops will have to defend themselves for years to come with the Martini-Henry. One great objection to the use of the Martini-Henry in India is that many of the Native troops will be unable to use it with efficiency on account of the recoil. It is likely to try very severely many of our regiments of Native Infantry, who do not possess the strong physique of British troops. There is one further point to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there were great military manœuvres a short time ago in India, and that they were carefully watched by military men representing every Power in Europe. But I do not know whether
  1852
  he is aware that whilst these foreign critics were greatly impressed by the general aspect of the troops that were assembled and the general development exhibited of Indian military resources, there was one thing upon which they unanimously formed an unfavourable opinion. They all commented upon the absolute uselessness of our Artillery, if opposed to European troops. This I happen to know as a fact. The Artillery—I am speaking now of the guns alone, and not the equipment—was the object of universal condemnation amongst the foreign representatives at Delhi. You cannot exclude—it would be ludicrous to exclude—the fact that there may be no very long time before your Indian Army is called upon to meet European troops. That being the case, I should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman that he does contemplate progressing rapidly with the construction of field guns and the sending out of new batteries to India, of a type similar, if possible, to those at home. These are all the remarks I wish to make to the Committee. While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the increase he has decided to make in the Indian Army, I would venture to express a hope that he will give us some guarantee that it is his intention to keep up the strength of the Army to the fullest extent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): I have no desire to interrupt the course of the discussion, and I hope it will not be thought I am anxious to do so by making a few observations at this point. I think, however, I must answer at once the appeal—the solemn adjuration—which the noble Lord has addressed to me on the subject of the condition of the Army in India. The noble Lord, in solemn and impressive tones, asks for a guarantee from me as to what the future course of events will be. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!] Well, as to the maintenance of the Establishment of the Indian Army in the future; and he alludes to circumstances which have happened in the past—in the year 1884–5—with regard to the number of men falling below the Establishment. Now, I confess that I did not at the time follow the course of events, and I am not aware of the cause to which they may have been due; but if that cause again arises—and it is, no doubt,

  1853
  possible that it may—I can assure the noble Lord that I have no desire, and that my Colleagues have no desire, to do otherwise than maintain the full Establishment in India. For my own part, however, I cannot help the fact that I am only a human being, and only a transient human being; and not having been long in the Office I now have the honour to hold, I can give no promise or pledge of the serious nature called for by the noble Lord; but I can assure him that there is no intention on the part of the Government to do other than give the Indian Government the Force they desire, and to maintain it with full efficiency. I explained the other night the exact composition of the augmentation. That will be done which India desires; and I can assure the noble Lord there is no desire to commit the shortcomings to which he has alluded. With regard to the new rifle, as I said, 55,000 are to be produced at Enfield next year, but that is for Imperial purposes; and the Indian Government will also receive such quantity of rifles as they require. The demand of the Indian Government is not, in my opinion, a very large one. From the point of view of the War Office, it would have been satisfactory if it had been larger, because, of course, it would have kept our Establishments going and our workmen employed. But all I will say is that we are prepared to furnish the Government of India with the quantity of new rifles that they require during the year. At present, the number proposed to be manufactured on repayment is 20,000. I speak from recollection, however, and am not certain as to the figures. At all events, the exact number to be produced is not a matter for my decision, but will be fixed at the request of the Indian Government. I wish to take this opportunity of relieving the noble Lord from the apprehension he seems to be under as to the disposition of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the final determination of the Estimates, I may say that my right hon. Friend Las not only met me in a most reasonable spirit, but in a generous frame of mind. Any impression to the contrary is, therefore, entirely erroneous. He may be full of proposals of economy, and I believe he is; but whenever I have put before him—as I have on one or two matters—the strength of an in
  1854
  dividual case, I have found him extremely ready to listen. So that nothing is to be feared in that direction, I think. As regards field guns, we are, I admit, not pushing forward quite so fast as the Service would have us; but there are so many things we would like to do and cannot do with the money we have at our disposal that we are obliged to delay those which we think most susceptible of being postponed. As I am speaking, perhaps I may answer one or two of the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). He pointed out that the sum of money taken in Vote 1 is not proportionately as great for the Establishments as that taken last year. But I think the difference is to be accounted for in this way—that the number of soldiers is at present under the Establishment, and the Estimates are framed with that in view. Again, the increase is in privates alone, and not in officers, which makes a considerable difference. I believe that for the total number, if they were now actually in the ranks, the additional cost for the whole year would be £172,000, whereas the amount provided for in the Estimates is £145,000. These two facts will, no doubt, cover the difference pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman made some caustic observations on the strength of the Force we propose to provide for in Egypt. Well, what I said was simply this—that it was impossible for us to be perfectly certain, in the present condition of things in that country, that we can reduce the Force, as we desire to do, to 8,000 men. But we do hope to be able to effect this reduction. I said, however, that if we were disappointed in that expectation we should undoubtedly require more money than is provided in these Estimates. As to the troops at Suakin, I may say that it is intended to put British officers over them. Then this terrible question of the dead-weight of the Non-Effective Vote, and especially the question of compulsory retirement, was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It is very easy to rail against compulsory retirement; but if you have no compulsory retirement, you must have something else to keep a proper flow of promotion. I know, by my experience in these matters, how delicate and difficult a thing it is to

  1855
  adjust the flow of promotion so as to deal fairly and reasonably with the whole career of the officers. The slightest change at any one point, and especially in what is often called, by the use of a common expression, the "neck of the bottle"—namely, the promotion to Field Officer—the slightest change there, I say, has a wonderful effect, and one which experience proves to be much greater than might be expected all through the junior ranks. In a Return which was moved for by the right hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), and which I laid on the Table to-night, I was astonished myself to find that the total number of officers who have been compulsorily retired from the ranks of Major and Captain since 1870 in the Cavalry and Infantry is only 214. So that I do not think that that in itself accounts for the great increase of the Non-Effective Charges; but if I may quote another figure from this Return, it certainly does appear that the increased charge on this account is very great. The total cost of pensions and gratuities on retirement borne on the Estimates was £504,388 in 1855, and this year it is £1,354,000. That is a very startling state of things, and it will go on increasing. I quite admit to the full this very serious result; but, on the other hand, it is not easy to decide how it can be avoided. The same principle of compulsory retirement, or a substantially similar system, prevails in the Navy. It would be difficult to interfere in any sweeping way with the one Service without re-arranging the other; and I am rather disposed to be cautious in making any change, however slight and harmless it may appear, because my experience shows me that a small change sometimes produces much more extended results than one would anticipate. As to the double battalion system, I am afraid I cannot enter again into the old arguments with which we have all been familiar. I was rather astonished that the leading attack upon the double battalion system should have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham), and that he should have been supported more prominently than by anybody else by two gallant Officers in the Guards. I am astonished at this, because the very idea of the double battalion system was derived from the Rifle Brigade, to which
  1856
  the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester belonged, and from the Guards. I should have thought that hon. and gallant Members who have had experience of the benefits of having at least two battalions to support each other would have been most in favour of the double battalion system. I think it will be generally admitted, at all events, even by those who are opposed to the system, that in what we have done in raising the establishment of even the weakest battalions in this country to 750 men, we have taken a step towards meeting the difficulty. We have been asked if we intend to maintain the establishment, and make it a real establishment. Again, I say, we have no other intention than to do so. My hon. and gallant Friend, who, I am afraid, has now left the House—I allude to the Member for one of the Divisions of Lancashire (Colonel Salis-Schwabe)—made a number of suggestions on the score of economy in connection with these Army Estimates. He suggested instances in which money could be saved in order to supply funds for improvements. He alluded to the large number of civil clerks in the War Office, and suggested that greater powers should be given to Commanding Officers. But what is the cause of the amount of centralization with which we are afflicted at the present time? I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the maintenance of all these clerks in the War Office, and the degree of centralization which exists, are due in a large part to the House of Commons itself. The House of Commons insists, and very properly insists, on a most rigid and accurate account of every item of expenditure. Every shilling that is spent has to be submitted to the Auditor and the Accounts Committee of this House. In order to have that exact and rigid account kept of every penny that is spent, we must maintain this, I admit, somewhat clumsy and involved system, and we must keep all these public servants working hard. When we come to a state of war, things are widely different; the purse-strings are thrown away, and the General Officer commanding in the field may do as he likes, because there is no time to appeal to Auditors General or Committees of this House. But so long as this House insists upon having an account kept of every penny spent, we shall have to keep these

  1857
  clerks, and we shall not be able to get rid of this large item of expense of which the hon. and gallant Member spoke. Allusion has been made to the well-known topic of German swords. I can speak of the German swords with a perfectly clear conscience, because the whole transaction occurred before I had any responsibility in the matter at all. The truth is this—that the sword trade is an exceedingly small trade. I have no doubt the Committee will be as astonished as I was when I heard it to learn that for years back there have been only two manufacturers of swords in this country, and that one of them struggled on for some time and expired in a business sense some years ago. For a good time back there has been only one man in the country who can take an order for swords, and he is a small manufacturer who can make comparatively few; and what was the experience on this last occasion? He was invited to tender. I may say that not only is the trade a small one, but the work of manufacture and the knowledge of the technical part of it was, I believe, confined to two individual families of workmen in the country. This one manufacturer was invited to tender, and he received an order for the largest number of swords that he could undertake to produce. The rest were given to a Solingen firm at a smaller rate than we paid him; but he had the power to make as many as he could. But before many weeks were over he had to come to the War Office, hat in hand, confess that he could not make the swords, and ask our permission to substitute Solingen blades for blades of British manufacture. When I state these facts, I think the Committee will agree that all the stories about a penurious Public Department, out of mere wantonness of economy, employing the wretched foreigner to do things cheaply, and thereby giving the go-bye to British manufacturers at home, are actually without foundation. So far as I have been able to investigate the matter, no supplies for the War Department are sought for on the Continent, except in respect of articles which cannot be produced in this country. I listened with great interest to the speeches of the noble and gallant Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Lord Algernon Percy) and to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Bridgeman).
  1858
  There was one point dwelt upon which I should be sorry to believe was true to any great extent, and that was the allegation that the recruit is misinformed at the time of his enlistment as to the real nature of his pay. I hope it is not true that the recruit is told that he is to get 1s. a-day and a free ration. I am very certain that if my friend General Bulwer, or any of his officers, caught a sergeant telling men anything of that sort, the sergeant would immediately be put to some other duty. But I will undertake to make inquiry, and discontinue any practice which may lead to misapprehension on the subject.
  SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL: There are one or two points that I should like to bring before the Committee. They have not been touched upon by any of the hon. Members who have addressed the Committee up to the present, and my apology for referring to them is that I approach them from a point of view which is that not altogether of an officer of the Army, though, having served for a long time in the Army, I have some experience of the Service. I have had experience of the Reserve Forces, having commanded a regiment of Volunteers, and I have also the honour of commanding the regiment of Militia in my county. In these positions I have had exceptional opportunity of seeing what becomes of the men who pass out of the Army. As a result of my experiences, I think that a step might very well be taken in the direction which has already been taken by my gallant friend General Bulwer, than whom there is no better officer in Her Majesty's Service, and under whom I was proud to serve on more than one occasion. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) spoke of him in such admirable terms, because I feel sure he has done everything he possibly could for the good of the Army, and has moved in the direction I should like us to move—the direction indicated in his recommendations upon the Service and upon the duties of a man when he enters the Service. There is one thing which always struck me as very necessary, and that is that, inasmuch as our Army is a voluntary one, we ought to endeavour to make it as easy as possible to men; and, in fact, to work, if we can, upon the feelings of the

  1859
  recruits. What I found when in the Army was that, whatever the term of enlistment was, if you asked a man whether he would like to leave he would assuredly answer "Yes." The men wanted to get their liberty again; but when they did go away and found that their home or the place which knew them before knew them no more, and that it was very difficult to get work, I do not hesitate to say that two-thirds of them would have gladly returned to the Service. Having in view this indisposition on the part of the men who have left the Army, I wish to offer a few observations to the Committee. At the present time a recruit enters the Line for seven years; but at the end of three years he can re-engage, and make up his term of service to 12 years. Now, what I propose is this—that at the end of seven years men should be allowed to go away from the Service for a year, and that at the end of that period, if they found it would be an advantage to them to come back, they might re-enlist for 12 years, if they chose, and thus earn their pension. I believe that by adopting this plan we should get back all the very best men. As a matter of fact, we need only take back those men who bore good characters. We should get trained men into the ranks; we should have men of good age mixed up with the recruits, and that would be of immense advantage, and would be the means of preventing a great deal of the waste which now goes on in the Army. What has happened since 1870 has shown quite plainly that our young soldiers are bold enough, but that they are not strong enough. The consequence is that at the beginning of a campaign there is always very great waste. A short and stiff campaign they may be able to stand; but if the struggle continues for anything like six months, it is found that the young soldiers become sick and have to be sent home. The fact of the matter is that in six months one sees a tremendous change worked in the young men forming the Army. Why, the men of the Militia regiment under my command—unfortunately it has often been the case, and I am afraid I shall see a repetition of it this year—get into their clothes with great ease in the first few days of training; but when they have been a fortnight or three weeks in camp they are found to be very
  1860
  different men. They are better and stronger in every way. All I want is to get men who have left to rejoin the ranks. I believe we could get back voluntarily most of the men if we only give them the opportunity of returning when they have tasted the disagreeable-ness of being at home and of being unable to obtain subsistence, as many of them are. We need not take back any of those we do not require. I believe the change I propose would prove a great boon not only to the men, but to the country. Of course I would allow them when re-enlisting to enter any regiment they chose, and also to fall in at the bottom of their rank; if they went away as non-commissioned officers they might come in again as non-commissioned officers, but, of course, at the bottom of the list.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: Mr. Courtney, in the few remarks I propose to address to the Committee I wish to confine myself principally to those subjects taken up and dealt with so ably by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lambeth (General Fraser) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the discussion (Mr. Tottenham), because it so happens that I have unfortunately been unable to bring on the Motion I have had on the Paper for several weeks with regard to the points upon which they touched. The ballot was on every occasion very unpropitious to me; and not being desirous on the first occasion the Army Estimates came on to stand between the Committee and the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), I felt it right to defer any remarks I had to make until a time like the present. Now, Sir, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, in the few remarks he has just made, and which appeared to me to be interjected exactly at the right moment, has dispelled the illusion which seems to prevail that he has been engaged in some active struggle with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), and that it has only been with the greatest difficulty he has been able to present the present Estimates, which, I am pleased to see, promise much greater efficiency than those of the last few years. I should say there could be no greater illusion than

  1861
  to suppose that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) or the Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has, in any degree, desired to see efficiency sacrificed to false economy. If I may be allowed to quote the Estimates of the present year as testimony to the contrary, I should say we have now, for the first time, some hope of the realization of those improvements which military reformers on both sides of the House have been impressing on successive Governments for the last 10 years. For instance, the hon. Gentlemen to whom I have alluded have dwelt in strong terms, though, I am bound to say, not in too strong terms, on the deplorable state of things which has been caused by the endeavour to feed battalions abroad from too small bases at home. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will pardon me when I say that that is one point in his Estimates in regard to which I cannot entirely concur with him, because the evil that has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Lambeth and Winchester does not appear to be met by any remedy in the present Estimates. We, undoubtedly, do suffer from the fact that when the new scheme was set into operation in the year 1872 or 1873 there was a miscalculation made as to the number of battalions which it was likely would be sent abroad compared with the number of those which it was likely would be retained at home. Perhaps, as it is a matter of history, I may be allowed to recall to the recollection of the Committee what was the arrangement that was then come to with the common concurrence of both sides of the House. The Infantry of the British Army, exclusive of the seven battalions of Guards, is divided into 141 battalions. The 141 battalions were so divided as to be grouped into 70 abroad and 71 at home. It stands to reason that, with a margin of only one at home, there was little material with which to cope with any of those small Colonial or foreign wars of which we have had so many. Very nearly all the evils, and the extraordinary strain to which in successive years our system has been subjected, have sprung from this miscalculation. It does not appear to me that in the Estimates which we have now before us, excellent as I believe they are in
  1862
  many respects, that blot has been entirely removed, nor do I see any indication that a remedy is contemplated. Now, the idea of the new organization was, as I have said, that there should be 70 battalions abroad and 71 at home; but what has actually turned out to be the case? Beginning, I think, about 1876, we have down to the present day been engaged sometimes in a small Colonial war, sometimes in a considerable one—on one or two occasions we have had two Expeditions going on in different parts of the world at the same time; and the result has been that we have been endeavouring to carry on war or warlike operation, or whatever we choose to call it, upon a purely peace footing. As a consequence, the whole of that system, which was based on the idea that there would remain at home one or two battalions more than were abroad, has completely broken down, with the deplorable results which hon. Gentlemen opposite have so minutely described. It appears to me that there is not in the near or remote future any probability that the state of things with regard to the balance between the number of battalions serving abroad and the number of battalions serving at home is likely to be remedied. Furthermore, one of the points insisted upon to-night by the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill), and with whose remarks regarding the desirability of making the increase of the Army in India a real, and not a sham or delusive increase, I entirely agree, was that the Establishment in India should be permanently increased from 50,000 to 53,000. Then, Sir, we cannot suppose that any cause will arise which will diminish the number which are serving in the Colonies, in the Mediterranean, China, and so on; that will always remain at the fixed number of 25 battalions. 53,000 in India and 25,000 in the Colonies and China make a total of 78,000; and in addition to that we have, at the present moment, the disturbance of the arrangement seriously aggravated by the fact that we have no less than 17—I think 17½—battalions of Infantry in Egypt. I must confess I am not so sanguine as those hon. Members who have spoken of the probability of a very large and serious reduction being made this year in the number of battalions serving in

