Sitting of 5 March 1888

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Chichester Division of Sussex, v. The honble. Charles Henry Gordon Lennox, Earl of March, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Copyright (Musical Compositions)* [156]; "Religious Prosecutions Abolition* [158]; Timber Acts (Ireland) Amendment* [157].
Second Reading—East India (Purchase and Construction of Railways) [143], debate adjourned.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS (NOTTINGHAM)—MR. METCALF.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that, at the last election of Poor Law Guardians at Nottingham, Mr. Metcalf was disqualified from serving
  164
  by reason of his having been convicted of felony at the previous Winter Assizes; whether such act of felony was his having caused the death of a passenger in the street below by letting fall from a window of his warehouse a heavy tarpaulin, which was admittedly a pure accident; whether the Judge who tried the case (Mr. Justice Grantham) sentenced him to one day's imprisonment, to date from the opening of the Assizes, whereupon he was immediately released; and, whether, if under the present state of the law he is disqualified for life from serving again, he will take means to have the law altered, by giving the Judges the power of dispensing with the civil disqualifications in such cases as the above, where the felony has been one of a technical nature only, and making such alteration retrospective to provide for this and any similar cases?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Mr. Metcalf was convicted for feloniously killing and slaying Thomas Searcy, and the sentence, as stated in the Question, was one day's imprisonment. Section 18 of 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76 enacts that no person shall be eligible to hold any parish office, or have the management of the poor in any way whatever, who shall have been convicted of felony. The Board are of opinion that Mr. Metcalf, by operation of this provision, is disqualified for again serving the office of Guardian. The Board issued an Order declaring their decision to this effect in order to afford Mr. Metcalf the opportunity of having the Order brought up by certiorari and a decision of a Court obtained on the question. No proceedings, so far as the Board are aware, have been taken with that view. The case is, undoubtedly, a hard one; but I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation that an alteration of the law will be made.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—ANONYMOUS LETTERS TO LADY MATHESON.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster General, If anonymous letters to Lady Matheson, of the Lewis, have been repeatedly posted up for public inspection in the windows and on the walls of the Storno-way Post Office; and, if it is in accord-

  165
  ance with the Post Office Regulations that Her Majesty's Post Offices should be used as placarding establishments to exhibit letters sent to private individuals?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): What the hon. Member, no doubt, refers to was a drawing of a coffin sent to Lady Matheson, which she asked the Postmaster of Stornoway to put up in the window of his office. However infamous the conduct of the writer, the course taken by the Postmaster was irregular, and this has been pointed out to him.

  REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—ROYAL LIVER FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Registrar of Friendly Societies in Scotland, on 30th November, 1870, certified that a Scottish branch of the Royal Liver Friendly Society had been established at Glasgow, and that its Rules were in conformity with law; whether it occurred knowingly, or through inadvertence, that, on 24th September, 1886, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies registered new Rules of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, in which the registered Rules of the Scottish branch were ignored, and the rights and safeguards of its members, numbering in Glasgow alone between 60,000 and 70,000, and paying in subscriptions £32,000 a-year, were subverted; whether he is aware that the Committee of the Scottish branch complain that, under cover of its new Rules, the Central Committee are forcing upon the Scottish branch changes detrimental to the interests of the members of that branch; if the 1886 Rules were certified by the Registrar with a knowledge of their incompatibility with the earlier Rules of the Scottish branch, by what authority he registered and certified them; and, if he certified them through inadvertence, whether any steps will now be taken to secure the observance of the Rules of the Scottish branch of the Society registered in 1870?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: the Rules of 1886 were only registered in obedience to a mandamus from the High Court of Justice, obtained by the Society in September,
  166
  1886. The Registrar is not aware that any rights or safeguards of the Scottish members have been subverted. If the hon. Member will speak to me I will show him the correspondence.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—CONVENTION WITH CHINA—TRADE WITH THIBET.
  SIR JOHN SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any stops have been taken since the last Session to give effect to that part of the Convention with China which relates to the opening up of trade with Thibet?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Minister at Peking has contined to discuss the question with the Chinese Government; and he reported in October that they were unable at that time to decide definitely as to the opening of a trade post. The delay may, to a certain extent, be accounted for by the action of the Thibetans in maintaining an armed post beyond their frontier, on territory under the jurisdiction of the Indian Government. They have done this in defiance of the wishes of the Chinese Government; and steps are now being taken by the Indian Government to compel the Thibetans to withdraw.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—TRAWLING ON THE EAST COAST.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, What measures the Fishery Board have taken, or can take, to enforce their prohibition against trawling within the area off the coast of Forfarshire and Fifeshire specified by them; whether it is the case, as alleged, that trawlers frequently trawl by night within the prohibited area in St. Andrew's Bay; and, whether the Board will take such measures as will make their prohibition of trawling within the specified area effective?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Her Majesty's gunboat Jackal is at present watching the fisheries on the East Coast of Scotland, and her commander has special instructions to enforce the bye-laws against beam-trawling in the prescribed area. Allegations have been made of contraventions in St. Andrew's Bay; but the inquiries by the fishery officers have failed to

  167
  obtain any evidence of the fact. Although the officers have requested the fishermen to report any case of contravention, no case has been reported. The Board are doing all in their power to prevent the contravention, and will continue to do so.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—MRS. RYAN, A PRISONER IN LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. PICTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether on inquiry he finds it is a fact that Mrs. Ryan, a prisoner in Limerick Gaol for contempt, was at the time of her arrest last June nursing an unweaned infant, and was separated from it; and, whether, considering the length of her imprisonment and the needs of several young children, he will ascertain whether leniency can be shown in this case?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I understand that at the time of Mrs. Ryan's arrest her youngest child was 12 months old, and was left in charge of an adult sister. It is, of course, still open to the Ryans to come to a reasonable settlement with the Court, in which case I have no doubt the Court is quite prepared to exercise its clemency. As I have already explained, the Executive Government have no power to interfere.
  MR. PICTON: I would be very much obliged if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say whether or not Mrs. Ryan was forcibly separated from this child, which was scarcely a month old?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think the child must have been more than a month old, because her husband was in prison for 12 months before.
  MR. MURPHY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the Lord Lieutenant has no power to interfere?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think the Executive has no power.
  Subsequently,
  MR. PICTONsaid: In consequence of the unsympathetic answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I shall take the earliest possible opportunity of calling attention to the harsh treatment of Mrs. Ryan.