  1863
  Egypt. Therefore, it follows that the present state of things will be more or less continued. Lord Airey's Committee has been spoken of, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to offer a few observations in regard to the proceedings of that Committee, having paid, as I did, considerable attention to the evidence given and to the Report which was published. Now, Lord Airey's Committee appear to have hit upon the idea that it was desirable that we should revert to the system which had been formerly extensively tried and abandoned—namely, the system of large depots. I was struck with the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Tottenham) who opened the discussion this evening did not tell us why it was that the Report of Lord Airey's Committee in this particular was never acted upon. That this recommendation was not respected was the more singular because the Government who were in power at the time Lord Airey's Committee presented their Report continued in power for some considerable time afterwards. If the recommendation regarding the importance of large depôts had commended itself to the minds of the Government then in power, I think they would have taken some means, before quitting Office, of carrying it out. The Liberal Government came into power in 1880, and in the latter part of that year or of the following year there was a general concurrence of opinion amongst men of both political Parties that it would be undesirable to re-establish the system of large depôts as recommended by Lord Airey's Committee. But there was one recommendation simultaneously made which, I am sorry to say, has not been carried out; and as it is the one which bears more immediately on the question of the strain which at present exists, I trust the Committee will permit me to say a few words upon it. The recommendation to which I allude was that, whenever both the linked battalions of a regiment were abroad at the same time, a large depôt of some 600 men should be raised at home for the purpose of keeping the two battalions supplied. Perhaps the Committee are not aware that in no case has that recommendation been fully carried out. In only six cases has it been partially carried out; but I am happy to say that, from the Estimates now pre
  1864
  sented to us, there is reason to hope that, concurrently with some of the battalions being withdrawn home, that sound recommendation of Lord Airey's Committee will be carried out. The fact exists that, at this moment, there are no less than 13 regiments, consisting of two linked battalions each, which have both their battalions abroad, and in only six out of the 26 has this particularly sound and good recommendation of Lord Airey's Committee been adopted, and that only partially. I find that the strength of the depôts in the six instances of which I speak falls very far short of the 600 men which was recommended by Lord Airey's Committee; in no case does the number rise to over 520 men, and in some cases the number is only a few men over 400. Therefore, I am bound to say that it is no matter of surprise to me at all that the whole system during the last four years should have been perfectly disjointed, and that the state of things has existed which has been ruinous to the esprit de corps of the Army, and which has almost broken the hearts of some of the most able men in the Army. I repeat, Sir, that I consider it is one of the best features of the recommendations made in the Estimates which have been submitted to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that this deplorable state of things is now likely to come to an end. But, Sir, this will not, even if carried out, entirely remove the evil, for we shall still have the fact that the number of battalions abroad will be very large indeed in comparison with the number at home; and as long as some means are not taken to adjust the balance between the two states of things I am afraid that, in a lesser or greater degree, the evil will still continue. At the risk of being supposed to recommend that which may incur additional expense, which is not, in the slightest degree, my intention, I do desire to put before the Committee the serious consideration as to whether it would not be desirable to face this Committee with what has been suggested, but which was only slightly touched upon by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham), and that is a permanent increase in the number of units. For instance, if it should be decided after consideration—and it is a matter which only ought to be decided

  1865
  upon after full consideration, although I believe that already it has the weight of being recommended by the highest authority we have on such matters, Lord Wolseley—if it should be decided that the number of battalions should be increased from 141 to 160 it would always be possible, even in times of Colonial war, to have 80 battalions abroad and 80 at home; and, at the same time, there need not necessarily be a single man added to the number provided for in the Estimates of the present year. And this brings me to the point on which I venture to disagree with some of the recommendations which have been made as to the dead level of strength being 750 a battalion. Now, Sir, one of the principal defects that have existed since the year 1882, when the Expedition went to Egypt and fought the battle of Tel-el-Kebir, has been this—that whereas in 1876, when the system of linked battalions was agreed upon, it was fixed that there should always be kept in this country at the head of the list of the battalions which were first for foreign service 12 battalions of the strength of 950 or 1,000 men, the idea being that the 12 battalions, in conjunction with the nine battalions which are always kept in the Mediterranean, should form a corps d'armée ready at the shortest notice, the result has been that owing to the various Expeditions of which I have spoken, and which began in 1878, that arrangement—that salutary and good arrangement—has been entirely lost sight of. Not only was it the case a few months ago, but it is partially the case still, that we have 86 battalions abroad and 55 at home, not one of which comes within 250 or 300 of its strength; and if any complication had arisen, or were to arise elsewhere, calling for other troops, they could not have been provided without sending some portion of the Reserve, or else disjointing the whole Reserve system. I earnestly put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War whether he should not take into consideration, coincident with the question of the desirability of increasing the number of our units so as to preserve a balance between the number of battalions abroad and at home, the necessity of returning to that wholesome and salutary system of retaining at home a number of battalions, be it 12 or 14, of the prescribed strength, and ready to
  1866
  take the field? I cannot see that any harm would be done if we were to return to the principle of a graduated scale of strength; that instead of keeping all the battalions at home at 750 we should keep the 12 first on the list for foreign service at 950, and the battalions at the bottom of the list, those which were not likely to be called upon to go abroad for at least five, six, or seven years, at the reduced strength—that is to say 600–600 being, I believe, the number fixed upon by Lord Airey's Committee as likely to suffice to meet the annual waste. While I think we should return to the wholesome practice which existed in 1876 and 1878 of keeping a certain number of battalions always ready to be called upon, and at the proper strength to take the field without any addition from the Reserve, I am bound to say that the criticisms that have been made from the other side of the House have come at a somewhat unfortunate time, because it does so happen that the Estimates now presented to us are the very first which have given us an assurance that we should have an effective strength both at home and abroad. With regard to the question of the increase of the Army in India, I do not know at all on what the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) based his assumption. I think it was an entirely groundless assumption that there was any degree of disinclination on the part of the Secretary of State for War to effect the reinforcement of the Army in India as soon as possible. I do not think the previous history of the right hon. Gentleman in any of the Departments in which he has served so well shows that he will be guilty of delaying a step which is acknowledged to be necessary. Well, Sir, having said this much as to the defects which still seem to exist in our system, may I be permitted for one moment to congratulate the Committee and the country upon the real and substantial effects which have been produced in the last 12 years by the working of the short-service system. It is satisfactory to think that this year we have obtained something like 42,000 recruits for the Line, and that 40,000 men have voluntarily engaged for service in the Militia. Now, Sir, when I recall the forebodings which were uttered in this House and in the

  1867
  Press all over the country some years ago as to the effectiveness of the short-service system—when I recollect how continually we were told that the short-service system would not only destroy the fighting line altogether, but would not give us the proper number of men, I am bound to say one word in commendation of those who, through thick and thin, supported the new system. Upon the result the country may be justly congratulated. Who would have thought some years ago such a result possible? In every way the men entering the Army nowadays are of a superior quality. Who would have supposed that we should have been able, under a voluntary system, to have in one year some 82,000 effective men entering the Military Service? In speaking of the degree in which the short-service system has commended itself to the minds of those classes of the population who enlist, I must not lose sight of the fact that, in addition to the 82,000 of whom I have spoken, 7,000 men had entered the Reserve. On the whole, however, I think that we may congratulate ourselves that the short-service system has worked well, and that none of those forebodings which the croakers gave utterance to some years ago have been realized. We were told that we should have large numbers of our men breaking down when it came to a strained campaign; but I do not know that in the recent war in Egypt, during the arduous march up the Nile, that foreboding with regard to our soldiers was carried out. I may mention one thing to show that the men enlisted under the short-service system are not inferior. A regiment in which I once had the honour to serve performed the extraordinary feat of marching towards Gubat, in the Expedition up the Nile, 120 miles on foot in six days—an average of 20 miles a-day on foot under, perhaps, the most trying climate in the world, and over a route, it must be recollected, which was thought so impracticable that it was traversed before only by men carried on camels. All the men marched 120 miles, and not a single one of them gave way on the journey. I think that, having regard to these facts, we must be satisfied that the short-service system has not led to the deterioration of our soldiers. Then I come to another point—namely, the recruiting
  1868
  for the Army; and I cannot give a better illustration of the successful way in which that is done than by referring to the present condition of the Brigade of Guards. They have had a good turn during the last three years, for out of seven battalions they have had six battalions in the field. Now, Sir, what has resulted from that state of things? Have those battalions been so depleted that they could not turn out now? On the contrary, we find that the Brigade is not only up to its full strength, but it has 300 men beyond its establishment; and instead of the physique falling off, I think it is the opinion of everybody who has any acquaintance with matter that a more magnificent body of men it would be impossible to find. That shows that all the predictions of evil have fallen to the ground. The condition of the Guards is owing to the admirable manner in which they carry out the short-service system; and the only difference between it and any other service is that the term of service is shorter in the Guards than in any other Corps. Men are enlisted only for three years, with nine years further service if they like; and the results which are obtained by the system show how wise it is that recruits should have it in their power to choose their length of service at the beginning. When I returned to the Service from India I found a marked and very great improvement in the conduct of the men; but that was not to be wondered at, seeing the better and more extended system of education which was given to the youth of the country by the Liberal Party in 1871. The young soldiers we get now perform their duty admirably, and it is almost impossible to make too great a demand upon their zeal. I thank the Committee very much for the kindness with which they have listened to me, and I beg to commend the suggestions which I have made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. With those exceptions which I have mentioned, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having given the country something in the nature of value for their money, and of having delivered one of the most interesting Army Statements that has been delivered in this House for the last 20 years.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: Mr. Courtney, Sir,

  1869
  in the face of the very large Estimates which have been presented to this House I shall not venture to ask for them to be very considerably increased; but I hope to make some suggestions, which, if acted upon, will very considerably improve the Service without very greatly increasing the Estimates for the year. I will deal first with the Infantry, because, first of all, I think it is the most important portion of the Army; and, secondly, because it is less organized than any other part of the Army. No Infantry regiment can move out of camp without an escort of Cavalry, without transport, without a Commissariat Corps, without an Ambulance Corps borrowed from the Army Hospital Corps, and without Royal Engineers for the purpose of throwing up trenches, making bridges, and such-like duties. I think such an organization as this is incomplete, and I think that it would be advantageous, if possible, to make every regiment almost complete within itself, so as to be independent, to a large extent, of these auxiliaries. I should like to see a large percentage of men in every regiment trained to some useful military trade, such as carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, &c., and so on, as they might be in times of peace. Probably 10 per cent of the men, or 80 out of 800, might be so trained; and then I should like to see them formed into an Industrial Company, call it a Pioneer Company; they would be able to pay for the training they obtained by doing barrack work. Then I should like to see those men employed upon barrack repairs, and such like, which could be done with advantage to themselves. Infantry soldiers might even be employed in the building of their own barracks, and thus useful employment would be found for thousands of men who now idle about in the afternoon, and in whom an industrious spirit might be developed if they were encouraged to devote themselves to useful work for which at present civilians have to be employed. I live near a town—Portsmouth—where there are a large number of convicts who are trained to do useful work; and I am sure that if convicts can be so trained it ought to be easy to teach our soldiers to do repairs about the barracks. I think that every soldier in the Army ought to be made as useful as he can possibly be; and if it can be done without seriously
  1870
  increasing the Estimates, I shall ask the Secretary of State for War to take the suggestion into his very serious consideration. I believe that if an industrial training can be introduced into the Army it will make the soldier more happy and contented, and will greatly tend to the efficiency of the Service. The next point I wish to refer to is the question of transport. An Infantry regiment cannot move without transport borrowed from the Commissariat and Transport Corps. In fact, we require two kinds of transport—a general transport by a special corps, and also a regimental transport. The existing Commissariat and Transport Corps do their work very well, but they are insufficient for carrying on the whole transport of the Army; and I believe it would be a great advantage to them if they were relieved of the regimental transport by training Infantry regiments to undertake transport duties for themselves. If the Government would supply each regiment with 12 horses and 6 carts that would do very well to instruct the men in transport duties. There might be 75 men in each regiment so trained in transport duties, such as the care of horses, saddling and driving, and the loading of carts, which are duties not to be learned in a day or a week, or a month. This would give the men a knowledge of horses which is always useful to the soldier. As it is at present, when emergencies arise—as in the case of the Egyptian War—men were sent in batches of 30 to spend the ridiculously short term of three days in being trained to these duties. Of course, I am aware that there will be some expense connected with this change; but I do not think it need be a large one. The horses might be provided from those which are unfit to carry heavy weights, and are therefore cast by the Cavalry, but which would be sufficient for harness work. And I would also remind the Secretary of State for War that at present there is very considerable expense in hired transport at different regimental stations. The third point on which I think our regimental organization is incomplete is in regard to the ambulance. It is at present very successfully carried on, and with great skill, by the Army Hospital Corps. By the present system an Ambulance detachment is sent with each regiment and acts quite well as far as it goes; but a regiment

  1871
  is often broken up into wings and companies, and my contention is that each company ought to have a certain number of men trained to ambulance duties. I would go a step farther, and would ask the Government to provide each company with two mules; and I think it would be a very good thing indeed to tell off a certain number of men in each regiment to take care of the mules and be trained in fitting them with ambulance saddles, which require careful adjustment. It is exceedingly necessary to train men in the care of mules, because if a mule is ill-treated it becomes vicious and kicks a great deal, and that may increase the sufferings of any wounded man who was placed on such an animal. There is another matter on which I think the Infantry are singularly inefficient, and that is in regard to scouting. Our regiments are deficient in the means of doing their own scouting, and they cannot move without an escort of Cavalry. Scouting cannot be done by men on foot, for the quickest running would be too slow to give the necessary security. It will probably be in the recollection of the Committee that an Infantry regiment was taken by surprise at Pretoria by the Boers, and that this was the commencement of all our troubles in the Transvaal. That difficulty would never have occurred if that regiment had had mounted scouts with them. Of course reconnoissances, when large bodies of troops are pushed forward considerable distances, can only be made by Cavalry; but minor scouting duty—that is, the care of the immediate front and flank of a marching column—can be very well done by Mounted Infantry; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give 12 horses to each regiment for this purpose, and to see that these men are told off to look after them, and trained to this work. This is a matter which concerns the safety of the immediate front and flank, and I think it ought to be undertaken by Infantry scouts. In this way you will get rid of a great difficulty in regard to the movement of Infantry—that is, if you supply them with scouts, with their own Commissariat arrangements, and with an Ambulance Corps. I do not see why Infantry soldiers, especially in the present day—intelligent as they are—should not be as well trained as the Royal Engineers. No men in the Service are more useful
  1872
  than the Royal Engineers; and if the men were trained to useful trades there is no reason why a regiment might not dispense with the section of Royal Engineers which is now almost essential. For my part, I want to see every portion of the British Army trained and made as competent as it can be. There is another point connected with regiments of Infantry to which I desire to refer—and that is the art of shoeing. The breakdown in all our Transport Departments of late years is due, in a great measure, to the difficulty of getting horses and mules shod. The iron trade has been active for many years past, and the result is that there has been very little inducement to workers in iron to enter the Army, and the Cavalry have to train their own farriers. Now, Sir, the farriers' art is not to be learnt in a day. There are two branches of the trade—one is that of the farrier who can make shoes, which takes a couple of years to learn, and I do not suggest that this art should be taught; but there is the trade of the shoeing smith—that is, nailing on ready-made shoes, which are always supplied on service—and that can be learnt with comparative ease in a few weeks. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will give 12 horses for transport, 12 for scouting, and six mules, there will be no difficulty in training 30 men per year in this very useful art of nailing on and taking off shoes; and by adopting the principle which I suggest you will have 90 men in the course of three years in each regiment, well qualified in a most useful way, the want of which qualification has caused more losses in our transport than I care to name. Of course, there is the question of expense. Well, as regards the Industrial Company, which I spoke of first, of 80 men to undertake barrack repairs, new buildings, and the repair of fortifications, there would be no cost at all, because the saving to the country of civilian labour would be greater than the cost of military labour. The cost of 25 men for instruction in transport, 25 for mules, 25 for scouting, and 25 for shoeing, at 2d. a-day, would be about 16 s. a-day, or, say, £300 a-year. I multiply this by 60, the number of regiments at home, and I find the cost of thorough industrial training would be about £18,000 a-year; but I have to add to that the cost

  1873
  of forage for 30 horses for 60 regiments. There would be 1,800 horses on the average, and that, I admit, would represent a large sum—say from £65,000 to £80,000 a-year. Adding the same establishment for the 15,000 men in the fortresses, and at Gibraltar and Malta, I take the whole cost to amount to £100,000, and I am able to say that the State would gain considerably more by this expenditure than it would lose. It would make the Army far more efficient than it is at present; and it would be a great advantage to the soldiers on enlisting, who would know that they could employ their spare time in the ranks, and that they would learn in the Army a trade against the time when they would join the Reserve. We have a large portion of our Army in India, and this matter is, of course, one for the consideration of the Indian Government; but I believe that the Indian Government would be ready to adopt any scheme which would abridge the many idle hours which the soldier has when serving in a tropical climate, and which he cannot use himself. But there is an argument against this; and I shall be told that the Infantry soldier has no time for this sort of industrial training. But the Cavalry, the Royal Horse Artillery, the Military Engineers, and the Transport Corps have time for these duties. They spend some six hours a-day in industrial employment; like the Infantry, they are on short service, and what they do I am satisfied the other branch of the Service can do as well. I shall be told that the Infantry take general fatigue duty, and that the other branches do not; but general fatigue duty may be an hour's or half-an-hour's work. Suppose that six hours were spent in industrial duty—strike off one hour for general fatigue duty—and you will have five hours a-day in which this useful training may be carried on, as I believe, without the least detriment to the drill of an Infantry regiment. Then I may be told that drill occupies a long time, and must do so. Well, but there is drill in the Cavalry as well as in the Infantry, the only difference being that the one learns two sets of drills, and the other only one set. When I look at an Infantry soldier in the streets, I do not think that he looks any better or smarter than his brother who joins a Cavalry regiment. I believe that the Infantry soldier, em
  1874
  ployed as I have indicated, would be far more efficient than he is at present. But I wish to advocate the scheme for training the Infantry soldier not merely on the ground of what is good for the Army, but what is good for the Reserve man. At the present time we take a young man in the prime of life, and we keep him in almost complete idleness for six years; if he has learnt a trade he has no chance of exercising it, and he loses his handiness, and the consequence is that when he re-enters civil life he finds himself strange to it; and, besides, not having been kept at work, he has an indisposition to work, and the result is that many Infantry Reserve men are to be seen loafing about the streets. I attribute the large number of loafers in the streets to the fact that the men have got out of the habit of work. Nearly all the loafers I see come from the Infantry regiments. I have commanded a Cavalry regiment myself, and not once in a year have I had an application from a man of that regiment to find him employment; the men are kept at work steadily; they have learnt a trade, and in consequence they are very easily absorbed into the industries of the country. Another point I am very keen about is that of Mounted Infantry. That is growing into importance every day. The last Nile Campaign was carried on almost entirely by Mounted Infantry. If you are to have Mounted Infantry you must take care that the men have a knowledge of horses, and know how to sit steadily on the horses, or else they will very soon have sore backs. Now, I do not want to put the Secretary of State for War to any expense for horses for the Mounted Infantry. I think the training could be done without any fresh horses being added. We have 15 Cavalry regiments at home, exclusive of the Household Cavalry; and I should like to see detachments of 30 Infantry soldiers sent to the Cavalry regiments during the winter season, to remain with them, and be thoroughly trained in mounted duties during two months and a-half, and I should at the end of that time like them to be exchanged for another similar detachment. I am satisfied that there would be no opposition on the part of the Cavalry regiments to this arrangement. The Cavalry have always in the winter