  SOUTH AFRICA—RESTORATION OF USIBEPU.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to the restoration of Usibepu in South Africa will be laid upon the Table?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)(who replied) said: Papers relating to the affairs of Zululand are in a forward state of preparation, and will include Correspondence respecting the re-instatement of Usibepu in his territory. It is expected that the Papers will be ready in a fortnight or three weeks.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURAL AND DAIRY SCHOOLS.
  MR. C. T. D. ACLANDasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is intended to publish the Evidence given before the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools; and, if so, when it may be expected?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, the Evidence was now in print, and would be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked, what sum the Government proposed to grant in aid of Dairy Schools?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he could not answer at that moment.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—HEREFORD QUARTER SESSIONS—SEVERE SENTENCES ON BOYS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. LABOUCHERE)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that four boys, aged respectively 12, 10, 10, and 8 years, pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny at the Hereford Quarter Sessions, and were sentenced by the Recorder to be imprisoned for 10 days, with hard labour, then to be whipped, and then to be confined in a

  169
  reformatory for five years, two of them having already been in prison for 28 days previous to the Quarter Sessions; and, whether, in view of the fact that the prosecutors have signed a Petition for a mitigation of this sentence, stating that the offences were, in reality, trivial, and that the members of the Grand Jury have also signed a like Petition, stating that they would not have found a true bill had they known that such a severe sentence would have been passed, and that not one of the boys has ever been charged with any previous offence, he can see his way, now that they have served their term of imprisonment and been whipped, to remit the remainder of their sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated, except that the offence cannot be deemed trivial, being nothing less than an artfully contrived robbery effected by breaking into a shop and stealing from the till. Two of the prisoners had also been previously fined for small offences. I have, however, ordered the discharge of one of the boys (Morgan), he being, in my opinion, on account of his tender years, an unfit subject for a reformatory. I have ordered that the cases of the other three boys shall be brought up for my consideration in July next.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INSPECTED DAY SCHOOLS—INSTRUCTION IN AGRICULTURE.
  MR. HUBBARDasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, How many of the 19,022 day schools in England and Wales, inspected in 1886, are situated in the rural districts; in how many of the above 19,022 inspected schools did agriculture in "simple conversational lessons," or as a "class subject," form any part of the instruction of infants, and of older scholars; and, whether, in parts of the country where farming can fairly be said to be the "leading trade of the district," the Education Department would, in future, instruct Inspectors to require that lessons in agriculture shall be a necessary condition for earning the Merit Grant for infants, Article 106 (b), and the grant for class subjects. Article 109 (f)?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Education Department have not the figures my hon. Friend asks for, nor do I think that his proposal to make the conditions of the Merit Grant more onerous, and to further restrict the liberty of teachers as to class subjects, would meet with much favour; but the whole question as to how the knowledge of agriculture can best be promoted in elementary schools is engaging the serious attention of the Government.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS—DEATH OF A GIRL AT A ROPE FACTORY.
  MR. H. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Is he aware that a girl named Elizabeth Sullivan was killed in the rope factory of Messrs. Frost and Co., Commercial Road, East, in the beginning of February of the present year; has information reached him that Messrs. Frost and Co. were warned on many occasions by their employés as to their liability to injury in consequence of the unprotected and dangerous state of the machinery, and that the space between the machines is so narrow that girls working in this factory have to tie themselves in sacking to prevent their clothes from catching; and, whether this factory has been duly inspected in the manner provided in the Employers' Liability Acts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the second paragraph in the negative. The Factory Inspector drew the particular attention of Messrs. Frost to the danger to be apprehended; and at his instigation they consented to adopt a plan for fencing the machinery which would obviate the danger, and which the hon. Member will find described in the last Report of the Factory Inspector. Unfortunately, only part of the machines had been fitted in the way suggested when the fatal accident occurred. The factory has been regularly inspected under the Factory Act. I may add that the makers of the machines have agreed, at the request of the Factory Inspector, to consider whether they cannot fit all similar machines in future with the proposed fencing.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND LIBRARY.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the First Commissioner of Works, If be proposes to take any steps this Session for establishing electric communication between the Library and the House, so as to inform Members occupied in the Library of the progress of debate, and the names of speakers?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The question of the establishment of electrical communication between the House and the Library and other parts of the building has been considered; but there has not been, up to the present time, sufficient unanimity of feeling among hon. Members in favour of the proposal to justify me in going on with it.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—WEXFORD.
  An hon. MEMBER (for Mr. J. E. REDMOND)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a large number of cases are awaiting hearing before the Land Commission in the County of Wexford, and how soon a Commission will sit in that county?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners inform me that it is a fact that a large number of cases is awaiting before them in the County Wexford, and that the Sub-Commission will commence its sittings in that county about the middle of next month.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—PROPERTY AND REVENUES.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, When the Return, ordered on the 20th of June, 1887, of the property and revenues of the Church of England and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under the several heads specified in the Address moved on that day, will be presented to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: Every effort is being made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to complete this Return as soon as possible. They cannot, however, yet fix a date when it will be ready. Much correspondence and lengthy explanations by letter with incumbents who have given imperfect answers to the queries issued are necessary for the perfect preparation of the Return; and this correspondence, as well as the general supervision of the work, falls on the regular staff of the Department, who are already fully engaged with their ordinary duties.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. CHANNING,
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the Return would be of great magnitude. In 1832 work of a similar kind occupied a Royal Commission specially appointed with an independent staff for no less than three years.

  THE COLONIES—CONSTITUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the constitution of the Executive in each Colony and, in the case of Colonies having Representative Assemblies, the constitution of those Assemblies, the number of Members, the number of electors, and the qualifications requisite for Members and for electors?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Except as to certain details, the information asked for by the hon. Member is given in the Colonial Office List, which is published annually; but there will be no objection to request the Colonial Governments to furnish the desired Returns.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—CLAPHAM COMMON.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Home Office, the Police Authorities, and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine) with regard to the references to the police on Clapham Common, in his speech in this House on July 5, 1887; and also the Reports of

  173
  the inquiry into the subject conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Munro?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I should have been happy to comply with the request of the hon. Member but for this reason—namely, that in the course of the inquiry instituted by the Commissioners of Police private persons were interviewed and information of a confidential character was given by them which I should not be justified in disclosing. I shall, however, be very glad to show all the Papers to the hon. Member himself.

  SOUTH AFRICA—RAILWAY AT DELAGOA BAY.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have had their attention directed to the construction of a railway from Delagoa Bay to the hills bounding the Northern Transvaal territory; and, whether, considering the strategical importance of the railway to the Cape Colonies, and the existing ownership of Delagoa Bay, the Government will enter into negotiations with the Portuguese Government for their concession by purchase to Great Britain?
  DR. CLARKinquired, whether it was not a fact that the proposed railway would start from a place where a large expenditure would be required for a harbour and end in a mountain, where no one could get at it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The question of acquiring an interest in the railway from Lorenzo Marquez towards Pretoria has not been entertained by Her Majesty's Government, because it does not traverse and it is not intended to enter British territory. It is difficult to conceive on what grounds Her Majesty's Government could acquire possession of a railway in such circumstances. Any British interests concerned must be those of the South African Colonies; and Her Majesty's Government cannot assume their desire for the step which the hon. Member for Sunderland contemplates.

  METROPOLIS—SAFETY OF THE STREETS.
  MR. COGHILLasked the Secretary of State for
  174
  the Home Department, Whether, in view of the number of accidents and deaths which occur annually in the streets of London, owing in some cases to the excessive pace at which vehicles of all sorts are driven, and to the absence of sufficient control over the traffic in the more crowded thoroughfares, he will take steps to secure the safety of pedestrians in using the streets of the Metropolis; whether the majority of the accidents happen at crossings, and whether the number of "refuges" could be increased; and, whether, when a fatal accident has occurred, any adequate means exist to make the driver amenable when he has been the cause of it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): As the hon. Member is probably aware, constables have been for some years stationed at most of the principal crossings in the Metropolis for the purpose of controlling the traffic and assisting pedestrians. It has not been brought to my notice that this duty has been insufficiently performed; on the contrary, I am informed by the Commissioners of Police that few accidents happen at crossings. The question of providing refuges lies with the Vestries, to whom any complaint as to inadequate accommodation in this respect should be addressed. I am informed that the practice now is that when any driver has been the cause of a fatal accident, he is brought before a magistrate, and then held to bail or bound over on his recognizances pending the result of a Coroner's inquest. I have received no complaint that the present means are inadequate for making careless drivers amenable.