  1875
  more horses than they want. The state of the country renders it impossible to have field days, and the men are generally allowed freely to be absent on leave; and, therefore, I say there would be no opposition whatever, nor would there be any jealousy on the part of the Cavalry regiments towards the Mounted Infantry men, because the two classes of duties are totally different. The Cavalry fight on horseback; their weapon is the sword; and their secondary, or, perhaps, their primary duty, in the present day, is that of scouting and reconnoisance, which can only be performed by highly-trained Cavalry soldiers. But the Mounted Infantry man fights on foot, with a long rifle. He only uses his horse as a means of transport, by which he is enabled to made longer and quicker journeys than on foot; but he fights on foot; he remains to the end of the day essentially and primarily an Infantry soldier, and I think it will be admitted that this work does not interfere with any Cavalry duties properly so-called. I suggest this scheme because it can be carried out without any expense to the country, and because the Infantry soldiers will like it very much. There are always a certain number of men in a regiment fond of horses, and who, as they would take kindly to it, are very easily trained. In a Cavalry regiment we are obliged to train every man, whether he is a horseman or not; and that difficulty which we have to contend with would not arise where you had to select 80 men out of, say, 850 Infantry. There would be no difficulty in getting men ready to be trained. If you were to send 60 men every year to each of the 15 Cavalry regiments, you would have 1,280 men trained every year to perform these duties, and that, at the end of three years, would give 3,700 available for the duties of Mounted Infantry, which year by year are becoming more important and absolutely necessary. But I must remind the Committee that the men must be thoroughly trained to manage horses, and the necessary knowledge can only be gained by sending batches of Infantry soldiers to be instructed in Cavalry regiments. I have not much to say about industrial employment for Cavalry; but I do hope the Secretary of State for War will see the great importance of giving earnest consideration to the duties specially be
  1876
  longing to Cavalry of mounted signalmen and mounted pioneers. Signallers are men who should know not only the alphabet of signalling, but men who can use their brains as well as their eyes; they should be men who, when pushed forward to collect information, will collect reliable information, for it is upon the information transmitted by signals that the safety of the army and, perhaps, the success of the campaign depends. The theatre of war has been very much extended in the present day. The facilities afforded by steamers and other means for the conveyance of troops make it absolutely necessary to transmit information to a great distance in districts where we cannot lay down our electric wire. By means of the heliograph in Afghanistan messages were transmitted to a distance of 40 miles, and in most countries in which we have to carry on war there is the advantage of the sunlight, which can be made use of for heliograph signalling. We have in these days mounted pioneers, who are a very great and prominent feature in war; they carry dynamite, and when such a body of men are pushed forward in a country it is impossible to say how much mischief they may do. I should like to see men appointed in every regiment as signallers and pioneers—that is to say, 32 men to be instructed in each capacity. If these men are to be really effective they must be kept in practice every day in pioneer duty. They may learn at Chatham things thoroughly; but unless they are kept in practice everyday their training will be soon lost, and it is for that reason that I ask that a regularly established corps of signallers and pioneers may be kept up in every regiment. These men would need some little extra pay. I wish to say a few words about our Cavalry regiments. Are they too weak? There is not the least doubt in the world that they are. Every Cavalry regiment ought to have, I was going to say, five squadrons. We want four squadrons in the field and one at home, the latter not merely as a reserve, but because there are a number of recruits and unfit men in each of the squadrons. Now, I am not going to ask for this squadron, because I know that in the present state of the Estimates it cannot be given; but I believe that the Cavalry regiments, as they are now, are inefficient for the purposes of war. Skeleton regiments

  1877
  may be valuable in the Infantry where they can be filled up with trained men; but you cannot train up a dragoon in a year; and, therefore, I say you ought to keep up your Cavalry regiments to the war strength at all times, but I cannot ask for that now, and if I were to do so I know that I should not get this squadron. But in the interests of efficiency I would rather see the number of regiments reduced. By reducing the three junior regiments you will gain 12 squadrons, and by that reduction you would probably be able to furnish a fifth squadron to each of the regiments at home. I say that an additional squadron for each regiment is absolutely essential to their efficiency. The Cavalry regiments in India will require no further increase, as the Indian Government have just added an extra squadron. There is a common opinion with regard to Cavalry regiments that the horse is a more valuable article than the man, and accordingly the idea is that the regiments should be kept as strong in horses as possible. But I think that if you ask the opinion of anyone competent to speak on the subject of Cavalry regiments, you will find that there is a concurrence of opinion that the largest number of men should be kept at drill on the smallest number of horses, that is to say, that the man is the essential part of the Cavalry regiment, and that the horse is not so. If you give to 500 trained horsemen 500 horses untrained, I think I can guarantee that, so far as military duties are concerned, the men will quickly obtain command of the horses. That was proved to be the case recently, when the 15th Hussars was ordered from Bombay to Natal without horses. On arrival they were supplied with horses which had never seen a dragoon. They were very soon under the control of the men, and in a few days were sent to the front. General Sir Evelyn Wood told me himself that they did their work capitally in the field. Therefore, I think it should be our endeavour to keep the largest number of men who can be kept efficient on the smallest number of horses. The Cavalry regiments first for foreign service are 600 men and 400 horses. I should like to see the number of horses reduced to 350 and the number of men increased to 700; and in regard to regiments of lesser strength I should
  1878
  wish to see the 300 horses reduced to 250, and the number of the men increased from 400 to 500. I am satisfied that in that way you will get a more efficient body of Cavalry than you have now; and in making this statement I believe I shall carry with me the opinion of every Cavalry man in the Army. Three field days a-week are enough to keep men in drill. Thus 350 horses will keep 700 men in training. I would remind the Committee that when you speak of 700 men you are not speaking of 700 trained men, because you must remember that the Cavalry are short-service men as well as the Infantry; and as it would take more than a year to train a man, you generally have about 100 who are not fit for service in each regiment, so that the 700 men are practically reduced to 600, which could supply four squadrons of 150 men each for service in the field, and I think you would then have, without any extra expense, a thoroughly effective force for the service of the country in time of war. Then there is another subject on which I wish to make some remarks. The late Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) has furnished some information on crimes and punishments in a Return which is of a very remarkable character. There exists a greater discrepancy in the behaviour of regiments than can, I think, be well explained, seeing that they are serving under the same Mutiny Act, and formed from the same class of men. It appears, according to the Return I have alluded to, that the best-behaved men in the Army are the Household Cavalry. Each regiment has an average of eight courts martial in the year, and about 200 minor offences. Considering that these regiments are quartered in London and at Windsor, and that they are exposed to all the temptations of this great Metropolis, I think this state of things is highly creditable to them. The average number of courts martial in each battalion of Foots Guards is about 50, and of minor offences 1,400. Well, Sir, I do not think this is very unfavourable, although it is certainly not so good as the Household Cavalry. But, considering that the Devil finds works for idle hands, I think it compares fairly. The lowest number of courts martial in the Cavalry regiments for last year was 18, as compared with 74 the highest. This is higher

  1879
  than it should be; but when I come to the Infantry regiments of the Line I find a far greater discrepancy. I find that in one regiment there were 110 courts martial, and 4,437 minor offences; in another, 107 courts martial and 3,500 minor offences. Then I contrast the case of a regiment in which there were 11 courts martial and 450 minor offences, and another of 15 courts martial and 450 minor offences. Now, Sir, I want to know what is the cause of this? I shall not believe that it is due altogether to the locality in which one regiment is raised as compared with another, or to the difference between the localities in which they are quartered. I admit that there is a great deal in those points. No doubt regiments abroad, especially those in India, are under far less temptations than those at home; but I take an instance, shown in this Return, in which two battalions of the same regiment, raised in the same part of the country, and both of them abroad, presented a very different Return, there being in one case 21 courts martial, and in the other 109. I ask why is this? The command of a regiment is the most important post in the Army. There has been a tendency of late years to give undue prominence to Staff employment. My opinion is—and I think the Army will go with me—that the command of regiments are the most important posts in the Army. Too much prominence and too much reward cannot be given to men who have successfully commanded your regiments. Regiments are the backbone of an Army, not the Staff, and the Commanding Officers are the backbone of the regiments; and in the selection of officers to command regiments too much care cannot be taken. I admit that with every care mistakes may be made—that, with the most favourable antecedents, it is possible that a Commanding Officer may turn out to be not what could be wished. I think the burden of the selection of Commanding Officers is too great to be laid on the Commander-in-Chief or the Military Secretary. I think that the arrangements touching all promotion should be placed in the hands of a Military Board. Such a Board should be formed at the Horse Guards, and should have upon it the Adjutant General, the Military Secretary, the Quartermaster General, the Deputy Adjutant General (Royal Artil
  1880
  lery), the Deputy Adjutant General (Royal Engineers), and the Inspector General of Cavalry. I do not say that that Board would act with greater impartiality than the Commander-in-Chief has acted hitherto. I have not a word to say against His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, or the Military Secretary, under whose advice he acts; but I cannot help thinking that a Board such as I suggest would speak with much more firmness. It is a very painful thing for any single individual to feel that he has upon his own shoulders the responsibility for all the promotion of the Army. Individuals who think themselves hardly treated can complain, and quarrel with him; but were these promotions the work of a Board it would be another affair altogether. Supposing a Board were appointed, and an officer came to complain that his merits had not been duly recognized, the reply would probably be—"Well, Sir, the Board have carefully considered your case, and do not view your merits in the same light that you do yourself." There is one thing I wish to say as to confidential Reports. These Reports contain a number of very stringent questions, which are answered very fairly and honourably by the officers commanding regiments—although sometimes it is a very disagreeable duty. But there is one question that, for some reason or other, has been omitted from these confidential Reports, and it is—"Is this officer strictly sober?" Why that extremely important and pertinent question should be omitted I do not know. I think it is a great pity that it is omitted. Where a number of stringent questions are asked, and no information is sought to be obtained upon a particular point, there will be a tendency on the part of the signing Commanding Officer to avoid reference to the subject about which he has not been questioned. I think the question of sobriety is one that is essential to the discipline of the Army, and ought to be dealt with in the confidential Report. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would take a suggestion from so humble a Member as myself on another matter. In the present day it not unfrequently happens that officers are reported upon unfavourably either as "Idlers," "Stupid," "Drones," "A Bad Example," or something else

  1881
  of that kind; a Report goes up to the Horse Guards, and there comes down a serious lecture from the Commander-in-Chief, these officers being informed that if they do not mend their manners something will be done. But nothing is done, and things go on like that for years, the officers who are complained of remaining in the Army, though an evil, and, as drones and idle men, setting a bad example to other officers. I do not wish to raise a cry; but I do say most emphatically that it would be a great advantage to the Army if, in cases where officers have been unfavourably reported upon for three years in succession, Her Majesty should be advised to accept their resignation. I do not think there would be any unfairness in that, though it might be said that there would be. It might be argued that an officer might have his character taken away by a senior with whom he had quarrelled; but at each annual inspection an inquiry is made into the complaint by the Inspecting General, and he gives his opinion as to the justice of the complaint to the Commander-in-Chief. I thank the Committee for having listened to me, the more because I am fully aware that the details into which I have entered are hardly suitable for the consideration of a non-military Assembly.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I do not propose to stand for more than a couple of minutes between the Committee and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War to look into one or two details connected with the Militia. The points I would bring under his notice have this extraordinary merit—that they would cost no money; on the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to the points I shall raise he will, I think, be able to save a considerable sum. It is in connection with the absenteeism of Militia recruits that I would speak. Before the year 1881 every Militia recruit on enlistment received the sum of 10 s.; he then went about his business, and very often was not seen again, though he ought to have come up at the time of training. Now, in the last year of that system there were 3,358 absentees. After 1880 every Militia recruit was drilled on enlistment; and the result of that was that last year—1885—there
  1882
  were 4,429 Militiamen who, having been drilled as recruits, did not appear again when the regiment was called up for training. As a matter of fact, the percentage of absenteeism has slightly decreased. It was 12 per cent in 1880, whereas it is only 10 per cent now; but the difference in the cost to the State is enormous. In the case of the 3,358 absentees in 1880 the State only lost 10 s. per man; but in the case of the 4,429 men who did not appear last year every one of them cost the State, at the lowest computation, £8, and that is not including any charge for wear and tear of arms and other military stores, or for ammunition, travelling expenses, or fees to civilian medical practitioners, nor is any allowance made in the calculation for the cost of the permanent Staff employed in instructing the recruits. The whole difference arises from the fact, as you will see, that the men now go through a training of 56 days on enlistment and before the annual training; whereas, under the old system, no cost was incurred, except the 10 s. bounty prior to that annual training. I have made a calculation, and I find that in the last five years previous to 1880 the Militia absenteeism cost the State, roughly speaking, £16,000; whereas during the past five years it has cost something over £100,000. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way in any manner to deal with this question he will save a great deal of money; and if he will allow me I will respectfully make one or two suggestions to him. The first is this—I do not think any adequate step is ever taken to bring these men to justice. It is within my experience—an experience of seven years—that in connection with that part of the Militia of which I have knowledge no single man has ever been apprehended and brought to justice for absenteeism who did not give himself up voluntarily. In the second place, I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make inquiry into the reason why some regiments have no absenteeism, whilst others number absentees by hundreds. If he were to send out some competent officer to make inquiries, I think he would frequently find that this absenteeism is due to the carelessness of the recruiting officer. In the case of a regiment about which I happen to know something, out of 123

  1883
  absentees 63 were known to have given as their address common lodging houses in a poor street of a neighbouring town. Most of these men were simply tramps, whose profession it was to go round from depôt to depôt enlisting. If the recruiting officer had gone into the question of their residence, he would have found that they were not suitable men to enlist. The present system of training men for the Militia has not been a good thing for that branch of the Service, although it has been excellent for the Army. The men are by no means as well drilled at the depôts as they used to be during the preliminary drill. They do not get trained in musketry at all. I find that recruits, when they come up now to a regiment have none of them been put through a course of musketry in the dopôt, and I need not say that a Militiaman who does not know the use of the rifle is utterly useless. I have no doubt, as I have said, that the present system of training Militia recruits is good for the Army; it has done much to widen and strengthen the foundation of the territorial system. There is only one other point with which I will trouble the right hon. Gentleman—only one other matter of detail upon which I would respectfully make a suggestion, and that is with regard to a question of morality. You are aware that many regiments do not go into camp or barracks, but are put into billets. It is the invariable practice to put at least two men into one bed; and any hon. Gentleman who can form an opinion as to the condition of things in low public-houses will see that this is the worst possible moral training that can be given to these young lads. If the right hon. Gentleman will give that his best attention I think it will be a considerable benefit to the Militia Service.
  MR. NORTHCOTE: Though this discussion has travelled over considerable ground, there are one or two questions I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman; but before doing so I should like to make just one comment upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan), whom I am glad to see in the House. I wish to correct him, if I may venture to do so, upon a matter of fact on which I think he was mistaken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, speak
  1884
  ing of the Report of Lord Airey's Committee, that it was made some time prior to the period at which the Conservative Government left Office in 1880.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I think I said some months.
  MR. NORTHCOTE: But the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken, for, as a matter of fact, that Report was only placed in the hands of the Earl of Beaconsfield's Government the day the Dissolution was announced. It was, therefore, impossible to take action on that Report. There was another point in the hon. and gallant Member's speech to which I should like to direct his attention, because he referred on no less than three occasions, in terms of the strongest possible eulogy, to the Estimates the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), whom we shall soon have the privilege of hearing, will join with the hon. and gallant Member in those terms of unqualified eulogy of the Estimates that are now before us; but I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, at all events, whatever credit or discredit may be due to Ministers for their Estimates, it must be shared between the two political Parties. It must not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) is to a considerable extent responsible for these Estimates. They were in a large degree framed before he left Office, though they had not formally come before him. At all events, I do not think the present Secretary of State for War will be inclined to claim any credit for having made any increase in the Estimates in the shape in which we now find them. Therefore, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that these are the first satisfactory Estimates that have been presented to the House of Commons for a considerable number of years, I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) is not here to appreciate the compliment. I will not weary the Committee by travelling over some of the points upon which I had wished to say a few words, but which have already been touched on by hon. Members of greater experience than myself; but I would like to point out, with reference to some remarks that were made by the hon. and gallant Gen

  1885
  tleman (Colonel Salis-Schwabe), that he complained of the total of the Estimates, and I should not be surprised if the hon. Member for Northampton followed his example. I should rather like to ask any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who may feel disposed to rise and propose a reduction in these Estimates if he can point out, with somewhat more accuracy than we have hitherto seen, where the reductions are to come from, and also how he can expect, with so many burning questions coming before the War Office, that there is any hope at all of seeing anything like a reduction for many years to come? I would just quote, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, some of the principal questions that were under the consideration of the War Office during the short time I was connected with it—questions which still remain unsettled, but which will, no doubt, receive attention from Ministers. There is the question of barrack accommodation. I do not think there is anyone who is acquainted with the condition, or, I would rather say, the extent, of the accommodation we have at our barracks, or who knows anything about the condition of the huts at Aldershot, who does not see that before long considerable expenditure will have to be incurred for enlarging our barracks and rehousing our troops at Aldershot. Then there is the great question of our military and commercial ports, the expenditure on which is hung up at present, but in regard to which it is believed by both sides of the House that considerable expenditure will have to take place before long. There is also the question of increasing the Artillery, and of the production of new small arms. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will deny that new small arms will have to be provided in considerable quantities. Again, there is the question, which was discussed in this House a few nights ago, of the Capitation Grants to Volunteers. I venture to hope that the result of inquiries will be to secure an increase in those grants. Another question is that of the purchase of horses, and a great many hon. and gallant Members in this House take an interest in the question of an increase in the amount of rations supplied to the troops. I commend these five or six questions to the attention of economists below the Gangway such as the
  1886
  hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and I ask if, when there are these questions, the importance of which has, I think, been pretty fully admitted by responsible Ministers on either side of the House, before us, is there any great probability that we shall see very much lower Estimates for some time to come in connection with the War Office? I do not think, myself, that there is any such chance, I must honestly say. To refer again to the great question of military and commercial ports, I must confess that I was very sorry to hear the arguments which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) used the other night, because I thought they pointed too much to the undue prolongation of the time within which works for the defence of our commercial ports should be undertaken. I do think hon. Gentlemen and the country generally should remember that in the 15 or 16 great commercial ports of this country property exists that I believe is valued at £1,500,000,000 or £1,600,000,000. It is a serious question how far we are wise in delaying an expenditure which I admit is serious, but yet which is a trifle compared with the value of these ports. The wisdom of expending money on this object is questioned on two grounds—first, because expense cannot be properly undertaken now; and, secondly, because it cannot be properly undertaken at all, for the reason that works of defence are improving and increasing from day to day, and in a short time what is done now will be of little value. It is, of course, quite true that weapons of offence and defence are constantly improving; but that is no reason for putting off necessary works of defence. If we wait for finality either in weapons of offence or defence these ports will never be defended at all; therefore, I feel sorry to hear proposals for serious delay in the construction of these works. No doubt it is possible that we may not be able to erect the very best defensive works; but I cannot agree that science has not reached a point at which we can put up defensive works which will not only be better than none at all, but which will come high up in the second class of any improved defensive works which it is possible to conceive at present. I will not mention the question of small arms