  POST OFFICE—MAIL CART FROM HIGHAM FERRERS TO NORTHAMPTON.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that, about four weeks ago, tenders were invited for running a mail cart from Higham Ferrers to Northampton on Sunday evenings, and from Northampton to Higham Ferrers on Monday mornings; whether Mr. Charles Groome, of Higham Ferrers, tendered to do the work, with a suitable horse, for £38; whether the surveyor inspected the horse, and pronounced him well

  175
  fitted for the work; whether, two days after, the tender of another man for £47 was accepted; whether Mr. Groome is a ratepayer of Higham Ferrers, has been for 15 years a member of the school board, has been for two years a waywarden for the parish, and is one of the election auditors for the borough; whether, when, some time ago, tenders were invited for carrying the mails daily from Northampton to Higham Ferrers, Mr. Groome's tender was rejected, and a tender £5 higher than his accepted; whether, in both cases, Mr. Groome offered as his bondsmen two of the most substantial ratepayers of the borough; and, whether he can state the reasons for which Mr. Groome's tender was declined and a higher tender accepted?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is the fact that the mail cart service referred to between Higham Ferrers and Northampton was thrown open to public tender a few weeks ago; that Mr. Groome tendered at £38 a-year; and that a higher tender than Mr. Groome's was accepted. No Postmaster General has ever held himself bound to accept the lowest or any tender; and in deciding to accept another tender than Mr. Groome's I considered I was making the best arrangement possible for a satisfactory performance of the service. In reference to the non-acceptance of a tender from Mr. Groome on a previous occasion, I find that Mr. Groome tendered with another person for the Northampton and Higham Ferrers daily service; but that preference was given to a tender of the same amount from a widow whose husband had held contracts from the Department for many years, and given much satisfaction.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Groome is one of the most active Liberals in the district?
  MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS—THE THIRTIETH REPORT.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the Thirtieth Report on Reformatory Schools, in which it is said that—
  176
  "Where the teaching power is sufficient, and the teachers are capable and anxious to do their duty, the results are satisfactory;"
  and, if this is the case, whether the Government will insure efficient teaching power in all such schools by teachers who are capable and anxious to do their duty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, the question of securing more efficient teaching in the schools referred to had been for some time under the consideration of the Government, and the Bill about to be introduced would deal with the subject.

  THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—EXTERMINATION OF RABBITS-M. PASTEUR.
  MR. HOWARDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a statement that M. Pasteur is sending by the mail steamer Cuzco a supply of microbes des cholera de poules for the extermination of rabbits in the Australian Colonies; and, whether, having regard to the great danger that this poisonous matter may be injurious to sheep and thus to human beings also wherever Australian mutton is used, he will warn the Colonial Governments of the possible consequences of allowing M. Pasteur's instructions to be carried out?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): This is a matter in which Her Majesty's Government cannot interfere with the discretion of the Australian Governments, who, however, are fully aware of the objection which has been raised as to the possibility of the proposed method proving injurious to other animals besides those which it is desired to exterminate. Whether or not that objection is well-founded is a question on which I offer no opinion.

  COPYHOLD ACT, 1887—CLAUSE 30.
  MR. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Land Commissioners have framed and published the scale of compensation referred to in Clause 30 of "The Copyhold Act, 1887;" and, if so, where it is to be obtained; and, if not, when the scale is likely to be published?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Land Commissioners have framed the scales of compensation referred to in Clause 30 of the Copyhold Act, 1887, and these can now be obtained by application at the Land Office.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE DISTURBANCES AT MITCHELSTOWN.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an inquiry is now proceeding at Cork as to the conduct of certain officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the occasion of the shooting of several persons at Mitchelstown in September last; and, whether it is an invariable custom that representatives of the public Press are admitted to such police inquiries under certain defined conditions; and, if so, why this custom has not been adhered to in this case?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: A Departmental inquiry is now being held in Cork into the conduct of members of the Constabulary on the occasion of the riot and inquest at Mitchelstown. Departmental inquiries are throughout the entire Public Service regarded as of a private nature, and representatives of the public Press are never admitted. Their proceedings are purely of a preliminary nature, with a view to ascertain whether further action is called for.

  ADMIRALTY—THE "BRITANNIA" TRAINING SHIP.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, The age at which boys are now entered on board the Britannia; whether any examination of the cadets has been held during the past year; and, whether the Reports of the Examiners can be laid upon the Table before the Statement on the Navy Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The limit of age of cadets entering the Britannia at the present time is 14; but after June next it will be extended to 14½. Examinations are held twice in each year, and the results are forwarded to the Admiralty. They are held by examiners appointed from the Univer-
  178
  sities, who are changed every two years. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any information he requires; but I do not think that these Reports are of sufficient public importance to justify the expense of printing them.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROSECUTIONS AGAINST NEWSVENDORS.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether prosecutions against the news-vendors, J. D. Brosnan and John Green, at Killarney, were withdrawn by the Crown a couple of days before the 29th February; whether two days after the 29th February Pat Ferriter was sentenced at Dingle to three months' imprisonment for soiling copies of United Ireland; how many, and what, terms of imprisonment has Ferriter got under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and, what magistrates sentenced him on each occasion?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The prosecutions against Green and Brosnan were withdrawn at Killarney by the Crown on the 21st of February. Ferriter was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the 2nd of March at Dingle Petty Sessions before Messrs. Irwin, R.M., and Roche, R.M., for selling newspapers containing reports of alleged meetings of an unlawful Association in the County Kerry. There are two other convictions against this man in which the proceedings were also conducted under the recent Statute—one in December, 1887, when he was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for an assault on the police, the case being tried before Mr. Roche, R.M., and Captain Welch, R.M.; the other, in January, 1888, likewise for assaulting the police, when he was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, Messrs. Irwin, R.M., and Roche, R.M., forming the Court.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know any of the circumstances of these assaults on the police? Does he know that this was a lame man who was sent to gaol for assaulting the police; and was not the assault merely a constructive one, the man being

  179
  charged merely with forcing his way into a meeting. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why the prosecutions against Green and Brosnan for the same offence were abandoned on the 21st of February; and why the prosecution of Ferriter was commenced a few days afterwards?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to the last Question. I do not know anything at all about the nature of the assaults on the police for which Ferriter was imprisoned.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: May I ask, whether this is the same man who was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for shouting out to the police reporter at a meeting, "Take that down, Stringer?"
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have no knowledge of the facts.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to us why it is that proceedings are taken against the newsvendors whilst the publishers of the newspapers are not interfered with?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think if the right hon. Gentleman studies the Act he will find ample reason for proceeding against the newsvendors.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: That is not the point. It may be as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says; but are there not ample reasons for proceeding equally against the publishers of papers containing reports of these suppressed meetings?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question. He has been Chief Secretary himself.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Quite so; but when I was Chief Secretary this Act did not exist.
  Subsequently,
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid: As I see the Chief Secretary is now in his place, I would ask him, with regard to this Question that I have asked, whether his personal attention has been directed to this case of Ferriter; and will he kindly explain what is the policy of sentencing this man Ferriter to three months' imprisonment for selling newspapers concurrently with the withdrawal of prosecutions against two
  180
  men in Killarney for the same offence; and, whether the barony in which this has occurred has not been the quietest barony in Kerry; and, whether a murder or a serious outrage has ever occurred in this barony?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put his Question on the Notice Paper.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS FROM SUB-COMMISSION, CO. CLARE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN(for Mr. JORDAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in the year 1885, Stephen Collins, Thomas Collins, John Quealy, and Pat M'Mahon, in the Kildysart Union, County Clare, lodged appeals from the Sub-Commissioners to have their judicial rent fixed; whether these appeals have been yet heard or even listed for hearing at the next sitting of the Commission; if not, why not; and, whether he is aware that there are many cases lodged later than these four in the same Union listed for hearing at the coming Commission?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state they will take a little time to investigate the circumstances referred to in the Question. They hope, however, to be able to furnish a reply in a day or two.