  1887
  and artillery, because it has already been sufficiently discussed. But as to the question of the Capitation Grants, I do hope that if the inquiry the Secretary of State makes should result in his coming to the opinion that an increase in the grants is desirable and proper, he will accompany his proposal with an increase in the qualification for efficiency in shooting. The conditions on which the Volunteers attain to this efficiency are unsatisfactory I think; and if we are about, as I hope is the case, to improve their condition, we should accompany the pecuniary improvement we grant with a more stringent test of proficiency in this special work of shooting. As to the Volunteers, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Secretary of State, whether I am correct in supposing that there has this year been no increase made in the numbers of any of the Rifle Volunteer Corps? because I think I notice that there is a sum of £5,500 less taken for the Volunteers than was contemplated when I had the honour to hold Office. I am inclined to assume—and I should like to ask if that is so—that that decrease may be due to the fact that no increase has been sanctioned as regards Rifle Volunteer Corps as distinct from Artillery and Engineer Volunteer Corps? Then, as to the purchase of horses, I am rather sorry to see that so small a provision is made for the acquisition of an increased number of horses. I think Sub-head M gives the figure £10,000. I had the honour of serving upon a Committee which made some inquiry into the subject of horse purchase whilst I was in Office—the Committee which went into the question of the organization of the Artillery. It became our duty incidentally to make some inquiry into the question of the horse supply for the year. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is intended that the Report of the Committee shall be published, and whether he has had it under his consideration, and whether any decision has been arrived at in reference to it? At all events, in the course of our inquiry we had to make some examination into the question of the supply of horses which are so valuable for Artillery purposes; and I regret to say that although the basis on which we were appointed to act was to ascertain how
  1888
  far the supply of horses was equivalent to the demands of two Army Corps in the field we found that the supply of horses was barely sufficient to meet the demands of one Army Corps. I think that some active steps should be taken by the Government to increase the number of horses, and to develop the field from which horses may be obtained in the future, and I should say, notably, our Colonial Possessions. Another subject which has been referred to in the Navy Estimates is the question as to the manufacture of stores by the Army Department for the benefit of the Navy; and I think it seemed to be the general opinion of the Committee, when the discussion on the Navy Estimates was taken, that it would be desirable to make the Navy responsible for their own Estimates, and the manufacture of their own guns. I know there are grave difficulties in the way of carrying out such a proposal.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: No, no; no difficulty at all!
  MR. NORTHCOTE: The hon. and gallant Member says—"No difficulty at all;" but I believe that it would be somewhat difficult to distinguish at Woolwich and elsewhere between the stores for the Army and for the Navy, and to say which materials were intended for naval guns and which for Army guns. I feel sure that some difficulty would be experienced in regard to the interchangeability of military and naval stores for Malta and other places; but, on the other hand, I do think the principle is a sound one, and one the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State should do his utmost to carry out and enforce. The result of the present system is that the Navy tries to get as much as possible of their demands stuck into these Estimates, whilst, on the other hand, the Army is always trying to cut out that item of expenditure under the belief that the Navy can afford to do without guns, and the result is a very unsatisfactory state of things. There is another matter to which I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, and which I do not know whether he has had brought before his notice—I allude to the financial position of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. I must say that I think the Surveyor General of the Ordnance is placed in a very hard position indeed, because he is

  1889
  specially and primarily responsible for what I may call the most contentious Votes—namely, those from 9 to 13, which include stores, clothing, transport, and in fact all those Votes which hon. Members are specially apt to take exception to, and to move the reduction of, and upon which it is considered that a great saving might be effected, and which are invariably more keenly debated than any other Army Votes with the possible exception of Vote 1. The Surveyor General of the Ordnance has no special financial adviser. The Financial Secretary—and I am sure in this he will bear me out—has every day to be indebted to the great ability of Mr. Knox, the Accountant General, whose services I am convinced every Minister will always speak of in terms of the highest praise. But with regard to these particularly difficult Votes the Surveyor General has not the same direct and immediate assistance as the Financial Secretary possesses, and he has to depend to a great extent on the Inspector General of Fortifications, the Director General of Artillery and others, who hold their appointments only for a term of years and who, being officers of the highest ability, yet are officers with whom I may say, with all respect, I do not think economy is always the first consideration. I do not know that it is natural to expect that it should be, and I do not for a moment mean to say that they are intentionally or wilfully extravagant, but they are officers who have to consider what is called efficiency in the first place and economy in the second; and I do think that when you consider these Votes from 9 to 13, which amount this year to something like £8,163,000, it would be a wise and economical proceeding if some special financial adviser to the Surveyor General were appointed who would be a permanent official and able to keep on the track of the Inspector General of Fortifications and the Director General of the Artillery, and make economical financial transactions his very first consideration. Before I sit down I should like to say one word in reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Salis-Schwabe). The hon. and gallant Gentleman made one or two suggestions with regard to a more economical working of the War Office; but he prefaced his suggestions by one remark I think it right to contradict, because it was an
  1890
  unfair one. He taxed my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) with having suggested that work should be found at Enfield and at Woolwich for the unemployed. My right hon. Friend said precisely the reverse—I appeal to any hon. Gentleman who was in the House if that is not the case. My right hon. Friend said he did not wish that work should be purposely found for the unemployed; but if there was any work which the War Office wanted to have done this was a good time to do it, there being so many people unemployed. I have ventured to suggest one or two points upon which I hope the Secretary of State for War or one or other of the Gentlemen who officially represent the War Office in the House will kindly say a few words. I thank the Committee for the patient hearing they have accorded me.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.): Sir, I have given Notice of a Motion for the reduction of this Vote; but before I speak to that Motion I should like to say a few words in regard to the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) at the beginning of the sitting as to the three years' enlistment system. I am very sorry my right hon. Friend could not see his way to give me a more sympathetic answer to the Question. He promised to consider it. Now it has been long before the War Office; not only has it been long before the War Office, but it was specially considered and dealt with by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) when Secretary of State for War. Only very recently the noble Marquess expressed a particularly favourable view of the system of three years' enlistment, and I think a great many leading men, men much more qualified to form a just opinion than myself, have expressed a favourable opinion of the system. I do hope that still we shall have a more sympathetic utterance from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on the subject than that he gave us earlier in the evening. I have long held the opinion, as many very experienced men do, that the present system amounts to neither long or short service. The result of the system now adopted is that the man who wants to merely pass through the ranks and qualify as an efficient soldier

  1891
  is unable to do so, because the chances are he will be sent to India, and possibly deprived of any opportunity of obtaining any civil employment when he leaves the Army. On the other hand, the system now prevailing spoils the long service. It does seem to me that as we have a voluntary Army system, it is very much better for all parties—for Reserves and for men going foreign service—that men should be allowed to choose between really short service and really long service. The system which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) commenced with every promise of success was to allow men to enlist for three years with the Colours in the first instance. The men who enlisted for this term were practically not liable to be sent to India; they knew that all they had to do was to qualify as soldiers, that when their term was up they might join the Reserve, follow their civil pursuits, and be, in fact, armed and trained civilians, which I venture to think are the best men the country can have. On the other hand, if after their experience of the Army the men were willing to accept long service, and our officers thought they were fit to be retained for long service, they would have the opportunity of enlisting for the longer term. It seems to me that is really the best system for all parties. The noble Marquess will bear me out in saying that he has expressed a very favourable opinion of the system. I do earnestly hope my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will favourably consider the subject. Now, I come to the Motion of which I have given Notice, and I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) say he will oppose it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I said that I should oppose it if the hon. Gentleman does not carry it a little further, and ask for a greater reduction.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I propose to move a reduction of the money which is to be devoted to the service of the Army in Egypt. If my hon. Friend wishes to move a larger reduction than that I propose, £17,500, I will give way and allow him to take my place. I brought this subject before the House the other day; but I was not able to take a division upon it. I hope I may be able to do so now. I confess that on the former occasion to which I allude, I
  1892
  was very seriously disappointed at the tone in which the introduction of the subject was met by those who represented the Government. I did hope that we should, on that occasion, have had a more sympathetic reception of the proposal, and that measures would be taken to withdraw our Army from Egypt at the very earliest period. We know that when the late Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) was in power, they expressed their desire to withdraw the Army as early as possible. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), in perfect good faith, told us several years ago, very soon after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir, that they hoped to withdraw our troops from Egypt in about six months. We know that continually, year after year, and in statement after statement, we were given to understand that the late Liberal Government hoped to withdraw the Army from Egypt at the very earliest opportunity. I was very much disappointed the other night to find that in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce) there was not one word in regard to the probability that the troops would be withdrawn from Egypt. I know that it is a very unpopular thing to talk of this withdrawal. I know there are many people who are very much interested in keeping our Forces in Egypt, and who are continually telling us that the worst thing we could do would be to withdraw. If you are not going to withdraw, if your object is to stay in Egypt, I admit it does do a great deal of harm to talk of withdrawing. But if you wish to withdraw, you had better say so frankly and honestly. I do not believe you will be able to withdraw unless you convince the people of Egypt and the financial advisers of the Egyptian Government that you mean to withdraw in a given time. As I have said, I was very much disappointed with the speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is very sad to see how a Radical, when he accepts Office, gets into the official groove. Formerly there was no man who was more robust in his sympathy with people struggling to be free than the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had particular sympathy with oppressed na

  1893
  tionalities, and with people who, as I say, were struggling to be free; but when I heard the speech he made the other night, I could not help exclaiming—"Et tu Brutus; are you the man to use the old official arguments; are you the man to pay the bondholders in full, because then you will satisfy the great financial Powers of Europe." Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) far from telling us, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) used to do, that he hoped to withdraw the troops from Egypt at the very earliest period, only told us that whereas we have at present something like 28,000 troops in the country, he hoped to reduce the number by one half by the end of the year. If he could not reduce them to the extent he hoped to be able to do, he would bring in a Supplementary Estimate. It appears to me that that was a very disappointing statement. As regards the financial part of the business, my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us, what no doubt was the view of the Government, that we could not allow the whole expense of the Army to be thrown upon Egypt. An arrangement was made a few years ago which certainly was not disadvantageous to Egypt, and that was, that this country should pay the whole of the ordinary expenses of the troops in Egypt, and that the Egyptian Exchequer should bear the extraordinary expense of the Army. A compromise was arrived at by which the extraordinary expense was fixed at about £48 per head per man. If that bargain, for a bargain it was, and a bargain which I maintain was not disadvantageous to the people of this country, had been carried out, we should be receiving from Egypt a subsidy of £1,000,000 per annum. Even with the number of men reduced to the point to which the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) hopes to bring the Army before the end of the year, the subsidy would be about £450,000 per annum. But because you could not pay the bondholders in full at the same time as you did justice to the taxpayers of this country, an agreement was made last year whereby the subsidy of £450,000 was reduced to not more than £200,000. That £200,000 has been again reduced this year, be
  1894
  cause you find the Egyptian Exchequer is not able to pay the bondholders in full, and to pay for its own troops. Furthermore, you have engaged to pay the expenses of three Egyptian regiments employed to do Egyptian service. It seems to me quite clear that in this matter the taxpayer of this country is not being treated very fairly; he is the beast of burden who has to bear all these financial burdens. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs seemed to suppose that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and myself answered each other. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) and myself are entirely in accord in this—that those who derive profit from Egypt are bound to keep the concern going; in point of equity that seems to be the right course, and indeed the only course. I know that the answer is that the Powers will not allow us to stay in Egypt unless we put on the British taxpayer the whole of the burden. For my part, I should prefer to withdraw, and I believe if Her Majesty's Government made up their minds to withdraw, sent for Arabi Pasha, and put him at the head of the Egyptian Army, they would find that the evacuation of the country was easy of accomplishment. The reduction I propose to make is an entirely practical reduction. The number of men has been passed, and the money has been voted; but we learn from the Papers submitted to the House by the War Office that in the matter of transport, clothing, &c., for the troops in Egypt, it is proposed to incur an additional expense over the expense of last year of no less than £416,000. Now, Sir, I know very well that we cannot withdraw our troops in a day. We require some months to make our arrangements to get Arabi back, to drill the Egyptian troops. I allow Her Majesty's Government six months in which to make their arrangements to get out of Egypt. I find that for transport, clothing, &c., of the troops in Egypt £35,000 is taken. I do not propose to disallow the whole amount; but only half of it—namely, £17,500. I hope the Committee will think this is a very reasonable proposition. It involves the principle that Her Majesty's Government should withdraw our troops from Egypt, not immediately, but within a reasonable time, or in some way or other

  1895
  put the expenses of the troops upon the revenues of Egypt, instead of upon the taxes of this country. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £17,500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £849,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  COLONEL DUNCAN: Mr. Courtney, before replying to the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell), who has just spoken, I should like to express how much pain I felt to-night at hearing the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on the question of compulsory retirement. The other night the right hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject with deep sympathy, I think under the stimulus of his better instincts, for the taxpayer and the unemployed officers; but I think I can guess what has happened. I fear that since then he has been, metaphorically, plunged into a cold bath by the permanent officials of the War Office. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the permanent officials to entrammel him with red tape. I am sure his own are a great deal better than the opinions which are being foisted upon him. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to throw off the yoke it is sought to impose upon him, were it only for the sake of consistency with the other Members of the Cabinet. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) recommended the suspension of the Sinking Fund, in order that with the money we would thus obtain we might make our Navy effective. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) rose with holy horror, with every particular hair on his head standing on end, and asserted that what the noble and gallant Lord suggested would be pernicious finance; it would be a dangerous precedent for others. What is the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) doing if he continues the policy of compulsory retirement? While he is apparently allowing the Sinking Fund to be paid off,
  1896
  he is building up a non-effective Army and creating fresh debt. About the year 1900, if any institutions are left in England, even the institution of the taxpayer, any hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the Budget for the year, that perhaps a certain smaller amount of interest will have to be paid; but there will be an enormous amount of accumulated pensions. Surely that is a form of finance which cannot commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This question of compulsory retirement is a very serious one. I have seen in this Parliament the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) raise his daring hand against the pensions of Dukes. What would happen if the daring hand of another Member for Northampton were to be raised against the pensions of half-pay captains? Their chance of successful resistance would be but small. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War compared the Army to a bottle, and said that the difficulty lay with the neck. But he put the neck in the middle of the bottle, where the field officers' rank begins. He is making a vacuum in the bottle by this system of compulsory retirement. To fill the vacuum we have officers from the Reserve and Militia doing duty which ought to be done by officers of the Regular Army. We have shortened the terms at our military schools for the education of officers; we find ourselves going into highways and byeways to get men through the neck of the bottle to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. That is an unwise method, and a very costly method, of filling up the vacuum which is being created. Besides, it is understood that when a man is placed on the Retired List he immediately, like all annuitants, gets a new lease of life. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who is respected by the whole House for his straight forward utterances, to throw off the permanent officials, and to trust himself, and himself alone. And now I will turn to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) with regard to Egypt. As I have said before in this House, many of us are perfectly at one in our anxiety to get out of Egypt; but we differ very much as to the means. Why we ever went there is one of those puzzles which, like the origin

  1897
  of evil, I have long given up trying to explain. But we are there; and I consider that the way to get out of the country is not by fixing the date of our withdrawal in months, as the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) would do, but by telling the Egyptian people that they must throw themselves as thoroughly as they can into the reforms we consider necessary for the country, and that the moment they are in a fit state for self-government we will leave them. The idea of bringing Arabi — that shallow charlatan — back again and putting him at the head of the Army, as suggested by the hon. Member, is simply preposterous. It is proposals of this kind which keep Egypt in a continual state of unrest. For 18 months in Cairo the voice of England never spoke properly; it only stammered, and the people did not understand it. Over and over again Sheikhs came to me utterly bewildered. They wished to stand by us as long as they could; but changes of policy were bewildering to them, and made them lose all confidence in us. Allusion has been made by the hon. Member to the utterances of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), when Member of the Government, as to our withdrawal from Egypt in six months. That utterance reached us in Egypt, when we were in the flush of our reforms, when we had the people heart and soul with us, and when the Representatives of other countries were perfectly silent, and allowed us to do exactly as we wished. But after that message arose symptoms of hostility from the Natives; the Representatives of Foreign Governments pricked up their ears, and the mists of intrigue settled down on Cairo. It is such messages as these which do more to keep us in Cairo than anything else. I do not wish to interfere with the amusement of the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell), and his Colleagues below the Gangway opposite, in worrying the Government they profess to follow; but I do trust the Government will act wisely. Let them resolve upon leaving Egypt when Egypt is ready to be left; not upon a certain day, or in any particular month. I am in constant communication with Egypt, and I hear much of the state of feeling amongst the people. To hear the hon. Member talk one would think the people of Egypt are delighted to throw on the taxpayers
  1898
  of England the burden of the occupation of Egypt. They would pay twice as much to get rid of us; but as we chose—I do not know why—to demolish their Government, to wipe out their Army, we are bound in honour to put them in a position to govern themselves. There are some luxuries for which we have to pay bitterly, and mistakes may be included in them. But mistakes having been committed, let us endeavour to remedy them in the wisest manner, instead of occupying the time of the Committee by the consideration of such utterly impractical Resolutions as that which has been submitted to us by the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell). As I have already said, we are at one in our desire to get out of Egypt; but we differ as to the means of getting out. I have the experience of residence there for three years, and of knowing the people; the hon. Member has not. I appeal to him to withdraw this Motion in the interest of the taxpayers of England, and in the interest of the Egyptian people. We owe a great deal to the Egyptians for what we have done. The large increase in the Estimates for the men in Egypt is all owing to ourselves. We went where we had no business to go; we excited people who would have been perfectly quiet had we not been there at all; we made government there almost impossible; created there a feeling of hostility against all Europeans, and now we have to pay for it. We would do much better if we would trust the Government. I trust the Government in this respect—for they know now the situation exactly. If experience makes us wise, their bitter experience in Egypt should have made them Solomons. Let us get out of Egypt honourably; let our troops be withdrawn when we have restored the Egyptians to the position in which they were before we entered their country. When I spoke before on this point, I said there was one thing necessary. The mistakes which we have committed in Egypt have been numerous; but none of them, perhaps, was greater than that we should have coerced Cherif Pasha, whose patriotism was certainly beyond question, to withdraw from the Soudan. The first step for us to take now is to subsidize someone whom we can trust, of the same religion as the Egyptians, at Dongola, and place him in command of that Province, so as to make

  1899
  a buffer between Egypt Proper and the wilds of the Soudan. Then the next thing is to place Egyptians in the garrisons along the Nile and at Suakin, and then will be the time for us to leave, but not before. With Egypt to protect and Ireland to protect we have too much on our hands. We cannot afford to stay in Egypt; but I venture to think that the way of getting out which I have suggested is more dignified than that proposed by the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell).
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Most of the hon. Members who have addressed the Committee to-night have been either connected with the Army or have been ex-officials, and all the speakers except two have suggested an increase of the Estimates. Every military man who has spoken this evening has suggested that the Army Estimates should be increased, and in this they were backed up by the ex-officials. The noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) was in the height of elation when he heard that the Army was to be increased. Then we have had the hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote) who spoke just now. He said he did not see how it was possible—how anybody could ask for a reduction in the Estimates—considering the number of burning questions at the War Office.
  MR. NORTHCOTE: What I said was that the reduction was not likely to be made—not that it was not likely to be suggested.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No one who understands the House of Commons believes that a reduction is likely to be made, even if it is suggested; but why are there these burning questions? Because we have an Army which is far too large for defence, and is therefore kept up for offensive objects. If we had not had a large Army should we have annexed Burmah? and what has been the consequence of annexing Burmah? Why, it is that we are now asked for an increase of 10,000 men. We were told that it was to cost us nothing; that it was, in fact, to be valuable to us; but the first thing that is done is that we are asked to burden ourselves with an increase of 10,000 men in India. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said we ought not to leave Egypt too early. Early! how long have
  1900
  we been there? No confidence can be placed in anyone sitting on the Ministerial Bench on this question. Again and again Ministers have deplored our being there. We were coming away after Arabi was suppressed; but then there was the cholera, if I remember rightly, which kept us there. And then there were these ridiculous Expeditions to Suakin, and no one knows now why we are to defend Suakin. We have 17,000 men in Egypt; no one precisely knows what they are doing. Sometimes we are told that they are defending the frontier; sometimes they are preserving order; but no one knows precisely. All we know is that we are paying for them. Of course, they ought to be paid; but, surely they should be paid by the Egyptians themselves. Who ever heard of one country sending an army of 17,000 men to another country to maintain order and to pay for the men themselves? We all know that the Egyptians can pay. ["No."] Oh yes; we do know that they can pay. The reason we are told that Egypt cannot pay is that if she did so she would not be able to pay the enormous interest on her Debt. The first charge upon every country ought to be the cost of its administration and defence. It is obvious that if we are to put this after the Debt, Egypt cannot pay it; but it ought to be paid before the interest on the Debt. Why are we there? We are not there for the benefit of the English taxpayer; it is not for the honour and glory of England; it is not for the fellahs of Egypt; it is because we went there with the deliberate object of forcing the Egyptians to pay the interest on a debt which was most unfairly incurred. We are assuming these large liabilities because, if we do not, the interest on the Debt will not be paid to the bondholders. It was a bondholders' war that sent us there, and it is the bondholders who are keeping us there now. Until we realize this fact, and say we will not have an Army in Egypt unless the Egyptians desire it, and not if they do desire it unless they are ready to pay for it, we may depend upon it that we shall have to remain there for the bondholders. Why, Sir, did not the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) say that he repented, almost in dust and ashes, the course that he had taken in this matter? and did he not promise that if he were returned to Office he would clear out of Egypt at