  WAR OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN IRELAND.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any reason to be dissatisfied with the results of the system of limited competition which has hitherto been the usual practice in arranging contracts for works of large extent executed in Ireland under the War Department, and why is it being departed from in the case of the proposed new barracks at Grangegorman, Dublin, for which an unlimited competition has been advertised; whether contractors proposing to tender elect the surveyor to take out the quantities of the works on their behalf; and if in an unlimited competition the votes of the persons bonâ fide intending to send in tenders may be swamped by

  181
  those of others who have no such intention, and for whom a surveyor might find it worth while to pay the deposit of £5 5s. each, entitling them to vote; if in the newspapers containing the notice asking for the names of persons desiring to tender for those works, an advertisement appears, directly under the War Department notice, from a Mr. Strud-wick, of London, soliciting votes for the office of surveyor, in which it is stated, as an inducement to vote for him, that the quantities would be taken out in London; if this statement is correct; and, if so, how was the information communicated to Mr. Strudwick; and, whether, considering that this unlimited competition will place surveyors and contractors in Ireland at a disadvantage, he will state the reason for the proposed alteration of the usual terms of competition?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The prices of building contracts have ranged considerably higher in Ireland than in England; and as the Grangegorman Barracks constitute an extensive work, to a value of perhaps £60,000, the Secretary of State, with a view to obtaining the best contract for the public interest, has thought it desirable to resort to the usual practice of an open competition, rather than to the limited competition which has for some time prevailed for buildings in Ireland. Contractors proposing to tender elect the surveyor, and they pay a deposit on the amount of the contract according to a scale laid down in the Royal Engineer Regulations. Considering the amount of the deposit, such a transaction as is suggested does not seem very probable. An advertisement has appeared from Mr. Strudwick, who was, no doubt, aware that the quantities for large contracts, of which the designs have been prepared in London, are almost invariably taken out there. It is not apparent that this practice puts any class of contractors at a disadvantage.
  MR. MURPHYasked, if the hon. Gentleman was aware that only in one other case were the quantities taken out for a large Irish work in London?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he did not know; but that as the plans were made
  182
  out in London he supposed the quantities would be taken out there too.

  WAR OFFICE—CHELSEA HOSPITAL—AUGMENTED PENSIONS.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, If he is now in a position to state whether a decision has been arrived at in regard to certain cases in which pensions having been augmented by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, in recognition of exceptional good conduct, such augmentations have been cancelled by the War Office; and, whether the small additions conceded in such instances will now be confirmed?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY (MR. BRODRICK): Yes, Sir; the additional pensions referred to would be confirmed.

  WAR OFFICE—ADMINISTRATION OF ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, under the new system of administration of the Ordnance Factories, regard has been had to the recommendations of Lord Morley's Committee, which not only enjoined that the Manufacturing Departments "should be placed under the control of a single head," but that such Controller should reside at Woolwich; whether it is true that the now Director of Ordnance Factories has been furnished with an office and clerical staff in Pall Mall; whether a considerable portion of his official business is transacted at the War Office; and, whether there are any sufficient reasons for these deviations from Lord Morley's recommendations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee is correctly quoted by the hon. Member. My intention is that the Director General of Ordnance Factories should transact the business of the Ordnance Factories at Woolwich, and give close personal superintendence by his presence on the spot. A room has been assigned to him at the War Office, because his duties necessarily bring him there at intervals to consult with other officials; but his permanent office is at Woolwich, and not in London.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION—A J OINT COMMITTEE.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, How soon Her Majesty's Government will invite both Houses of Parliament to appoint the proposed Joint Committee on Private Bill Legislation; and, whether, pending the Report of that Committee, he will propose to amend Standing Order No. XXXV., so as to enable Private Bill Committees to sit till half-past 3 or later, notwithstanding the sitting of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope to propose the appointment of a Joint Committee on Private Bill Legislation on Monday. The right hon. Baronet will find on the Paper a Notice of Motion in my name which, I think, will meet the object he has in view.

  THE PARIS EXHIBITION (1889)—REPRESENTATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRIES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. LABOUCHERE)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has observed that a meeting has been held at the Mansion House, under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, to decide what steps shall be taken to secure an adequate representation of British arts, manufactures, and industries at the forthcoming Exhibition in Paris; and, whether Her Majesty's Government adheres to its resolution, that this country will not be officially represented at the Exhibition, as was the case at previous French Exhibitions?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have observed that a meeting has taken place at the Mansion House with regard to the forthcoming Exhibition in Paris; but Her Majesty's Government do not propose to make any change in the course which was announced to the House last year in reference to this matter.

  WAR OFFICE—MILITARY AND NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENTS.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could state to the House
  184
  the date of the establishment of the Military Intelligence Department of the War Office; the date of the establishment of the Naval Intelligence Department of the Admiralty; the actual expenditure incurred for the Military and Naval Intelligence Departments respectively since their establishment down to the end of the financial year, 1886–7; the actual expenditure incurred for our Military Attachés abroad between the date of the establishment of the Military Intelligence Department and the end of the financial year, 1886–7; and the actual expenditure incurred for our Naval Attachés abroad between the date of the establishment of the Naval Intelligence Department and the end of the financial year, 1886–7?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): If my hon. and gallant Friend will move for the information he wants, it will be granted as an unopposed Return.

  PARLIAMENT—NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—UNFINISHED BILLS.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the prospects of legislation by private Members having been so much curtailed by the New Rules of Debate, the Government would be disposed to consider favourably any proposal for enabling Bills which have passed a Second Reading or later stage in one Session to be taken up at the same stage in the next Session. He wished further to ask whether the practice was not adopted by eight Foreign Parliaments?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was not prepared to say whether such a Rule prevailed in eight Foreign Parliaments, not having had Notice of the Question. With regard to the rest of the Question, his impression was that the New Rules would not in any way curtail the privileges of private Members, but that they would tend to facilitate the progress of those measures which Members brought before the House. Under those circumstances, he did not think it desirable, at the present time at all events, to propose any change in the Parliamentary procedure with regard to Bills before the House, with the view to their being taken up in the ensuing Session at the point at which they were dropped.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE FREE SCHOOL AT HITCHIN AND JOHN RAND'S CHARITY.
  BARON DIMSDALEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the schemes of the Charity Commissioners, laid upon the Table of the House of Commons on Monday, 20th February, relating to the Free School, Hitchin, Herts, and the John Hand's Charity for the poor of Holwell, Bedfordshire, will be printed; and, whether full opportunity will be afforded for their discussion before they are confirmed by Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am informed that the Papers alluded to will be circulated to-day, and the hon. Member will, doubtless, have an opportunity later for discussing these schemes.