  1901
  once? Well, why did he not? Why are we called upon to pay this amount? I shall be obliged to vote against my hon. Friend, who seems inclined to make two or three bites at this cherry. I do not know how he makes up the amount by which he desires to reduce the Vote, and I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment and substitute another with a much larger scope. My objection is to the number of our soldiers being increased, and another objection is that any of our soldiers are in Egypt at all. Now, let me call attention to the Return which we received this morning of Public Income and Expenditure—a very excellent Return, moved for by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). From that Return it appears that the cost of the Army last year was £15,960,000. In no previous year has it been larger, and yet we are now asked to increase that expenditure by £482,000. There is a very strong feeling in the country that our military expenditure is too large. We do not think that there ought to be an Army for offensive purposes such as the country has at present. ["Oh!"] Yes, we do not consider that we should have an Army for offensive purposes, but we should have one for defensive purposes alone. I, and those who think with me, do not consider that the Expeditions to South Africa, up the Nile, and to Burmah were necessary, and the main reasons why such expeditions are undertaken is because the country has too many soldiers. But if we have the soldiers, why, we must employ them; and I consider that an Army sufficient to maintain our position in Europe and Asia, without making any attack upon our neighbours, would be ample to uphold the honour and glory of this country. What I would suggest to my hon. Friend is that he should withdraw this Amendment and move the reduction of the Vote by £50,000, for the reason that the increased number of men that we are asked to provide for is 9,600, and the clothing for these men will come to a trifle over £50,000, If my hon. Friend accepts my suggestion he will be killing two birds with one stone. He will register his protest against our continued occupation of Egypt, and, at the same time, register the protest which is felt by a great many hon. Members against an increased number of soldiers being
  1902
  voted. The Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) said the other day that the main business of the House is to reduce the Estimates and not to increase them. Well, the right hon. Gentleman is unwell, and I am sure that nothing would be more gratifying to him to-morrow morning, when he rose refreshed and well again, to hear that the Committee have so well occupied the evening that they have reduced the Vote by £50,000.
  MR. DILLON: Although I am quite willing to admit that the knowledge of Egypt possessed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) may be good, I cannot say as much for the logic of his speech. How can an hon. Member stand up in this House and ask the House to repose the most implicit confidence in the Government, when he goes on to say that many of the misfortunes which have overtaken the English in Egypt have been brought about by the blundering of Sir Evelyn Baring? Why did he not go on to say what is the truth, that it has now become a public scandal that Sir Evelyn Baring should be left in the administration of Egypt any longer? If the Government desire to restore public confidence, the first step they ought to take is to recall Sir Evelyn Baring and those who have acted with him and have been responsible for the government of Egypt for the last three or four years. I quite agree with the hon. Member in saying that on the subject of Egypt the House ought not to repose any confidence in the Members of the present Government. I have over and over again seen every kind of excuse, some of which were perfectly laughable, put forward at the last moment to prevent our leaving Egypt. The Radical Members of the House have themselves to blame for the prolongation of the occupation of Egypt by this country. They have not done their duty in this matter. They have reposed confidence in the Government instead of applying a wholesome pressure, and I have no doubt the Government would now be glad if some pressure had been applied. My object is to appeal to the Radical Members not to continue the line which they have taken up with regard to the Egyptian Question. When anyone had called the attention of the Radicals of the House to this matter the answer has always been—"We admit that up to now everything has gone wrong; but we trust

  1903
  the Government will now get out of it as cheaply as possible." But matters have gone on from bad to worse, and I would ask that they should now take the trouble to look up the question. Let them realize the grave responsibility of the English people; let them not treat it as they do the question of Indian Finance; and let them make up their minds to put pressure on the Government. Let them insist upon the matter being at once cleared up; and the first step necessary is the immediate—and there ought to be no delay about this at all—withdrawal of Sir Evelyn Baring. We know perfectly well that the interests of these officials in Egypt is to be lording it over the Egyptian people. We know that until they take that step no Radical Member ought to believe the Government. The first step they ought to take is to bring away Sir Evelyn Baring and those who serve under him. One thing that makes me think that the Government do not intend to immediately withdraw from Egypt is the extraordinary charge they have made for the garrison of Egypt. We know that there will be no trade there upon that coast while they stay there, because the tribes are hostile; and yet we are to hold the place, knowing that it will be utterly worthless as long as we remain there. And what is the use of our sending out fresh troops at a cost of £50,000 to maintain Suakin if we have the intention of leaving it? The best thing for the Government to do would be to enter into negotiations with Osman Digna and allow the Arab traders to come back, so that trade might be again opened up. I hope that if Radical Members honestly believe that the English occupation of Egypt is a disgrace to this country they will not sit silent, but will bring some pressure to bear upon the Government to take the first step of bringing away Sir Evelyn Baring.
  SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: I rise, as a new Member, to ask the forbearance of the Committee for a few moments. I am going to speak from personal observation. I have had the pleasure and honour of serving in Egypt for some few months in 1883, and during that time I had opportunities of gleaning information which have fallen to the lot of few. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has suggested that we should
  1904
  leave Egypt in the course of a few months; but the question is, to whom the government of the country should be handed over in case we do leave? I yield to no Member in my desire to see Egypt governed by the Egyptians; but are the Egyptians fit to govern themselves? The history of Egypt shows that for years it has been governed by foreigners; and it must be governed by foreigners, until such time as the Egyptian people can be educated to carry on the Government of their country for themselves. I should like to see that time; but I am afraid the period is far distant when the education of the people will have attained that length. When in Egypt, Cherif Pasha, the then Premier, requested me to draw up a scheme for the re-organization of the Sanitary and Medical Service. In doing so I was anxious to fill as many of the Administrative and Executive posts as possible by Egyptians; but, on turning my attention to this point, I was at once arrested by the fact that the number fitted to undertake duties of the kind might be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is a matter of great regret to me; but I think the more this question is considered the greater will the difficulties be found in the way of handing over the Government to them. Until a system of education is organized in Egypt we shall never be able to hand over the country to the Egyptians. With these few words I beg to oppose the Amendment.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I shall not take up the time of the Committee at any length; but there are some points in connection with our Army organization on which I desire to make some observations. [Continued interruption.]
  MR. BRODRICK: I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is continuously and persistently interrupting the hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith. I wish to know whether he is in Order in so doing?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order constantly and persistently to interrupt a speaker.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I wish to say that, in my opinion, the organization which permits of there being a large number of General Officers and colonels on the Active List, who have

  1905
  not the slightest chance of employment, is defective. I think you ought not to promote officers to the rank of General unless you intend to employ them. If you look over the Army List you will see that there are very many of those officers who have no employment whatever; and the same may be said with regard to Colonels, many of whom are on half-pay. I think it would be a considerate act on the part of the Military Authorities to notify officers at once whether they are likely to be employed; so that, in the event of its not being the intention of the authorities to employ them, the officers might look for some other occupation and means of living. [Great interruption.]
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Northampton has disregarded your ruling. [Interruption.] I beg to move that you report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order to interrupt a speaker for the purpose of moving Progress.
  MR. BRODRICK: I rose on a point of Order. I asked whether the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton had not disregarded your ruling by constant and most audible interruptions of the speaker?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that it is disorderly to interrupt any hon. Member constantly and persistently. I am not aware that any particular hon. Member has done so.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: It is my intention to speak, even if I am interrupted. Having spoken of General Officers and those of the rank of Colonel, I wish to say that we should give our best attention to the improvement of the condition of the private soldier and non-commissioned officer. You should raise them by giving them some privilege or distinction which the people will recognize; and I am convinced that as soon as the people see that the private soldier is respected by the country, you will have no difficulty in recruiting your Army. I remember when I was once in an omnibus a corporal of Engineers came up, but was refused admission inside, the conductor saying it was "not the place for common soldiers." I say that as long as we have civilians looking at private soldiers in that light we shall have a difficulty in getting good recruits.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that he is not in Order in discussing the conduct of conductors.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I was showing that a non-commissioned officer was not allowed to take his seat in the omnibus; and it was only through the intervention of an officer that this man was placed in a position of equality with the other civilian passengers. Well, Sir, I contend that that is an anomalous position for a soldier to occupy. As an officer, I say I am proud of our soldiers, and shall always do what I can to place them in the position which their behaviour gives them the right to demand. Then, I desire to call attention to the education of our officers, and to the desirability of more officers attending the Staff College. I believe that, as a rule, they should be there for only one-half of the time they are at present. Then it is undesirable that there should be so many changes of uniform. If an officer leaves a regiment, or goes to the Staff, he has to provide a new uniform; and, in addition to that, he has to spend a great deal of money in changing from one place to another. Again, an officer, when he changes his quarters, has to carry about with him an immense amount of furniture and baggage; whereas I say that his quarters ought to be furnished for him. I am not one of those officers who, as an hon. Member opposite says, are desirous of increasing the cost of the Army; but, as military men, we sit here to point out to politicians what our experience tells us is necessary for the efficiency of the Army. I hope before long to see our Army in a more efficient state by the introduction of salutary changes; and, so far as the cost of the operation is concerned, you may save the money necessary to carry out all the changes advocated here by reducing the number of officers retired, and by the other means that have been suggested. I want to see a better rate of pay and less punishment than you have at the present moment; and my opinion is that an improvement of the material condition of the soldier will tend to bring in a better class of recruits, the result of which will be fewer desertions and less necessity for punishment than there have been in the past. There is one observation I wish to make with reference to a remark which fell from an hon. and gal

  1907
  lant Baronet on this side (Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram) (about drunkenness of officers). The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to know why a certain question was not put in the confidential Reports? I do not consider that question at all necessary. I have had much experience; and I must say that, in my opinion, Commanding Officers have commanded their regiments according to the best ideas as regards efficiency. My view is that if you have Commanding Officers whose management results in too large an amount of punishment in their regiments your only course is to remove them. I believe it is absolutely necessary to remove officers, especially Commanding Officers, if they have proved themselves to be inefficient. I hope this Committee will show its feeling that the Army should be efficient, no matter at what cost; but I am sure that this can be brought about without spending any more money than we do at the present time.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): I venture to make an appeal to the Committee. The Government gave up the night for a prolonged debate on general questions affecting the Army. We had a full night's discussion on Monday last, and we have now been discussing this question since 6 o'clock. I am aware that there are one or two hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate, and there are some remarks which I myself should like to make; but the Committee is aware that we were to suspend this part of the Business at 11.30 in order to bring on another subject—an arrangement which was made to suit the convenience not only of Members in favour of the Bill of the right hon. Member, for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), but of those who have on the Paper Amendments in opposition to it. Therefore, I suggest that we should now divide on the Motion which has been made, and that then the Vote should be allowed to be taken. I trust that this suggestion will be in accordance with the wishes of the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 66; Noes 290: Majority 224.—(Div. List, No. 44.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At this late hour I beg to move that the
  1908
  Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS REPEAL (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 147.]
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. James Stuart, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Burt, Mr. Henry Wilson.)
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS REPEAL (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 147.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to proceed with this Bill to-night, for if they do I will venture to say a more extensive breach of faith I never knew to be committed in this House? Two or three days ago I communicated with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, and told him that I should be very glad indeed to confine my objection to the Bill to one speech, if he would arrange with Her Majesty's Government to bring the measure on at some hour in the evening when it would be possible for a Member to address the House. He then told me that he would communicate at once with the Prime Minister on the subject. The Prime Minister was communicated with, and a message was delivered to me, in the first place, yesterday morning.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the right hon. Gentleman that if he speaks now at any length, he exhausts his right to speak on the Main Question.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I rose, Sir, to catch your eye on a matter of Order before the Question was put from the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: It was my duty to put the Question, the Order having been read. No question of Order arose.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I have been a good many years in this House, and have always understood that when the Order of the Day is called on Questions can be addressed to the Government as to whether at that time the Order should be proceeded with. I have on many such occasions heard questions of this kind addressed to the

    1909
    Government. If, however, I am out of Order, Mr. Speaker, I humbly bow to your decision. I only wish to remind you that on many occasions I have seen that practice followed; and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench will agree with that view, I think. I place myself at great disadvantage by rising to address myself to the Chair on the Order for the second reading being called. I do not know whether it is possible for you, Sir, to indicate any mode by which Her Majesty's Government can state their view as to the undertaking they gave myself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld).
    MR. SPEAKER: The course to be taken is perfectly plain. The Motion was made that the Bill be read a second time. The right hon. Gentleman, by speaking now, has exhausted his right to speak, unless he continues his speech on the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Then, Sir, I shall address myself to the question, under the strongest protest that it is possible for a Member of the House to make. I say again that there was a distinct understanding conveyed to me that this question would not be brought on after half-past 11 o'clock. It was given to me directly from the Prime Minister, in the first instance by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), confirmed afterwards by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Arnold Morley), and subsequently, again, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. All I can say is, that there has been a very great change in this House, and one very much for the worse. If these honourable undertakings are not to be maintained, I think this House will very soon lose its character of being an Assembly of Gentlemen. On the last occasion when this question was discussed, it was not competent for us, having regard to the hour of the evening, to state our objections to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts; and I, as well as my right hon. and learned Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Osborne Morgan), were very anxious to vindicate our position as Members of the Committee that sat during four years and investigated this question with great diligence, and
    1910
    showed that, after all, the only result to which we had arrived was precisely in accordance with the views upon which the Governments on both sides of this House had acted in previous years. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) addressed the House the other night, I was very much struck with an observation which he made as to the Prime Minister. I regret very much that the Prime Minister is not now in his place. I regret also exceedingly the cause of his absence. But, notwithstanding his absence, I am obliged to refer very particularly to him, and to remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax made with regard to his views on this question. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax declared that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said on several occasions that he did not know how these Acts were passed. He said he had not the slightest idea how they had ever been introduced, and how they had been passed here and carried through Parliament. A more extraordinary statement than that it was never my fortune to listen to, because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1864, when the first Act was passed on this subject, and he must necessarily have had all the Estimates put before him. But in 1866 the Act of 1864 was repealed, and a new Act altogether was brought into the House, which we may well term the principal Act which has governed the action of the Government hitherto on these matters. And then, on the second reading of that Bill, which was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—and I suppose he knew something about it, because his name was on the back of the Bill — the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister actually addressed the House, and supported the second reading. He said the object of the Government was to have all the assistance which the intelligence and impartial judgment of Parliament could afford. He wished the matter to be examined free from prejudice of any kind; and then, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he then was, the question was referred to a Select Committee, and subsequently the Act was

    1911
    passed. Then, again, in 1869, a supplementary Act was passed when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister. He was responsible for it, and the whole question, it is clear, must have been before the Cabinet. In 1870 the matter was referred to a Royal Commission, and in 1872 a Bill was brought in—known by the name of Bruce's (Lord Aberdare's) Bill — which especially expressed the policy of the Cabinet; and, finally, in 1883, after the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax was passed suspending the Acts, the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill dealing with the hospitals. How in the world, then, is it possible for any Member of the House, especially for the Prime Minister, to say he is not responsible for these Acts surpasses my comprehension and that of every reasonable being. We now come to the real question before the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen who cheer that statement must remember that this point was raised, not by me, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax; and the House, I think, will admit that it is only right and proper in me to demonstrate that, in connection with what has been the long-established policy of the House, the attitude of the Government now is another instance of what has been properly described by a Member of their own Party as a "shirk and surrender" policy. In 1867 Lord Aberdare, speaking of these Acts, said there was no one who knew the Acts who would not bear him out that they had worked in a most satisfactory manner. That was the question brought before our Committee. By a very large majority the Committee declared and reported that the Acts had worked in a satisfactory manner. We heard every possible kind of evidence which could be adduced. Our decision was by no means arrived at in a hurry, but after great deliberation, and the Report decided upon was that of the majority. I venture to say that that Report has never been impeached since that time. What the Committee found was that the Acts had worked in a satisfactory manner; and they further went on to say that if the Acts were interfered with in any way, suspended or limited in their operation, certain things would happen. They said there would be a great increase of disease in the Army and Navy; they
    1912
    said, also, that amongst the unfortunate women to whom the Acts apply there would be a great increase of disease and increase in the intensity of suffering, and, moreover, that there would be a great increase in general immorality. Well, Sir, all these things have come about. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) has saved me the trouble of proving the case for the Services—he did it on Tuesday. He abandoned that part of the case; he said, "I give up the hygienic part of the question—I shall not attempt to argue it;" and it was wise on his part to take up that position and abandon the hygienic argument, for he knew that if he did not the facts would be all against him. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, proved the case. He brought figures before the House which I can confirm, and which show that there has been an increase of 80 per cent in the amount of disease in the Army since the suspension of the Acts, and an increase of from 80 to 100 per cent in the Navy. I will not trouble the House with any further remarks on that point. ["Hear, hear!"] I know that hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway do not like to hear the truth. But we now come to the side of the question which is most interesting to me, and on which I shall be able to state a case to the House—a case which I have not only stated before the Committee, but which I have stated whenever I have had an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject of the operation of these Acts. When the measure was first introduced, I took the opportunity of saying here that I brought on this matter in the interests of the Army and Navy; but that I had also in view the object of endeavouring, if possible, to relieve the sufferings of that unfortunate class who must excite the pity and commiseration of every humane man. Well, the Acts were suspended, and, unfortunately, the anticipations shadowed forth by the Committee have been realized only too surely. There is a diminution in the number of women relieved under this Act from 3,300 to about 1,300, though I am glad to say that during last year the number who presented themselves for relief has been considerably increased. The intensity of disease has increased most terribly—in fact, the figures are appalling. I have access only to the actual