  RECORD OFFICE—REMOVAL OF PUBLIC RECORDS FROM WESTMINSTER.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, in which it is stated that 34 van loads of public records, described as valuable, which were removed from the Stone Tower adjoining Westminster Hall, are deposited in buildings—
  "Old, dark, ill-ventilated, rickety, and unprotected from fire from intervening dwelling houses; "
  and, whether any steps have been, or are being, taken to ensure the safety of such valuable official documents?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The value of the public records alluded to is, of course, comparative with that of many other more valuable documents in the keeping of the Department. The Treasury have not as yet seen their way to laying before the House the Vote that would be necessary to place all the documents in absolute safety. I am sorry to say that there are some portions of the building in which the records are kept that are dark and old and ill-ventilated.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS—SIR ALFRED SLADE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Sir Alfred Slade,
  186
  of the Inland Revenue Department, while serving as such, has been not only a Master in the Grand Council of the Primrose League, but also Vice Chairman, and member of the General Purposes Committee and of the Finance Committee; and, whether this brings him within the Departmental Rule against being member of a Political Association?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir Alfred Slade, as a Trustee of some of the funds of the Primrose League, is ex officio a member of the Committee of the League; but I am informed that he has abstained from taking part in any of the proceedings of the League which would lead to an infringement of the Rule laid down by the Inland Revenue Department for its officers—namely, that they are to abstain from taking part in, or speaking at, any public political meeting. I may add that it is the duty of the Government to see that every officer of the Department complies absolutely with the conditions laid down.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to know, whether it would be perfectly competent for any member of the Civil Service, in this or any other Department, to belong to the Home Rule organization without incurring censure from his official superiors so long as he does not take part in a public meeting?
  [No reply.]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I will renew that Question to-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—ALLEGED ASSAULT.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked a Question of which he had given the Secretary of State for the Home Department private Notice—namely, Whether in the case of the man Coleman alleged to have been assaulted by the police after he was in actual custody in Bow Street Police Station, on the 13th of November, and which case the right hon. Gentleman stated on Friday last had been sprung upon the Government and the House by him (Mr. Bradlaugh), without any previous Notice or proceedings, it was not the fact that evidence on oath was given as to this assault before Mr. Vaughan, in open Court at Bow Street, the Treasury Solicitor being

  187
  present; that a summons for the assault was granted by Mr. Vaughan against the police constable on sworn information duly filed in Court; whether, Cole-man being a prisoner, an order from the Home Office authorities was applied for for the attendance and examination of Coleman at the hearing of the Court; whether, on the return of the summons before Mr. Bridge, the magistrate sitting at Bow Street, half an hour's adjournment was not asked for on the ground that Coleman's solicitor was then actually speaking in another Court in another case, and that Coleman himself had not yet been brought up from prison; whether counsel for the Government did not oppose such brief adjournment; whether the summons against the police was thereupon dismissed with £ 10 costs, without any hearing and in the actual absence of both Coleman and his attorney; whether such of the sworn informations referred to had not been in the possession of the Solicitor to the Treasury for more than two months; and, whether such information had not been submitted to the Director of Prosecutions or to the Law Officers of the Crown?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have privately informed the hon. Member that I was unable to answer the Question today. Indeed, I never heard the terms of the Question until the hon. Member read it just now. The moment his Notice arrived it was sent over to the Solicitor to the Treasury; but I have not yet been able to obtain the information asked for.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The reason why I did not postpone the Question was that there was a direct challenge of fact from the right hon. Gentleman on Friday to myself.

  THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
  MR. CHILDERSinquired, When the Navy Estimates would be circulated? observing that they were very late this year.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The only reason for the delay is that the form in which the Estimates are to be presented has had to be recast, and they will contain more information than they did previously. Consequently, there has been a delay on
  188
  the part of the printer. The printer undertakes, however, that they shall be circulated to-morrow, and we propose to take the Navy Estimates on Monday.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked, When it was proposed to go into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It will be necessary to take a Vote on Account of the Civil Service next week; but the Civil Service Estimates will not be taken in detail until after Easter.

  PARLIAMENT—DURATION OF SPEECHES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether it is not a fact that more than half of the whole time allotted to the Trafalgar Square debate was occupied by five Members, three of whom made two speeches each; whether he is aware that a large number of hon. Members who desired to address the House were prevented from doing so through lack of time; and whether, seeing that how the hours allotted to debate are limited, he will make an earnest appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to put what they have to say as concisely as possible, in order to give more opportunities to a larger number of hon. Members to take part in the debates of this House? I wish to explain that I have no personal feeling in this matter, as I was not one of those who desired to take part in the debate of last week.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have not made any careful calculation of the time occupied by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the debate on Thursday and Friday last; but it undoubtedly was the case that some of the speeches were lengthy ones. As regards one or two of the speakers, it was almost unavoidable that they should be so, for when an indictment is brought against the Government the indictment must be answered; and both those who bring the indictment and those who answer it must, I am

  189
  afraid, speak at great length. But if I have influence in the House, I will certainly use it in the direction to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I believe it would be more acceptable to the House that, as a rule, speeches should be concise and terse, and should be generally condensed, and that hon. Members who desire reasonably to take part in. The debate should be able to do so; and I will use any influence which I may possess to attain the object of the hon. Member.
  MR. CAINEasked whether, after the sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the Question of the hon. Member, he would consider the desirability of the Government bringing forward the Rule which stood in his (Mr. Caine's) name limiting the duration of speeches to 20 minutes?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We should have great reluctance in imposing on the House any restrictions which can by any possibility be avoided; or to impose on the House by Rule anything which we can attain by appealing to the good sense of the House. I venture to hope that the suggestions which have been made in the direction of shortening the speeches in this House will have the effect desired by hon. Members, and that it will not be necessary to lay down positive and absolute Rules as to the length of time which should be occupied.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, immediately Supply was concluded, the Local Government Bill and the Budget would be introduced.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman gave a reply from which two deductions might be made. He said that when the Votes in Supply had been gone through, the Local Government Bill and the Budget would be introduced. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Budget would be taken before Easter?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had good reason to hope that it would be possible for the Government to bring forward the Budget before Easter; but, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor
  190
  of the Exchequer, he could not say on what day it would be introduced.

  COMMONS—PURSUING GAME.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the sentence passed on the 29th of February by the Maidenhead magistrates on William Cartland and John Herbert, of £1 and 10 s., or 14 and seven days' hard labour respectively, for the offence of trespassing on Pinkney's Green Common in search of game, with two dogs, the only evidence against them being that of one gamekeeper, who stated that they beat some bushes on the common, turned up a hare, and that when the dogs ran after it they did not call them off; whether the prisoners declared that they called the dogs off, and that they had no intention of searching for game, but were merely walking across the Common; whether, as the men are poor, Cartland being obliged to get a week allowed in which to raise the money, he will advise the magistrates to modify the sentence; or, if either of them go to prison in default, he will order their release; and, whether a freeholder and commoner on Pinkney's Green Common is liable to be arrested by a gamekeeper if, when walking over the Common with a dog, it raises a hare, and he does not at once call it off?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a letter from the Chairman of the Maidenhead Bench, from which I gather that both men were seen by the gamekeeper of the gentleman who has manorial rights over the Common beating the furze bushes near the edge of the common with sticks for 20 minutes. They had two dogs with them. They found a hare, and both dogs and men gave chase, when the keeper showed himself. Neither of them was arrested by the keeper; but they appeared on summons in the ordinary way. Cart-land had several previous convictions against him. It does not seem to me to be a case which calls for any interference on my part.
  MR. M'LARENasked whether commoners had a right to walk over a common with dogs?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Clearly they have—supposing there is a right of way.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, When he proposed to proceed with the second reading of the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, the Bill had been before the House on a good many occasions, and he proposed to take it up that night.
  DR. CAMERONappealed to the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it was desirable that a Bill of 250 pages and 500 clauses, which was only delivered to Members on Saturday last, should be brought on the day after it was pre-
  192
  sented; and, whether he would not grant Members interested in the subject a little reasonable delay to consider the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the Bill would not be brought on that night; but the hon. Gentleman was aware that it was chiefly a consolidating Bill. It was an old Bill, which had been before Parliament for several Sessions; but it would not be taken that night.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the Bill raised a great number of important matters about disease and other controversial points, on which there ought to be an opportunity for discussion. When would the Bill be brought forward?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it would not be taken this week.