    1913
    statistics of two of the hospitals — namely, the London Lock Hospital; where there are "Government" patients treated, and the Chatham Hospital. In the London Hospital, before the suspension of the Acts, in the year ending June 30, 1882, there were 464 women relieved; in the year ending June 30, 1884, the number was 207; and in the year ending June 30, 1885, it was 110; and up to the 10th of March of the present year it was 155. The percentage of cases of the worst class has increased from 33 in 1882 to 55 in 1884, and 78·7 last year. As a result of the suspension of the Acts, of the unfortunate women treated in the London Lock Hospital 78·7 out of every 100 are suffering from the worst form of disease. The duration of treatment has increased from 23 days to 61 days, showing how grave the cases are. The Committee said, founding their opinion upon the evidence brought before them, that the effect of doing away with the Acts would be to increase juvenile immorality. Well, from the 1st of October, 1885, to the 10th of March this year, out of 80 women 44 have been under 20 years of age, and there are some in hospital now as young as 13 and 15. The statistics from the Lock Hospital at Chatham giving the ages of patients admitted during the months of January and February of the present year show the same results. There are a large proportion of cases of secondary disease, and the symptoms in many of them are described as very severe, as is also the case in regard to many of the primary ones. Out of 53 women admitted there during the past two months no less than 25 are under the age of 20. Nor is that all. Formerly, these hospitals were happily instrumental in affecting a large number of reclamations; but there is a great decrease now, and naturally, because up to the end of last year the young women did not commence to come in. During the past two months the number who have entered the hospitals in both these places has been very considerable; and it has proved beyond a doubt the increase of immorality amongst juveniles. Of course, when we know that it is only the juveniles who take advantage of these hospitals, it is obvious to everyone who can put two and two together that the prostitution of these towns is very much increased.
    1914
    The question, then, obviously arises, How is it possible to do without compulsion? The only chance of getting these women really relieved is by keeping them in the hospital until they are cured. I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax to maintain that we should give up the question of compulsion. Well, of all the people in the world to argue against compulsion I think the right hon. Gentleman should be the very last, seeing that during his last tenure of Office he was President of what is now called the Local Government Board, at the time when the Act of 1867 was in force, under which all the women who entered the hospitals afflicted with this unfortunate disease remained in them until they were cured. I do not wish to bring any charge against the right hon. Gentleman; but I must say it seems to me that when he is on the Treasury Bench he is of one opinion and when he sits below the Gangway he is of another. If he goes back to the Treasury Bench—and I, for one, should be glad to see him there—he will perhaps revert to his original opinion. I do not desire to go into the merits of this part of the case, because I think the case entirely established. There have been no arguments against the Acts except the sentimental arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman. In the matter of statistics the Minister for War entirely concurred in all the statistics brought before the House in the Papers. We have a right to ask why there is this change on the part of the Government? There is no change in the opinion of the country; there is no change, so far as I know, in the opinion of the clergy of the country on the subject. I have a letter written to me by a dignatary of the Church of England, who allows me to use his name—the Rev. G. E. Jelf, rector of Chatham. Writing from Rochester, under date March 16, he says—
    "Since the suspension of the Acts, it has been observed by persons well qualified to judge—(1.) That there has been a great increase of juvenile prostitution. During the present year (1886) there have been admitted into our Lock Hospital 53 patients, of whom 12 were 19 years old, five were 18, four were 17, one was 16, one 15, one 14, and one 13. Last January I had to visit there a young parishioner of mine, a child of 12, who had sinned with four different persons. (2.) That more illegitimate children than before have been born within the last two years. (3.) That physical disease in the worst

    1915
    form has greatly increased, (4.) That solicitation by women is much more frequent. (5.) That many of the more respectable girls are not deterred from evil or from dangerous ground as there were formerly. We, in Chatham, are working in the thorough conviction that men are often the greatest offenders; and it is not forgotten that the sentence of Divine retribution falls even upon the human body. But we ought surely to remember also the physical sufferings of the victims of the cowardly and selfish wickedness of men, and to keep open, with large subsidies from Government, the hospitals which, with the help of female doctors and other Christian women, may now tend to the bodily cure and moral reformation of our poor fallen sisters."
    Thereupon he asks that the Acts shall not be modified or repealed. I will go further, and will ask, have any of the Roman Catholic clergy changed their opinion? The Roman Catholic clergy who attended the hospitals in Cork gave very strong evidence in favour of the Acts, and I have not heard that they have ever changed their opinions—I do not believe that they have done so. I should very much like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) whether he has changed his opinions on this subject? I should like him to rise in his place and say that he has done so; and, if so, on what grounds? Then I see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers), who has gone almost all the rounds of Cabinet Offices in Her Majesty Government, and who, although opposed to compulsory examination, on April 20, 1883—not three years ago—delivered himself in these terms—
    "He thought the Acts had resulted in a diminution of disease.… and in reducing the element of juvenile prostitution that was the curse of certain towns…… Looking at the benefits which had resulted..… he should regard it as the greatest of all misfortunes if they were to go back from it."—(3 Hansard, [278] 852.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): The right hon. Gentleman has read only a detached fragment of the speech. He has only taken one sentence, and has not read the context.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to rise in his place and say what he did say. Does he still think that there has been a benefit? Then there is another Minister whom I regret not to see in his place, and that is the right hon. Gen
    1916
    tleman the Vice President of the Council on Education (Sir Lyon Playfair). Now, no man spoke more strongly in favour of these Acts in this House. In 1882 he made a most convincing speech on this subject. He is not here tonight. I should have liked him to have got up in his place to-night and have said what he thinks. I know very well that he has not changed his opinions; but the right hon. Gentleman represents an University constituency in Scotland, in a county where so much fanaticism and superstition prevails that he is obliged to give up his advocacy of these Acts. I refer to him as a scientific man who has studied this question, and if the right hon. Gentleman will get up in his place and say that he has altered his opinion on this matter—that he is not in favour of the Acts—then I also will abandon my opposition to their repeal. Then, again, there is the noble Marquess the late Leader of the Liberal Party (the Marquess of Hartington). I am sorry to say that he has gone, too; but no Member has ever spoken more strongly in favour of these Acts than the noble Marquess. He, also, stuck to them, and he parted with them with the greatest pain, as he informed us. I regret exceedingly that none of these right hon. Gentlemen are in the House. I do not refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Osborne Morgan), because I know he is persuaded; but I hope he will have an opportunity of rising in his place. Is it not clear from what I have said that it is not from conviction, but from political exigency, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have changed their opinions. I can explain the reasons for this, because I have had personal experience on the subject. In the first place, it is from superstition; secondly, from ignorance; and, thirdly, from falsehood. The superstition is this. A large number of Nonconformist Ministers think that these diseases are a punishment for wicked men; and I may add that the late Mr. Henley, and the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler), shared that opinion. There is one hon. Member, and I do not know if he is in the House, because I do not know him by sight. I mean the hon. Member for the Holmfirth—or something of that sort—Division of Yorkshire (Mr.

    1917
    H. J. Wilson), who stated at a meeting in February last, and at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was present, that these Acts were the works of the devil, and added that he did not want any substitute for the devil. He went on to say—
    "How long halt ye between two opinions. If you are determined that this thing is necessary, and is to go on, why don't you call the devil to your help and exert yourselves actively and spread it throughout the country and the entire world."
    Well, Sir, I am not acquainted with this person, nor do I know where he is to be found. All I know is this, that there are good devils and bad devils, and if a good devil were to relieve these unfortunate women and to induce them to lead a better life, I should say he was much better company than the hon. Member for Holmfirth. Then, as regards ignorance, I once asked an hon. Member whether he had ever read these Acts, and he said, "Oh, I dare not; I could not allow myself to do anything so wicked." Then we come to the question of falsehood. There are certain Societies which subscribe large sums of money, and circulate a paper, to influence public opinion against these Acts. They have collected £8,000, which has been spent in a printing office in Paternoster Row, which circulated leaflets, &c., containing the grossest misrepresentations. It is deplorable that this should be done, and I shall make that clear to the House in a minute that it is so. Now, Sir, there are a great many of these Societies. I shall only refer to two of them. There is the Society called the "City of London Society," for the repeal of these Acts. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) has fallen so low as to belong to it; but it is presided over by Mr. Samuel Morley. I am only sorry for Mr. Samuel Morley's reputation in presiding over this Society. In a pamphlet issued by this Society called Seven Reasons for the Repeal of these Acts, on page 5, is to be found this paragraph—
    "Who can wonder that women, driven to desperation, should have again and again terminated their lives when confronted with such a tribunal, and that maidens, innocent of a knowledge of the very terms used for their entanglement, have been placed on the registers of infamy, deprived of their natural liberty and
    1918
    subjected to the outrage perpetrated under the Acts."
    And the word "maidens" is in italics. Now, I called the attention of Mr. Samuel Morley to that statement some years ago, and asked him in a letter why he gave the sanction of his name to a statement which was absolutely false? ["No!"] I say absolutely false. It was proved to be false. I appeal to my right hon. Friend whether that is not so; whether it was not, because there was no evidence given before the Committee in support of these allegations. I wrote to Mr. Morley on this matter, and pointed out that his reputation depended upon his inquiry into it; but he wrote me a letter to say that he had not time to attend to me. Although my letter was written in 1883, Mr. Morley has never withdrawn that statement, and it is now published and sold in this paper—in fact, I bought this copy only a few days ago. Well, I say that this is a most misleading statement, and is published and circulated throughout the constituencies, and the minds of the electors, who do not take the trouble to investigate matters, are thereby influenced. On the Committee connected with the publication of this statement there are the names of a number of eminent men. I am not going to read them; but there are Queen's Counsel, Members of Parliament, Aldermen of the City of London, and others, and it is perfectly scandalous that those who are responsible for these things, by allowing the use of their names, do not take the trouble to see that the statements sent out are true. Then I will take another Society. It is called the Working Men's National League, and it has a National Council, upon which appears the name of the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst). The names of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Joseph Arch), and the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Durham (Mr. William Crawford), also appear upon the Council. Of course, I have no objection to Members of Parliament and others forming themselves into these Societies if they will only stick to the truth in what they publish; but they ought not to publish false and scandalous publications which are wholly devoid of truth. The Working Men's League have published a

    1919
    pamphlet giving a selection of cases illustrating the working of the Contagious Diseases Acts, no less than 14 of these cases are enumerated; and I say with deliberation, as a Member of this House, without hesitation, and without the fear of contradiction, that every one of those 14 cases was absolutely false. There was only one of them brought before the Committee. That was the first case that was investigated by the Committee, and the judgment of the Committee against it is to be found in the Report. When it was found that the first case would not hold water, the other 13 were not brought before the Committee; and yet the Working Men's League, upon the Council of which there are three Members of Parliament, continue to publish this scandalous publication, which is a disgrace to anyone of common honesty and propriety. I do not see the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst) in his place; but if he were I should make an appeal to him, either to withdraw from the Society or to withdraw the circulation of this pamphlet, or, at all events, if he will not do that, that he will give up his place in the Government. If the Members of Her Majesty's Government are to mix themselves up in these matters, it seems to me to be a very bad day for us, and they ought at least to be careful that nothing is circulated in their names. I wish to show how these things are done. I had the honour to be selected by these Societies as the one candidate they wished especially to put out of Parliament; I was fixed upon as the victim, because of the honest and independent support that I have given to these Acts. Accordingly these Societies spent a large portion of the £8,000 they had collected from the public in trying to turn me out of my seat. They sent down six lecturers to my constituency, who remained there six months; there were three males and three females. I will give you the names. There was Mrs. Ormiston Chant, Mrs. Stewart, and Miss Whitehead; and the males were Mr. Marshall—the notorious Mr. Marshall—Mr. Wynn, and Mr. W. Morkey, and they endeavoured by the circulation of these false publications to poison the minds of the labouring classes against me. I do not know how much money they spent in contravention of the spirit
    1920
    of the Corrupt Practices Act; but they plastered the walls with expensive posters, and made a house to house canvass, and distributed many of these publications in order to influence the opinion of the electors. But I held meetings also, and stated facts, and the result was that they had to retire in shame, while I was returned by a majority nearly double that which I had the honour to receive at the previous election. So it would be everywhere if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had only had the courage to stick up for these Acts; but they will not meet this question as it ought to be met, and they prefer to gain the votes of a small, fanatical, and superstitious, but very active section of society who opposed these Acts. These people are very active, and are continually presenting Petitions to Parliament; but the average elector does not take the trouble to inquire into the benefits of the Acts. It seems to me that if we are going to argue this question from sentiments of sentimentality, the very first thing that we ought to do is to get at the truth. These misrepresentations ought not to be made, and if a man made them he ought to be repudiated by his fellow-men in whatever position in this House he sits. The system, of which this legislation forms the basis, presents the only means by which to effect the relief of a certain portion of suffering humanity. I do not believe these unfortunate women can be relieved in any other way. I was surprised by the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). I know his difficulties, because he is a Scotch Member, and he has to undergo what they call "heckling;" but I was surprised that he could have got up in this House and suggested that the hospital work hitherto provided for out of the public funds might be continued by local effort. The suggestion was worthless, for the experiment has been tried and has failed. There are only two hospitals which are retained by the Government—Chatham and Colchester—the others are all subsidized; but how can you throw on Chatham the expense of a hospital which receives women from Dover, Sheerness, and many other places. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that

    1921
    the Local Government Board, or anybody else, could throw the burden of these people coming from a distance on to a particular locality? The only Institution we have in this great Metropolis can hardly make both ends meet, and it is merely kept on its legs by the grant it gets from the Government. To show the good moral effect of the system which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to bring to an end, I may mention that the large hospital at Chatham alone in 14 years has reclaimed 835 women; and yet this humane Government, which is under the thumb of the Radical Party below the Gangway, are going to do away with the means by which such good results have been brought about, in order to catch a few votes at the elections. I shall move now, Sir, that this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months; I do so not only in consideration of what I have advanced—I do so because I am not shaken in my faith; and I, for one, am not influenced by the mere fact of the health of the Army and Navy, but for the welfare of these unfortunate women.
    MR. PULESTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not desire to put the House to the trouble of a division, and I do not desire to detain the House at this late hour. What I want to ask the Government is whether they will get some thoroughly reliable evidence as to the state of these hospitals? In my constituency they are in a state of consternation. In consequence of the conflicting statements which have been made in regard to the intentions of the Government, they are in a state of chaos, and there is a state of things existing there at present such as has never been known before. Their streets have changed entirely, and it is due to the country that we should know what is going to happen. It is impossible to believe that right hon. Gentlemen who, a few months ago, expressed themselves so strongly in favour of these beneficial Acts—it is impossible to believe that in so short a time there has been anything to change their opinion. On the contrary, we had from the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) the most startling evidence in support of these Acts, and we had previously the support of the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right
    1922
    hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one could have been more eloquent than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the maintenance of these Acts, and nothing could have been stronger in their support than the Report of the Committee which for years took such pains to thresh out this matter. But the Acts have been suspended, and I care not very much whether this Bill is carried or not, because the Acts are practically a dead letter; and therefore it is hardly worth while—it would be absurd—to trouble the House with anything like a long debate and a division on the matter. The Acts are to be repealed, by yielding to the clamour of a maudlin sentimentality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and his Friends have very little knowledge of the way in which these Acts are worked in garrison towns. In places like Devon-port and Portsmouth, the result of the beneficent working of these Acts has been exceedingly good, not only from a hygienic point of view, but in preventing juvenile prostitution, and in making the towns decent to live in; and surely the almost universal opinion of the population of those places should have some weight. Surely we are entitled to the same credit for sincerity as we are willing to give to those who oppose us; but, instead of this, leaflets are circulated of the most scandalous kind by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) and some other Members and their clients who know absolutely nothing whatever about the matter. I wish to say—in reference to the Societies which publish these statements and the publications which they issue—that, in my opinion, no more honourable man ever sat in this House, and I am sure that no one would more sincerely regret any inaccurate statement, than Mr. Samuel Morley, and I regret the remarks just made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) in reference to that gentleman. Before sitting down, I wish to appeal to the Government to give us some assurance that will satisfy the people of the districts, such as the one I represent, to avoid the cruelty which will arise from the policy which has been advocated here in regard to the hospitals, and that they will save us from that by dealing with the matter in the spirit of the

    1923
    Amendment which the hon. Baronet (Sir John Kennaway) moved the other day. It simply called for the maintenance of the hospitals, not only in the interests of the Service, but in the interests of the garrison towns, the military, and the younger members of those districts—the young women particularly—and I think the Government ought to state plainly what they mean to do in regard to those local hospitals.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this debate. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has practically admitted that this matter is already decided, and he said that he did not think it worth while to divide the House. I rise principally to make an explanation to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) as to the time at which this Bill has been brought on. I entirely concur with him that it would be exceedingly discreditable if engagements entered into in this House were not properly carried out. Well, the Government did all they could to adhere to the understanding that was entered into. The engagement was that we should adjourn the other debate at 11 o'clock, or thereabouts, and we have honourably fulfilled that engagement as far as we are able. Everybody knows that the Government cannot control the Business of the House when an hon. Member is speaking; and it will be in the recollection of the House that at 11 o'clock an hon. and gallant Member was speaking, and his speech was prolonged by circumstances over which we had no control. After he had finished, we took a division, and then this Bill was immediately brought on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that we did all in our power. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was very severe on the attitude which the Government have adopted in reference to this Bill. I think he will admit, as well as the hon. Member who has just spoken has admitted, that this matter has been settled
    1924
    by the previous action of the House, and by the strong opinion entertained upon it, not only on this side of the House, but on the other side also. This, I think, is clearly shown by the conspicuous absence of every Member of the late Cabinet from the Front Bench opposite. I do not see a single Member of the late Cabinet in his place to oppose the repeal of these Acts. Well, I have, therefore, no hesitation in stating in a single sentence what are the grounds on which I think the repeal of these Acts is necessary. Two years ago, or three years ago, by an overwhelming majority in this House—which no attempt has been made to reverse in either this or the late Parliament—the practical operation of these Acts was suspended. Well, Sir, it is a bad thing, and I think everyone will be of that opinion, to keep alive Statutes which you do not intend, and which, in point of fact, you cannot bring into operation. That is the reason why these Acts are to be repealed, almost without opposition. There is one question which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) desired me to allude to—that is with regard to the hospitals. If he will examine the Estimates for the present year, he will see that the Government have considered what was best to be done in the circumstances by allowing the Votes to remain in the Estimates until the matter has been further considered. I think that is a sufficient answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. Broadhurst.)
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES BILL.

    [BILL 120.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Compensation to persons for damage by riot).
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to move to leave out all the words after the word "mentioned," in order to insert—
    "For such injury, stealing, or destruction, shall be paid out of the Metropolitan Police Rate and the City of London Police Rate con

    1925
    jointly in such proportions as the annual values of the property liable and subject to those rates respectively bear to each other."
    By the courtesy of the City Remembrancer, I have received to-day a communication which informs me that this matter has been brought before the Court of Common Council, and that they admit the justice of my Amendment. He also informs me that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) will be prepared to make a statement of that kind. As the City admits the justice of the claim, I think I may simply confine myself to moving the Amendment of which I have given Notice.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: The hon. Member has rather anticipated what I was going to say to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) was good enough to speak to me upon the subject yesterday, so I brought it before the Court of Common Council to day, and pressed it upon them. The argument I used to them was this. In one sense we had no connection with the riots, as we pay the cost of our own police; but I thought that this was a calamity upon one part of the Metropolis, and the damage done ought to be borne by the whole of London. I do not think that the richest part of the Metropolis should refuse to pay its share towards the damage; and, therefore, I urged upon them that we ought to consent to this Amendment, and I am glad to say that with great unanimity they concurred with my view. Under these circumstances, I have great pleasure in saying, on behalf of the Corporation, that we heartily concur in this Amendment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I think that great credit is due to the Corporation of London, and especially to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, for the way in which they have met this Amendment.
    MR. BAGGALLAY: I should like to say a few words on behalf of South London. It is felt that the whole Metropolis should bear the rate; but I was in hopes that the
    1926
    right hon. Gentleman would have seen his way to have relieved South London to some extent in this matter. But I understand that he is unable to do so. Considering, however, that all the damage was done in the West End, and that the people who did it undoubtedly came from the East End, and considering the geographical line provided by the Thames separating these parts of London from the South, I think I am entitled to renew my protest on behalf of South London.
    MR. CHILDERS: I am afraid I cannot consent to what the hon. Member suggests, and I cannot admit his contention that all the rioters came from the East End alone.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CHILDERS: At the end of the clause, I beg to move the following Amendment:—
    "Where it is shown, in manner provided by this Act, that such person received, by way of insurance or otherwise, any sum to recoup him for such injury, stealing, or destruction, the compensation otherwise payable to him under this Act shall, if exceeding such sum, be reduced by the amount thereof, and in any other case shall not be paid, and the payer of such sum shall be entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of the sum so paid as if he had suffered the said injury, stealing, or destruction, and any policy of insurance given by such payer shall continue in force as if he had made no such payment."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Appeal as to award or refusal of compensation).
    On Motion of Mr. CHILDERS, the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 12, leave out "one hundred and thirty;" lines 17 and 18, leave out "shall include all costs," and insert—
    "May, if the appeal succeeds, be increased by such reasonable sum for costs as the arbitrator thinks just."
    Line 29, at end, add—
    "And in case of such arbitrator dying or becoming incapable to act before he has made an award upon all appeals under this Act, another arbitrator shall be appointed in manner aforesaid, and the appeals shall be determined in the same manner as if he had been the arbitrator originally appointed, and so on as often as occasion requires."
    MR. KIMBER: There are on the Estimates sums amounting to

    1927
    £6,800 for the salaries of gentlemen who are appointed to perform the duties of Referees or Arbitrators under the existing law. I point out that an Arbitrator is a Judge, and that the Court of an Arbitrator is a Legal Court, and competent to deal with cases for which another Court is proposed to be erected by this clause. The proposal I have to make is that one of the four Referees constituted by the Judicature Act of 1873 as permanent officials attached to the High Court of Justice for trying questions of fact should be Arbitrator. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after the word "receiver," leave out to end of Clause, and insert "he may in the prescribed time and manner require his claim to be referred. When the prescribed time shall have elapsed, all such cases shall be brought by the police receiver before a Judge of the High Court of Justice sitting in Chambers, who thereupon shall as of course make an order referring such cases to one of the Official Referees or one of the Masters of the said Court, who shall hear and dispose of the same; and such reference shall have all such incidents and consequences as if each case included in such order were a cause or matter referred to him under the provisions of the Judicature Act, 1873, in which such aggrieved person was plaintiff and the said police receiver defendant."—(Mr. Kimber.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I am obliged to say that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wandsworth. I understand that the hon. Member introduces this Amendment in the interests of economy; but I think that a little consideration will show that it would not prove to be so in effect. The object of the clause is to enable a claimant, if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Police Receiver, to appeal to the Arbitrator, who will have power to deal with the whole of the subject-matter. The Arbitrator will be selected by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he will be presumably a man of business. I do not wish to say anything in disparagement of the Official Referees; but I think it would be proper, nevertheless, to say that they have not received the very highest amount of commendation. Each attendance before the Referee would not only involve expense, but the parties, if
    1928
    they chose, could insist on going into the Court of Referees with solicitors and counsel, and, in short, conduct the matter in the most expensive and litigious way. The hon. Member will see that the clause provides that the Arbitrator shall have it in his power to determine the manner in which the case shall be heard; and, if he is a prudent business man, I think he will say—"Let me have a statement of the claim, and the answer of the Police Authorities to it." I think the Amendment of the hon. Member would lead to great expense, and possibly prolonged litigation.
    MR. KIMBER: I do not think the Attorney General understands my point. My suggestion is that the officers already appointed would have precisely the same functions as are given to the Arbitrator by this Bill. It seems to me a waste of means, and an unnecessary burden on the Metropolis, to set up this Arbitrators' Court, when we have already four Tribunals who can deal with these matters.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Of course, this Bill refers to the riot of the 8th of February, and the Arbitrator to be appointed under it is merely to deal with cases arising out of that particular riot?
    MR. CHILDERS: It has only reference to that riot.
    Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
    Clause 5 (Payment of compensation and expenses, and raising of money).
    On Motion of Mr. CHILDERS, the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 30, after "out of," insert "moneys in his hands on account of;" line 31, leave out "fund;" line 35, leave out from "raised," to the end of line 39, and insert—
    "As part of the Metropolitan Police Rate and as an addition to the limit otherwise authorised for such rate, and no portion of the said amount shall be contributed by the Treasury;"
    line 41, leave out from "shall," to the end of the line.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I have one question to ask the Home Secretary with regard to this clause. Has the Police Receiver to go to the houses where

    1929
    damage has been done to ascertain the damage, and then report to the Arbitrator?
    MR. CHILDERS? NO, Sir; that is not the construction. The clause provides that those who think they are entitled to compensation for damage shall state it; and if there is no contest about the facts, I do not expect there will be any difficulty.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: But, in the case of the recent riot, the police have been round to the shopkeepers to ask them to assess their damages. Are we to understand that the rich as well as the poor are to be paid money they say they have lost on account of this riot?
    MR. CHILDERS: They will be entitled to receive what they claim, if the police are satisfied that their claims are right. The right hon. Baronet speaks of the poor who have sustained loss, and asks if the rich are also to be compensated? We make no such distinction; but I do hope that claims will not be set up for broken windows.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: The police have to ask individuals what they have lost on each occasion. If the tradesmen in Lambeth return their loss, say, at £5, £10, or £15, we maintain that, although they have lost a very small sum, they are equally entitled to be indemnified for their loss as claimants who live in South Audley Street.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I think the question of the right hon. Baronet has been satisfactorily answered. I point out that this Bill is to meet cases of injury received from persons taking part in a riot; and that there has not, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, been any such riot on the other side of Westminster Bridge, and that, therefore, there can be no claim.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be argued on this clause. Clause 2 has been passed, which says what compensation and under what circumstances compensation may be given.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I am speaking of the Police Receiver.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of compensation cannot be raised on this clause at all.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I only want to draw the attention of the Government to the line—
    "The police receiver shall pay out of the Metropolitan Police Fund all compensation payable under this Act..…"
    MR. CHILDERS: This clause does not refer to the question of compensation.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Definitions).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 14, to leave out from the word "police," to the end of the Clause, and add "rate means the rate authorised to be levied for raising that proportion of the sum required for defraying the expenses of the Metropolitan Police Force which can be raised by a rate. An empty house or shop shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been occupied by the owner."—(Mr. Childers.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    An hon. MEMBER: I wish to move that the words referring to the empty houses be omitted.
    MR. CHILDERS: We could not agree to that alteration of the Amendment. If these words were omitted, who would be responsible for damage done to houses that were empty?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 10.]
  (Mr. Mayne, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Sheehy.)
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 10.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. SEXTON, in rising to move, in page 1, after Clause 2, to insert the following New Clause:—
    (Definition of demesne, demesne lands, and home farm.)
    "The expression 'demesne' or 'demesne lands' in the said Acts and in this Act shall, for all the purposes of the said Acts and of this Act, be held to mean land immediately surrounding and ordinarily occupied with the mansion or other dwelling-house in which the owner usually resides; and the expression 'home farm' shall not be held to apply to more than one farm occupied by the same owner within the area of any sanitary district,"
    said: By the Acts of 1883 and 1885, demesne lands were excluded from the operation of those Acts. Cases have arisen in which the landlord has successfully resisted the claim to build cottages

    1931
    on portions of his land by declaring them to be "demesne lands." I am under the impression that when Parliament legislated on this question in 1883, it had no idea that the Act would be so worked as to enable landlords to throw out every claim made upon them. I am willing that any interpretation should be given to the term "demesne;" but, Sir, I know of a case in Ireland where, when a proposal was made to build a cottage on land in the occupation of the landlord, he called the land "home farm," and when a proposal was made to build on another portion of the land, he called that "home farm" also. I am under the impression that there can be only one home farm, and I think that the term should not be held to apply to more than one. There are 160 sanitary districts and 32 counties in Ireland, and therefore it will be seen that the authorities could not build on more than one property owned by the same owner. I beg to move the clause in my name.
    New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    COLONEL WARING: I have no wish whatever to prevent the carrying out of the intentions which, I presume, underlie this clause, although I think they are unfortunately chosen. I happen to know many instances in which demesne lands are said to be lands immediately surrounding and occupied with the house. But I know two cases in my own county in which the landlord has a house on one side of the street, town, or village in which he resides, and where the demesne lies on the opposite side. Under the clause of the hon. Member that detached portion would not be held to be demesne land. I cannot think that that was the intention with which the clause was framed. On the question of home farm, I think a similar objection would lie. I am sure that none of us wish that any door should be left open for such action as the hon. Member for Sligo has decribed; but I know that my own home farm has a detached field, which lies between it and the demesne, and I think it would be a great hardship if that should be held not to be demesne land. I think, therefore, it would not be desir
    1932
    able to add this clause to the Bill, as it at present stands, for the reason that it would produce an effect not contemplated by the House.
    An hon. MEMBER: The putting of these two stipulations together may often lead to difficulty, because it will frequently happen that a mansion is surrounded by demesne lands which are let away. I would, therefore, propose that the words "ordinarily occupied" should be left out, and the words "immediately surrounding" should be left standing. I know a case where the mansion is surrounded by a garden fence, the land being let away.
    MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the two hon. Members, that if they do not object to the principle they should allow the clause to be read a second time, and then should move Amendments to it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    MR. BRODRICK: The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has shown most conclusively that great hardship would be done, against the intention of the clause, if the words "immediately surrounding" were left in. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has shown equally conclusively that the words "ordinarily occupied," in cases where the demesne has been let for grazing purposes, will operate in a manner which is not desired. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) presses his clause in this form, injustice and hardship will be done that I am sure is not contemplated by the House—injustice and hardship that were guarded against in the last Acts by no definition of this kind being inserted. I would venture to remind the hon. Gentleman that the cases he has spoken of, of landlords taking advantage of these provisions to defeat the objects of the Act, were not brought before the Select Committee, which went exhaustively into this part of the subject. In the same way as to "home farm," though landlords might take advantage of having several farms in their hands, the phrase "sanitary district" is a very wide one. I hope the hon. Member will not press the clause.
    MR. CHANCE: I wish to point out a few errors into which hon.

    1933
    Gentlemen have just fallen. In the first place, land that is not "ordinarily occupied" would not come under the definition of demesne land. One hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would be a hard thing to deprive the landlord of a part of a home farm, because it might not be immediately beside the dwelling-house. A home farm may be a couple of miles from the dwelling-house. Not a single site has been taken from landlords, and not a single piece of land has been taken from property in their own occupation up to the present; and if any clause can give protection against that in the future, it is this clause that hon. Members are now contesting. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Brodrick) pointed out that a landlord may have a number of unoccupied farms in his possession. Every farm from which a tenant has been evicted does not become a home farm for that reason. They are distinctly not home farms for that reason. [Mr. BRODRICK: Who said they were?] The hon. Gentleman pointed to the difficulty that would arise from the landlord having a number of home farms, and said that he might take one or two, or more, farms temporarily. Those, distinctly, would not be home farms, and on that point I think the hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) is well-advised in endeavouring to define demesne land. There is no definition of it in the Land Acts, in the Acts of 1870 or 1881, or in the Labourers Acts. There have been various judgments and decisions on the point already in the Land Court, and I should have thought it would have been much better to leave the decision of the matter to that process, and to leave those things without definition. The more important part of the clause, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is, no doubt, that as to home farms; but I must say that, after having carefully examined that part of the subject, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that there is no objection to be taken to it on principle. There are some imperfections in the wording which may be remedied later on.
    MR. GIBSON: I must admit I quite agree with some of
    1934
    the observations I have heard in regard to home farms. I think a hardship might be occasioned, and I will tell hon. Members why. The clause says—
    "The expression 'home farm' shall not be held to apply to more than one farm occupied by the same owner within the area of any sanitary district."
    There might be two very small farms, or two farms of very different areas, and it is perfectly obvious that the interests of the landlord in them must be quite different. One landlord might have one large home farm, and that would be safe; whereas another might have two small ones of only a quarter the acreage, and they would be affected by this provision. I agree that the Amendment would be likely to cause a great deal of litigation. As I understand the hon. Member for Sligo, his objection to the word "demesne" arises from the fact that a number of sham demesnes have been started. But that is a question which can always be raised on appeal, and will always be easy to get rid of; and, on the other hand, there are cases where real demesnes have been decided not be demesnes at all. The very words which are used in this clause may have the effect, in many cases, of causing demesne lands to be treated as other than demesne lands. Then what is the meaning of the words "immediately surrounding?" Do they mean 50 acres, or 500 acres, or only a small garden? It behoves us, in view of possible litigation, to say what is the amount of land, and what the amount of contiguity. [Mr. SEXTON: "Ordinarily occupied" gives the explanation.] I agree that "ordinarily occupied" forms part of the legal definition of demesne, for when a man ceases to ordinarily occupy land the land ceases to be his demesne. I only make these observations in a friendly spirit towards the Bill. The attitude of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this Bench, I take it, should be to simplify the Bill and make it a fair and proper measure. I do not wish to offer opposition; but I see the possibility of great unfairness coming about unless some proper definition as to the extent of a home farm be given.
    MR. BRODRICK: I beg to move to amend the clause, by leaving out the words—

    1935
    "Expression 'demesne' or 'demesne lands' in the said Acts and in this Act shall, for all the purposes of the said Acts and of this Act, he held to mean land immediately surrounding and ordinarily occupied with the mansion or other dwelling-house in which the owner usually resides; and the."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "expression," to the words "home farm."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SEXTON: I feel obliged to resist this Amendment. I have received representations from various parts of Ireland, which lead me to believe that the words the hon. Member wishes to leave out are necessary. I am told that on these two pretexts, that land is demesne land, or home farm land, landlords have been able to keep land out of the operation of the Act, and it has had to be taken from the tenants who possess very small farms. I do not know any such case as that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gibson) put. Home farms are very substantial. They are conducted on the system of ground culture; and I am sure the clause would not be a hardship in connection with any legitimate home farms. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it would promote litigation; but so ingenious a lawyer as the hon. and learned Gentleman would no doubt be able to promote litigation on anything. I think, however, that these words "immediately surrounding" and "ordinarily occupied" would enable the Local Government Board, or anyone else, to decide what is demesne land and what is not. My impression, considering the present state of the land interest in Ireland, is that if the House agrees to these words, the landlords will be found to raise no objection, and the result will be to give a great impulse to the Act.
    MR. PLUNKET: I understand the position of the Government is, that they agree with the reasonableness of the view of my hon. and learned Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Gibson) as to the inadvisability of endeavouring to define demesne lands, but that they do not agree to the view held on this side of the House as to the second part of the clause, the object of which is to define home farms. As to
    1936
    the hon. Member for Sligo, his objection applies to the opposition raised to the second part of the clause. [Mr. SEXTON: I object to the Amendment entirely.] The Amendment only deals with the proposal in this clause to attempt further to define what "demesne land" is; and I must say that, so far as my opinion goes, I entirely agree with what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend beside me, that any attempt to pass a hasty definition of this kind to vary the law as it stands on existing decisions as to the meaning of "demesne land," is much more likely to lead to further confusion than to facilitate the operation of this Act. As I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, it is not to enable landlords to frustrate the working of the Act, but to prevent litigation by confirming the law on the subject of the definition of demesne lands. I hope, therefore, that the Government will support the hon. Gentleman in his Amendment. He only proposes to deal with the first part of the clause now inserted in the Bill, and, as I understood it, his view was the one we all adopted when we assented to the clause.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I agree that a difficulty arises on the second part of the clause, and is not affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member. The difficulties of the construction of a definition of demesnes in the clause are so great that I feel sure that litigation will be greatly increased, instead of being diminished, by allowing the clause to stand in its present form. I will not detain the House longer than to point out one instance. The clause might be construed as affecting the demesne of an officer on foreign service, on the ground that that officer had no residence there. I think, therefore, it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to support the Amendment to this part of the clause.
    MR. CHANCE: I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is slightly at sea as to the legal meaning of the word "reside." Residence does not require a man to physically occupy a certain spot. The law is fully satisfied if the owner keeps an occupied house on the land on which he is said to reside, and keeps the land in his possession. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the acceptance of the first part

    1937
    of this clause, I would ask him to take legal advice on the matter and to reconsider his positon.
    MR. DILLON: I should like to say a word in reference to the opposition to this Amendment. First of all, what strikes me as a strong argument is the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Gibson). He said, or led us to believe, that great uncertainty exists in Ireland as to what is demesne land. He says appeals have been made to the Court, and that in his own experience land had been declared not to be demesne land which really was demesne land, and that land had been declared to be demesne land which really was not so. Well, what we want is something that will be a guide to the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is a strong argument in favour of the proposed definition. His statement is that at present the definition is in a state of fog. It would seem, from his remarks, that no one knows what is demesne land and what is not. It must be remembered that we have Local Government Board Inspectors going about the country who have to make Reports; and I think it will be admitted that this clause would be a very plain and simple guidance to them, and I think the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has been completely removed by my hon. Friend. We know that a person who ordinarily or usually resides at a certain place means the person who keeps up the residence or establishment in such a condition that if he chooses to come and reside there he can do so. In Ireland, as Irish Members are aware, there are large tracts of land which are continuous of the land which is really the demesne of the landlord, but which are not used for the purposes of demesnes, but are let out by public auction from year to year for the purposes of grazing. I cannot see why this House should desire to allow these men to set up a claim to such lands, and prevent their herds or agricultural labourers from having proper residences thereon.
    MR. J. H. A MACDONALD: I rise—because there is a strong desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen who represent Ireland to have a workable
    1938
    clause made out—to express an unbiassed opinion. I can imagine no words which could lead to greater difficulty than these—
    "The expression 'demesne' or 'demesne lands' in the said Acts and in this Act shall, for all the purposes of the said Acts and of this Act, be held to mean land immediately surrounding and ordinarily occupied with the mansion or other dwelling-house in which the owner usually resides."
    No words would lead to greater uncertainty and dispute; and I am the more confirmed in that view from having heard the views of hon. Members who have spoken, and particularly those of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. What does he propose? Why, that the clause is not to include lands that are regularly held for the purposes of grazing. Whatever may be the case in Ireland, if such a thing were passed for England or Scotland, you would find cases where the grass up to the doors of the dwelling-house or mansion of the demesne islet annually for the purposes of grazing, and is let for that purpose though it is part of the demesne. A proprietor may not choose to work the grazing of his parks, and, therefore, lets it; but the parks are none the less parts of the demesne. The proprietor lets them because it is convenient for him to do so, and because, though he does not work it himself, he desires the grazing to be carried on. Every word of explanation that has been given by hon. Members in favour of this clause, and every one of the instances they have adduced, simply confirms me in the opinion that any attempt to define these demesnes will lead to greater difficulty than could be experienced without such definitions. That being the case, I would, acting on my own independent judgment in this matter, support Her Majesty's Government if they continue to support the Amendment. I am very certain that it would be much better to leave the thing as it stands than to attempt, in this rough-and-ready way, to give a definition of this matter that is so difficult to define. It seems to me that if we are to put into a clause of this kind words giving definitions based on individual cases from one part of Ireland or another part of Ireland, there will be no end to the thing, and you will never have a clear definition.
    MR. SEXTON: I desire to disabuse the mind of the right hon. and learned