MEMORANDUM OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
RELATING TO THE
ARMY ESTIMATES, 1888–9.
(Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.)
The Estimates for 1887–8 showed an anticipated expenditure of £15,305,700 for effective, and £3,088,200 for non-effective services, making a total of £18,393,900. For the first time for eight years no Supplementary Estimates have been found to be necessary.
Before making any comparison with the Estimates now submitted to Parliament, it should be remembered that the charge for naval ordnance has been transferred to the Navy Estimates, while the cost of the transport of troops by sea is now to be borne by the Army. If the same course had been adopted in 1887–8, the Army Estimates for that year would have amounted to £16,882,319.
For 1888–9 the Estimates show an expenditure of £16,700,300, of which £13,672,700 is for effective, and £3,027,600 for non-effective services. To this must be added the Ordnance Factories' Vote for £30,000. It will thus be seen that, compared with last year's Estimates, adjusted as above, the amount now required for the service of the Army shows a net decrease £152,019.
I proceed now to an examination of the more important changes in our military organization and preparations which have taken place in the past year, and to the effect on the individual Votes resulting therefrom.

I.

  ORGANIZATION AND ESTABLISHMENTS.
  It may be well to commence by a short explanation of the changes which have been rendered necessary by the re-organization of the War Office. These changes, I glad to say, are now practically complete. Their carrying out has entailed much labour on certain branches of the Department, and especially on the Permanent Under Secretary of State, to whom I am greatly indebted. Nor can I omit to mention the cordial and loyal co-operation of Sir Stafford Northcote, M.P., the late Surveyor General of Ordnance, in the initiation of these measures.
  The primary feature of the re-organization has been the abolition of the department of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, and the concentration of the whole administrative work of the Army in the hands of its chiefs, subject to the control of the Secretary of State. This most important change has now been carried out without friction, and the country has every reason to be grateful to
  194

  195
  His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and his Staff for the readiness with which, in the public interest, they have undertaken new, laborious, and responsible duties. Amongst the advantages which I anticipate from this alteration, I place first the fact that the Military Authorities will now be enabled to take a comprehensive view of the whole condition of the military resources of the country, of our requirements, and of the means available for meeting them. All the threads are in their own hands. Any scheme put forward by them should be founded upon full knowledge of all surrounding conditions, and the Secretary of State will be enable to rely upon them for advice as to the comparative importance of all proposals for Army expenditure.
  Secondly, the control of the department of the Financial Secretary is extended to all branches of the War Office. And it is gratifying to be able to quote from the Report of Sir M. W. Ridley's Commission on Civil Establishments, which has been issued since the new scheme for the War Office was explained to Parliament, the recommendation that—
  "If the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and his chief adviser the Accountant General, were put into their proper functions as financially responsible for the whole of the Army expenditure, the Secretary of State would have a real grasp and control, which he does not now possess, over both Estimates and Votes."—(Paragraph 21.)
  The reform thus indicated has in fact been carried out, and has entailed great labour on the Financial Secretary.
  Thirdly, in accordance with the statement made in Parliament last Session, the inspection of all warlike stores and armaments has been entirely separated from manufacture; and for the future any article produced either by the trade or in the Ordnance Factories will be equally subjected to the inspection of the Military Authorities before being passed into the Service. All the manufacturing establishments—except the Clothing Department—have been placed under the control of a single head, who is termed the Director General of Ordnance Factories. It is intended that this Officer shall make an annual Report to the Secretary of State upon the work of his department, which will be presented to Parliament.
  It will be remembered that those two important changes—namely, the separation of inspection from manufacture, and the placing of the Government Factories under a single head, are both in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Morley's Committee on the Manufacturing Departments.
  The transfer to the Navy of the charge for Naval armaments, which I indicated in my last year's statement, has involved the separation in all parts of the world of the stores intended for the use of the Army and the Navy respectively. Although this division is not yet quite complete, it is accomplished at all the more important stations, and the preparation of the necessary Returns is proceeding as rapidly as possible. The result is that for the first time the Army Estimates show approximately—as between the Army and Navy—the true cost of the services undertaken by and for the Army.
  The few changes proposed in the Establishments for the present year will be best explained in the course of a short review of our present state of organization.
  The preparation of schemes for the utilization of all our available forces in the Service or in the defence of the country has made considerable progress during the past year. This task presents greater difficulties with us than in most countries, because of the different conditions under which our forces are serving, and of the variety of contingencies against which the schemes have to provide. We have to be prepared for the possibility of one of those small wars so common in our history, of a larger expedition involving the despatch of one or two Army Corps, and also for the general defence of the country, of the Imperial fortresses and coaling stations, and of our commercial ports.
  For the first object, it is thought to be essential that we should so organize our Army as to be able to despatch a small force, complete in every detail, on the shortest notice, without calling out a single man of the Reserves. For this purpose the Aldorshot Division has been raised to a slightly higher establishment than before, the Cavalry regiments first for service now numbering 707 (all ranks) with 424 horses, instead of 625 with 380 horses, and the eight Infantry battalions being maintained at an establishment of 1,010 (all ranks), whilst a reduction has been made in the numbers at the depôts.
  The only remaining changes in Establishment which it is necessary to notice here consist of an increase of 186 men in the Commissariat and Transport Corps, and a decrease of 200 in the Medical Staff Corps.
  The net result is that the increase in the Establishments, upon which the Estimates are based, amounts to 276 men.
  It is satisfactory to note that the 1st Class Army Reserve shows a steady and appreciable increase, the total on the 1st of January, 1887, being 46,858; whilst on the 1st of January of this year it reached nearly 51,000 men. It is estimated that the transfers from the Colours to the Reserve during 1888 will number 8,800. Owing, however, to the very large number of recruits enlisted 12 years ago, and who consequently complete 12 years' service and become entitled to their discharge this year, the "waste" from the Reserve will this year be exceptionally heavy, and will probably exceed the number transferred from the Colours. To meet this, to some extent, I have agreed to relax the regulations (which appeared somewhat unduly stringent) under which men join the "Supplementary Reserve," composed of soldiers who have completed 12 years' service.
  It has been decided during the past year to enlist men for the Royal Engineers, the Commissariat and Transport Corps, and the Medical Staff Corps, for three years' service only with the Colours. This is an important step, which will, as time goes on, materially increase the Reserve of these valuable corps.
  In the Memorandum attached to the Estimates of 1887–8 it was pointed out that a general review of our available forces showed that, with certain changes and additions, they would be sufficient to provide men for all our home and colonial garrisons, and also to furnish two Army Corps of Regular troops, together with a strong Cavalry Division, and the necessary troops to guard their line of communication. The two great deficiencies to be noted were in connection with our garrisons, and existed in the Garrison Artillery and in the Engineers. The present Estimates provide for the whole of the regular Garrison Artillery required by the mobilization scheme, at home and abroad, and for all the necessary Submarine Miners. The only remaining deficiency consists of four companies of Fortress Engineers, which it is not proposed to raise this year.
  A mobilization involves the calling out of the Reserves necessary to raise the different units to war strength. It cannot, therefore, be effected without the previous determination of the places at which these are to be armed and equipped, the provision at such places of the necessary clothing, arms, accoutrements, and equipments, the selection of the ports of embarkation, and the storing at those ports of the ammunition, tents, vehicles, and supplies requisite to complete the outfit for war. In all these particulars considerable progress has been made during the past year.
  The whole of the units necessary to complete the organization of two Army Corps, a Cavalry Division, and troops for the communications, are now actually in existence, with the exception of some deficiencies in the Departmental Corps, which could, however, be rapidly filled up on an emergency; and, in calculating the numbers required, a full allowance has been made for weeding out young soldiers and those who are likely to be physically unfit for active service. The places of mobilization and of embarkation have been selected, and each unit knows exactly where it will have to go when the order to mobilize is given.
  For the 1st Army Corps, the Cavalry Division, and the troops for the Line of Communication, the whole of the necessary outfit, including clothing, arms, accoutrements, equipments, tents, stores, supplies, and vehicles, might have been said to be practically complete, except that every month produces new demands and alterations, and some of the transport matériel is not of the newest pattern. For the remaining troops it is partly in existence, and could probably be completed without serious delay; but this must, to some extent, depend on the country in which operations were anticipated.
  These stores have been hitherto, to a great extent, concentrated in large depôts. The arrangements for the decentralization of a large portion of them, which is indispensable to avoid delay and confusion, are being proceeded with. I may mention in particular that it has been decided to utilize the great facilities afforded by Southampton as a port of embarkation, and to relieve the Dockyard at Portsmouth from being encumbered by the requirements of the Army at a time when its resources would probably be required for naval purposes alone. The recent transfer of the offices of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company to the Thames has enabled us to hire the necessary store accommodation at Southampton, and the transfer of the stores will shortly be effected.
  The decentralization of clothing and equipment stores, which, without great care and constant inspection, deteriorate very rapidly, presents questions of difficulty, owing to the variety of the patterns and of the numbers to be provided; and no solution has yet been arrived at. In the meantime, the issue from the central depôt, where the reserve is at present stored, could be accomplished with rapidity.
  There is one general principle which, I think, should be borne steadily in mind in considering all questions of stores, and that is that while we should keep up fully sufficient stores of articles which take time to produce or to procure, no advantage arises from maintaining large reserves of goods which can be rapidly obtained from the open market in times of emergency. For these we should rely on the vast producing powers of this country. And this principle applies, not only to stores, but also, in some cases, to personnel. There are certain auxiliary services to an army, such as the Postal Corps, the Railway Corps, the Telegraph Corps, and the like, which we can largely expand from Volunteer organizations at any moment. In the case of all such corps, our proper policy would seem to be to keep up only the smallest departmental cadres, and to fall back in war time on the large Reserves furnished by these organizations.
  The problem of providing on an emergency an adequate supply of horses at a moderate cost, and of avoiding the enhancement of price which a sudden demand for large numbers would inevitably cause, cannot yet be said to have been solved. The experiment that is being tried is that of inviting owners of horses, suitable for military purposes, to enter into a provisional agreement, undertaking to sell their horses to the Government, when called upon, at a given price, receiving in virtue of such agreement an annual fee for every horse. If this or any other voluntary scheme should fail—which, I think, need hardly be anticipated—the only course remaining will be to put in force those powers of compulsory requisition which are contained in existing Acts of Parliament, supplemented by any further provisions which may be necessary.
  The systematic organization of the troops available for our home defence has also made some progress. The variety of conditions under which the Auxiliary Forces—upon whom our main reliance must necessarily be placed—serve, makes this a task of difficulty. It is of primary importance that the troops, and especially the Artillery, should be familiarized with the works they would, on an emergency, have to defend, and with the guns they would have to serve. Accordingly, the General Officers commanding districts have been directed to frame their proposals for the training of Volunteer Corps with a special view to attaining
  200