    1939
    Gentleman who has just spoken. The letter to which I referred, and to which he no doubt alludes when he speaks of individual cases, was written by a person who lives in Ireland. Well, no doubt, he is bound to live in some individual place; but this gentleman is one of wide experience. It is strange that words which are approved by lawyers at one time are objected to by lawyers at other times. These words that I propose were in the Act of 1883 as an alternative definition; but that fact does not seem to preclude Irish lawyers from raising a fog as to the meaning of the word "demesne." It is exceedingly strange that words drawn by the most eminent lawyers in Ireland should be exposed to the contempt of one of the most eminent lawyers from Scotland. As to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I would ask him if he really has an objection to the first part of this clause? He spoke of officials on active service—the Governor General of Canada and the Viceroy of India, for instance—being liable to have their demesnes interfered with by reason of their not being physically resident in their mansions; but in order to overcome the difficulty, if any exists, we might say "the owner's mansion or dwelling-house," leaving out the words "in which the owner usually resides." All we want to provide is that the demesne lands shall be lands that can be fairly said to surround the dwelling-house, whether the owner lives there at the moment or not. This proposal, I think, would get rid of the difficulty as to the Governor ral of Canada and the Viceroy of India.
    MR. SHEEHY: I hope the objection to the Amendment will not be pressed. The landlords seem to desire to press their interests in this case to an inordinate extent, for they not merely want to have demesne lands in possession of occupiers, but they want power to include in demesne lands any land to which they may choose to give the name "demesne land." ["No, no!"] Excuse me, but that is so. A landlord may have three or four demesne lands, and although he resides only upon one, he desires to stick by all the rest, and have them preserved to his interests as against the interests of the people at large. I would urge upon the Government
    1940
    that they should not stand by their objection to this clause, because the landlords, although before the new electorate they do not like to put themselves against the labourers, are really against them at heart. They are trying to do indirectly that which, if directly questioned upon it, they would altogether disclaim. They want to preserve their demesnes and properties to themselves in the future as they have done in the past. The landlord has a perfect right to the lands in his possession, no doubt; but he urges his claim over the border when he asks the House to say that all lands which he may choose to call in his own occupation, but which, as a matter of fact, he is drawing a rental from, may be exempted from the operation of this Bill, as though he were actually farming them himself.
    MR. PYNE: I rise on this occasion to say a few words as a tenant farmer. I must say that the last Labourers Act worked very badly, in so far as that in the Union in which I am a Guardian one of the largest landowners—namely, the Duke of Devonshire, or, rather, his agent—wrote to me to say that he objected to give any Board of Guardians half-an-acre in fee. I may say that I have found that the landlords all along the line have refused in every sort of way to grant this land, and have been encouraged by the Local Government Board to put all sorts of obstacles in the way of the working of the Labourers Act. Not only do they want to secure what they may call their demesne lands, but they also want to secure to themselves their home farms. A home farm, to them, is every bit of land from which they have power to evict a tenant. It seems to me that nothing save real demesnes should be excluded from this Bill.
    MR. GIBSON: I wish to correct a mistake into which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has fallen. He says the words he proposes to insert are those wherein the Act of 1883 has an alternative definition for the word demesne; but if the hon. Member will refer to the Act, he will see that that it is not the case.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: What the hon. Member for Sligo objects to is that the landlords should have the right to claim a multiplicity of home farms.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 98: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further proceeding on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Johnston.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I hope the hon. Member will, at all events, allow us to finish this clause.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Then I will withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I would throw out this suggestion for the consideration of the hon. Gentleman opposite—whether it would not be well to leave the remaining part of the clause as it stands, so that it will read—
    "The expression 'home farm' shall not be held to apply to more than one farm occupied by the same owner within the area of any sanitary district;"
    and then to add—
    "except in the case of two farms being occupied as aforesaid, neither of which exceeds [blank] acres."
    MR. SEXTON: I certainly must say that that is an extraordinary proposal. One landlord may have a very big home farm, and another landlord may have two very small ones, as has been suggested by an hon. Member below me, and that would enable the owner of the large one to escape. If one demesne will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman's purpose in one case, why not in this?
    MR. GIBSON: The clause will require some further amendment. The question is which farm is to be the home farm if a man has two larger than the stipulated limit. We should have words in the clause to specify that.
    SIR CHARES RUSSELL: Both will be home farms if they do not exceed the stipulated area.
    MR. GIBSON: But suppose one does exceed it, and the other does not, from which is the land to be taken under this Bill? That will have to be provided for in the Amendment. It might not be a very pleasant thing to allow the Sanitary Authority an option in the matter.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity would have more point if he had looked into the existing
    1942
    Acts. By the Act of last year it is provided that when a site is not acceptable to the landlord he can offer one some-whore else. If he has two farms and does not want to give a site in one he can give it in the other.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I would propose to fill the blank with the figure "30" acres.
    MR. SEXTON: Take "25." The Inspectors of the Local Government Board said that the size of the farm should not exceed 20 acres.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member substitute 25 acres?
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Yes.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "except in the case of two farms being occupied as aforesaid neither of which exceeds twenty-five acres."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. BRODRICK: I should object to that limitation. In my opinion the limitation should not be less than 100 acres; but the Government have struck a mean between the two. I am intimately acquainted with cases where immediately one of two home farms would become available were the limit of 25 acres to be accepted. I hope the Government will stand firm to their determination, which is a fair compromise between the two parties.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The hon. Member speaks as if we were inflicting some tremendous blow upon the landed interest in Ireland. All we are doing is giving landlords an opportunity of doing something for the interest of the whole community. The difference between 25 acres and 50 acres is not very considerable; 100 acres is clearly entirely out of the question.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further proceeding on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Johnston.)
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think we might almost get through with the Bill in a few minutes.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAYNE: I beg to move, in page 5, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clauses:—
    (Compulsory purchase of land.)
    "The jurisdiction vested in the Irish Land Commission by 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885,' in reference to the exercise of compulsory powers of taking land for a term of years shall be, and the same is hereby extended, so as to include the case of compulsory powers of taking land by purchase, and in any such case the sanitary authority, instead of pursuing the course provided in the Lands Clauses Acts, may apply to the Irish Land Commission to do anything which, under the said Acts, or any of them, may be done by an arbitrator, and any judgment delivered upon any such matter by the Irish Land Commission, as defined in section twenty-three of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885,' shall be in all respects as valid and effectual as the award of an arbitrator under the Acts aforesaid."
    I do not think this clause will cause much delay. I propose to confer on the Irish Land Commission power to deal with compulsory purchase cases just as the Act of last year conferred on them power to deal with compulsory leasing cases.
    New Clause,—(Mr. Mayne,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I only want to say one or two words. We have no objection to the hon. Member's object; but grave difficulties may arise from the manner in which the clause is worded. I would propose that he should withdraw the clause, on my undertaking that when the measure reaches "another place," the Government will have a provision drawn up to effect the object he has in view. There are many different points in the clause which will require consideration.
    MR. MAYNE: I will accept that assurance, and withdraw the clause.
    MR. BRODRICK: I hope the hon. Gentleman will provide an appeal to the Land Commission, so that these matters may not be entirely settled by the Sub-Commission.
    MR. SEXTON: Certainly.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SPEAKER: Now the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) can move his Amendment, on page 1, line 21—
    "The expression 'agricultural labourers' shall include hand-loom weavers and fishermen doing agricultural work as aforesaid, and shall also include herdsmen."
    MR. SEXTON: I think that my clause as it stands on the Paper—namely,
    "The expression 'agricultural labourer' in the said Acts and this Act shall mean a man or woman who does agricultural work for hire, at any season of the year, on the land of some other person or persons, and shall include hand-loom weavers and fishermen doing agricultural work as aforesaid, and shall also include herdsmen,"
    down to the word "persons" is already in the Bill. What is now to be done is to leave out all the words after the word "persons." I propose to leave out the words you recited.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the Clause (Definition of agricultural labourer) the words—
    "And shall include hand-loom weavers and fishermen doing agricultural work as aforesaid, and shall also include herdsmen."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. PLUNKET: It is difficult to know what is the effect of the clause, because it has been a good deal altered. As I understand it from the way you put it, Sir, the proposal is to omit the first three lines in the proposed new clause. If the Government thoroughly understand what is being done, well and good. I shall reserve any criticism on that for a clearer atmosphere.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: The difficulty arises from the form in which the clause appears on the Paper. The more convenient course would be to omit the clause as it stands, and substitute new words altogether.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. BRODRICK: As to this clause, at this late hour I shall deal with it as briefly as I can. If hon. Gentlemen will turn to Clause 9, Sub-section (b), I think they will see that this is very important, and has a considerable bearing on the rest of the Bill. I would make an appeal to the hon. Member for Sligo. The matter stands in this way at the present moment. By the Acts of 1883 and 1885, we have successively given to the Sanitary Authority power to build new cottages and attach allotments to them, to take old cottages and repair them, or to take old ones that do not need repair and put allotments to them. This sub-section goes further, and says that where no cottages are taken, and

    1945
    there is no connection with house accommodation, allotments shall be taken and given to the inhabitants of neigh-bouring villages or towns. I wish to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman on this ground. I think this provision will greatly limit the action and usefulness of the Bill. Everyone who has studied the question at all knows that there is great difficulty in getting Sanitary Authorities to put these Acts in force. The difficulty lies in the enormous expenditure of putting up cottages and repairing them, and the consequence is we have been brought almost to a deadlock. The great object of this Bill, as I understand it, is to remove that deadlock; but, side by side with the provisions that will do that, they propose to put in provisions that will give the Sanitary Authorities a very easy means of doing nothing at all for the labourers. They have only to put their eye upon a piece of land, and take it for an allotment, by the simple process of buying it compulsorily, and then they may give up the other portions of the Bill and adopt the dilatory methods which have been described from these Benches. The hon. Member may say it is a foregone conclusion that the Bill will be put into operation advantageously to the labourers; but I submit it is nothing of the kind, and I have no doubt that if the tenant farmers could be appealed to at this moment, they would unanimously go against this sub-section. In my opinion, this is not a landlord's question at all—not in the least. We all know the land hunger that exists in Ireland. The desire to possess land is the strongest feeling of the tenant farmers of Ireland, and you propose to take from them a portion of their property and give it to the labourers. Her Majesty's Government must consider whether this is a fit subject for a new departure altogether, for I am strongly of opinion that if those who labour in the towns of Ireland and are not resident in the country are to have allotments given to them, there is every bit as good reason for the inhabitants of towns in the United Kingdom to have them. If that is to be so, I humbly submit that it is a subject which ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive measure for both countries, and that this is not the time or the opportunity for taking from the tenant farmers by
    1946
    piecemeal what the House spent many days of trouble in giving them in 1881. Although hon. Members may be justified in urging that the labourer has a right to some portion of the soil, they interfere with that right if they interfere with his ability to make his home comfortable. I would point out that this Bill is not yet eight nights old, and the previous Act has certainly not failed, because it has not yet had time to be properly tried. Seeing that the Party opposite are almost pledged to deal comprehensively with this great subject, and seeing also that we have for Ireland the Act of 1885, which gives them greater power than we have in England, I think we ought to stop there. It will be time enough to come here for extended powers when it is found that the Act already in existence has not worked properly. What is to happen to our Legislature if we are to come here, year after year, to amend Acts which have never had an opportunity of being tried? I hope that if the hon. Member adheres to this clause, the Government will give their most serious consideration to this matter, and will bear in mind that the Act of 1881, which has been so often quoted as being the full benefit that it was intended to confer upon the tenant, is interfered with by this Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 25, to leave out sub-section (b.)—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I think the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) was one which, if it was to have been delivered at all, ought to have been delivered long before. It savoured strongly of a second reading speech. He seems to have forgotten that this matter was discussed the other evening in Committee; but on that occasion, which would have been the proper one for him to deal with the subject, he did not lend his presence to the debate, although he eventually dropped in and moved to report Progress. That was his sole contribution to the debate. Up to the present, hon. Members both below and above the Gangway have discussed this matter in a business-like and harmonious way; and I hope that we shall

    1947
    go on discussing it in that manner throughout the future stages of the Bill. What is the hon. Member's objection? He objected to the compulsory power being given. But is it a very great advance to say that what this House has already admitted may be done voluntarily shall, under certain circumstances, be done compulsorily? The hon. Member in his speech attacked the whole Bill; and I should like to know what he meant by saying that this question ought to be put back until the Government were ready to deal with it in a comprehensive way. This matter has been already considered in Committee, and I think that it is one in which the Government ought not to interfere now. Therefore, I shall support the clause.
    MR. PLUNKET: I do not think that my hon. Friend who has opposed this Amendment laid himself open to the somewhat fiery answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a subject on which he has a very strong opinion, and although I know we all ought to be here always, we often find that that is impossible. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that this large subsection is a matter which ought to be dealt with in connection with the larger question of allotments, and not in a Labourers Bill. But under the present circumstances of the House, and as he cannot obtain the support of the Government, I will appeal to him not to go to a division.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I wish emphatically to repudiate the suggestion of the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) that I and those who act with me have any intention of sitting in a Parliament in Ireland.
    MR. BRODRICK: After what has fallen from my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket), I do not wish to take up the time of the House further; but I must dissent from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to my absence on a previous occasion. My absence was due to the misfortune of the Government going out of Committee an hour sooner than they expected.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I rise to Order. The hon. Member has already spoken.
    MR. BRODRICK: I will not contest the matter; but I will point out that the
    1948
    hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) made two speeches a little while ago.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, after Clause 9, at end, to add the following sub-section:—"(c.) Any existing cottage." The object of this Amendment is to get over this difficulty. As the matter stands at present, if a cottage is in good repair the Guardians have no power to buy it; and the difficulty would therefore arise of the labourer having one landlord for his land and another landlord for his cottage, and that may lead to this further difficulty, that supposing the labourer displeases the landlord by taking a cottage from the Guardians, he might raise the rent for the land so as to make the house and land of no use whatever to him. What I want is to enable the Guardians to purchase any existing cottage, as as to obviate this difficulty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, at the end of Clause 9, to insert the following sub-section: — "(c.) Any existing cottage."—(Mr Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am very sorry that, in spite of the ingenious argument of the hon. Member for Sligo, I am unable to support this Amendment, which would create a very great extension of the existing principle. The existing Act punishes the owner of a cottage out of repair by giving the Guardians compulsory powers of purchase; but I cannot see by what principle of equity you can give compulsory powers in the case of a cottage that is in good repair.
    MR. SEXTON: Because the permissive powers are null and void.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The object of the Bill is to provide suitable dwellings for the labourers; but if they have them at present, then I say it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Act to introduce the compulsory principle.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The Chief Secretary has been so attentive to the wishes of Irish Members with regard to this Bill, that I am sorry he is not able to accept this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman regards this matter from an English point of view, and not from the point of view of Ireland, where matters

    1949
    are very different. For my part, I know that this is one of those points which the people of Ireland consider most important, and if it is not accepted the person who will be punished will be the man who puts up a good cottage for himself. If he puts up a bad cottage, then you give him half-an-acre of land; but if he puts up a good one, then you deprive him of the benefits of this Bill.
    MR. CHANCE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a mistake when he suggests that it would be a hardship to take a half-acre of land compulsorily. The owner will get a good price for it, and, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has missed his point. The position will be this, that if the tenant builds a decent cottage and has no land, the Board of Guardians have no power to give him any. The cottage will not be a holding for which a fair rent can be fixed or perpetuity of tenure obtained under the Land Acts; but if the landlord's land is near by, and they give him some of that, the landlord may become so annoyed that he may put on a large rent on the cottage and drive the tenant out.
    MR. SEXTON: I will not press the matter further at this hour of the night; but I feel very strongly that very serious results will happen in regard to the working of the Bill, if this provision is not inserted.
    MR. BRODRIOK: This Amendment would give the Guardians the power to take the whole cottage property of Ireland without any distinction whatever, and without reference to the question of sanitary condition. It is a most extra
    1950
    ordinary principle, and I am glad the Government have not accepted it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 66: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 46.)
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

    CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) [ADVANCES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to make advances, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, to the Fishery Board for Scotland, for the purposes of loans to persons engaged in the fishing industry, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MOTIONS.

    CAPE RACE LIGHTHOUSE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. C. Acland, Bill to provide for the transfer to the Dominion of Canada of the Lighthouse at Cape Race, Newfoundland, and its appurtenances; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. C. Acland, Mr. Mundella, and Mr. Osborne Morgan.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 151.]

    BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Preston Bruce, Bill to amend "The Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act, 1855," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Preston Bruce, Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Mr. Donald Crawford.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 152.]
    House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*; Lunacy (Vacating of Seats)* (47).
Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Fermoy)* (32).

THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS—EVENING OPENING.—RESOLUTION.
LORD DENMAN, in rising to call attention to the two majorities of the House for opening Museums on weekdays and for opening them in the afternoons of Sundays; and to move a Resolution, said, the proposal for opening Museums on week-days was formerly an alternative for opening on Sundays, but had now been carried unanimously, whilst that for opening Museums on Sundays was carried by a small majority. It appeared, however, that the South Kensington Museum was now opened three nights on week-days and lighted up all the year by electric light, and the pictures, including the cartoons of Raphael, were glazed and air excluded from them. A short visit that morning had given him much pleasure, and a short time on Sundays might suffice; whilst the Bishop of Peterborough's invitation to all classes to enter their churches might be acted upon, especially as in the afternoons there was much room in them. The reading room of the British Museum was open till 8 o'clock in summer and winter, to these who had tickets of admission; the other parts were closed according to the duration of daylight. He was sure that Sunday was more happily spent in family visiting than in Museums. His lamented Predecessor would not belong to Brooks's Club, because he said it would prevent his visiting his aged mother. He (Lord Denman) apologized to their Lordships for detaining them; but, as it was the only Notice on the Paper, he might be excused.
Moved to resolve,
"That it would be expedient that museums should be opened by daylight only, and should be closed during the time of afternoon Divine Service, on Sundays."—(The Lord Denman.)
On Question, Resolved in the negative.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.