  201
  this object. But time will be required to accomplish this; for the local exigencies of defence sometimes necessitate the supply of contingents from very distant corps, whether of Militia or Volunteers. We are, however, making special endeavours to foster the increase of each particular arm in the neighbourhood of the locality where it is required, and to discourage any enlargement of the number of Infantry Volunteer Corps. Arrangements have been made for the formation of 21 Volunteer Batteries of Position, the guns being offered on the condition of their being efficiently horsed on a certain number of occasions.
  The great progress made in recent years in the art of submarine mining has necessitated the organization of special corps of Engineers, both of Militia and Volunteers, as well as in the Regular Service, for this purpose. We have every reason to think that in all the localities where this form of defence is required, the necessary force can be raised; and provision has been made in the Estimates for raising 10 additional companies for the defence of the principal mercantile ports.
  Lastly, the organization and registration of transport for all those of our Volunteer Forces which are not required for purely garrison purposes has made some progress. A small grant is being offered to certain corps this year on condition of their producing efficient regimental transport for inspection on fixed occasions. We anticipate most useful results from it; and even where no grant is offered, there is reason to hope that, in agricultural districts, at any rate, all the transport which is necessary can be registered for active service.
  Turning now to the general condition of the Auxiliary Forces, as apart from the position they occupy in the mobilization scheme, I am glad to be able to report a steady improvement in efficiency in all branches.
  An unsatisfactory feature, however, is a decrease in the enrolled strength of the Militia. For the last four years there has been a regular increase of recruits, but on the 1st of January 1888 the enrolled strength was less by 1,770 noncommissioned officers and men than on the same date in 1887. No other cause has been assigned than a greater facility in procuring work. On the other hand the percentage of loss by desertion was lower, and the confidential Reports are very satisfactory as regards the physique, conduct, and training of the men. The supply of officers has always been a cause of some anxiety; but this year the Returns are most satisfactory, showing that although 190 Officers passed into the Regular Army, being 40 more than usual, the Militia is able to reckon upon 132 more Officers than in the previous year.
  The result of the musketry training of the Militia has never been so good as at present. 21,203 more men were exercised in 1877 than in the previous year, and 111 full battalions as against 60. Only 9 battalions have been unable to go through their musketry instruction for want of range accommodation. The standard of shooting shows considerable advance.
  The present system of drilling Militia recruits at the head-quarters of the regimental districts has tended to affiliate the men more closely to the Regular troops. Some difficulty has arisen in certain cases as to the place of training of Militia battalions, the localities interested being, not unnaturally, reluctant that any change should be made. I have felt it to be my duty to be mainly guided in this matter by considerations of military efficiency.
  The depression in agriculture still continues to affect the Yeomanry, and it appears from the Reports of the Inspectors that—especially in the northern districts—recruits are beginning to be more largely drawn from the class of tradesmen than of farmers. The general efficiency of the force has, however, undoubtedly increased. In the northern district a scheme of mounted ambulance detachments has been started in several regiments, and in the midland counties two regiments underwent their training in camp instead of in a town; an experiment attended with marked success, and which I should be glad to see extended when suitable ground can be procured.
  All branches of the Volunteer Force have made substantial progress during the past year. Its numbers are higher than at any previous period of its existence; the Reports speak favourably of its discipline and efficiency, while the various developments, which have been already described, testify to the general desire to fit themselves for all possible requirements which pervades all Volunteers. An illustration of this may be found in the ready and energetic manner in which, in all parts of the country, they are preparing themselves to comply with the conditions to be attached in future to the Capitation Grant. It will be remembered that it has been decided that (after the year 1887–8, which was to be a year of grace and transition) the whole Capitation Grant, increased in amount to 35 s., is mainly to depend upon efficiency in shooting. All men, with the exception of recruits, are to pass out of the 3rd class in musketry in order to obtain the grant. And, although the last annual Returns of Musketry cannot, for various reasons, be taken as affording any very valuable test, yet the reports which reach us from all parts of the country tend to show that the recent change will conduce to greater efficiency in musketry without operating with undue severity. Several modifications in the regulations have, moreover, been made to meet certain difficulties which have been pointed out. The most important of these relates to ranges. There can be no doubt that in all large towns, and even in some country districts, the provision of ranges is becoming a more and more serious question. Accordingly, a Committee has made special inquiry into the matter, and, in accordance with their recommendation, the use of screened, and even of underground ranges, will, under certain restrictions, be authorized in the case of corps which find great difficulty in obtaining their practice at open ranges. A concession has also been made to meet the loss, which a corps might otherwise have sustained, by the admission of a recruit who turned out to be incapable of getting; into the 2nd class. Provided that he is efficient in drill, a Capitation Grant of 10 s. will be given for the second and third year, so as to enable the value of his outfit to be recovered.
  Amongst other interesting examples of the great desire existing in the Volunteer Force for improved efficiency, to which the War Office is prepared to offer every encouragement, I may mention that Mounted Infantry detachments have been added to several Volunteer battalions, and that cyclist sections have been formed in many corps. One separate corps of cyclists has also been authorized, and is in process of organization. A much larger sum than usual has been asked for, this year, to enable Volunteers to drill with the Regular Army; and it is hoped that 15,000 Volunteers will be enabled to profit by this excellent method of improving in military efficiency. There can be no doubt that the connection of the Auxiliary Forces with the Regular Army is annually becoming closer, and will be much encouraged by the increasing interest now taken by all Officers commanding districts in that branch of their duties which concerns the Auxiliary Forces, and by the fact that all are now assigned a definite and responsible share in the common defence of the country.
  The increased Capitation Grant, and the other grants which have been made to increase the efficiency of the force, make a substantial addition to the Estimates to which I cannot believe that any objection will be raised. There is, however, an aspect of it to which attention should be called. These increasing grants of public money are in some districts killing local contributions, of which it is, in the interests of the force, most desirable that they should continue to have the assistance.
  The improvement of the arms in the hands of the troops is receiving serious attention. The manufacture of the new 12-pr. field gun is proceeding steadily. In the course of the financial year all the batteries of the two Army-Corps, and one other battery, will be armed with this very excellent weapon.
  After a careful and exhaustive examination of the numberless inventions put before them, the Small-Arms Committee, presided over by Major-General Philip Smith, C.B., have submitted a magazine rifle for approval. The magazine is
  204

  205
  detachable, and of very simple construction. The calibre is. 303, experience having proved to the Committee that equally effective results can be obtained with this as with the originally proposed bore of 4. The rifle having been provisionally approved by my military advisers, a certain number are being made for final trial by the troops under all conditions. Without this it would be imprudent to commence manufacture on a large scale, and it may undoubtedly suggest minor alterations of advantage. It will then be necessary to prepare the machinery required for the manufacture of the arm. These preliminary steps will, as I am advised, prevent the completion of many rifles during the present year. If however, Parliament thinks fit to vote the necessary money (and the total cost will be heavy) a large number can be constructed in 1889, and there is every reason to hope that our Army will be equipped with a magazine rifle almost as quickly as—and with an arm superior to that of—any other nation.
  In the meantime it is impossible to discontinue the manufacture of Martini-Henry rifles, or the conversion of Enfield-Martini rifles to the bore of 45. Not only will they be required for the Regular Army until the new rifle is ready for them; but it must be anticipated that for some time to come they will remain the armament of the Militia and the Volunteers.
  The examination of all the weapons in the hands of our troops, promised during last Session, has steadily progressed. It has been found that a considerable number of Martini-Henry rifles, having been in use for many years, are worn out, and have to be replaced. The Reports upon the condition of the swords and bayonets present some very curious results. It is sufficient here to say that the inefficient weapons have been replaced; and that it is intended in future, through the agency of the Inspection Branch, to examine the weapons in the hands of the Regular Army annually, and those afloat at the expiration of the period for which a ship is commissioned. It is hoped by these means to ensure their absolute efficiency according to any fair tests to which they may be subjected.

II.

  THE DEFENCES OF OUR PORTS AND COALING STATIONS.
  For several successive years Votes have been taken in the Army Estimates for the works of defence at our coaling stations; and a scheme with respect to them has been accepted by Parliament, and is now being carried out. No public statement has, however, yet been made as to the defences of our ports generally, though it has been known, and was, indeed, explained to Parliament by the present First Lord of the Treasury, that a large expenditure thereon would eventually be required. In preparing the Estimates for the present year, the Government have felt it to be their duty to consider carefully the position of our defences in all parts of the Empire. There is, no doubt, a general feeling that the chief endeavour of this country should be devoted to ensuring the permanent superiority of our Navy; but that Navy, however strong, is deprived of a large part of its liberty of action unless the principal ports at home and abroad, available for coaling or refitting, are made so strong as to be reasonably safe—even in the absence of the Fleet—against any probable attacks. The difficulty of effecting this has been much increased of late years by the enormous range and power of the guns now carried, even by unarmoured cruisers. It is true that the development of torpedo defence, both from stationary points and from ships, and the improvements in submarine mining, provide a comparatively reliable and economical means of checking the approach of a hostile vessel. But, on the other hand, modern science furnishes the assailant with means of overcoming these obstacles, unless they are protected by a light armament of machine and quick-firing guns; whilst the great range, precision, and penetration of the new types of heavy guns absolutely require that all ports likely to be subjected to
  206

  207
  their attack should possess means of keeping them at a sufficient distance. Generally speaking, it may be said that the recent improvements in guns have completely altered the conditions and the power of a naval attack; and it has, in consequence, appeared to Her Majesty's Government that a thorough examination of the general state of our defences should no longer be delayed.
  With these observations, I now proceed to deal separately with the various classes of places to be defended, adopting the somewhat illogical but convenient division between (A) coaling stations, (B) military ports at home and abroad, and (C) mercantile ports in the United Kingdom.

  THE DEFENCES OF OUR PORTS AND COALING STATIONS.

    (A) COALING STATIONS.
    First in order, I will take the defences of our selected coaling stations, both because these are the furthest advanced towards completion, and also because they have been subject to a more thorough and exhaustive scrutiny than has been the case with the other two categories of ports. In the proceedings of the recent Colonial Conference will be found, not only the principal portions of the Reports of Lord Carnarvon's Commission of 1879—which, for the first time, laid down a comprehensive scheme for the defence of the principal coaling stations of the Empire—but also a full account of the work now being carried out in consequence of those Reports. The Commission examined very carefully into the relative importance of the different coaling stations throughout our Colonial Empire, and ended by selecting those which are now being defended. For the present, at all events, I am of opinion that the list, as drawn up by them, must be considered, with one or two exceptions, as complete. Changes in trade routes, increase of population, or other circumstances, may, after a time, bring into special prominence places hitherto considered as of minor importance. But the points where works are now being executed were chosen after the most searching examination; and the primary duty of any Government at the present time appears to be to complete as rapidly as possible the task which has already been taken in hand. One very important addition to the list has, however, been made, to which I shall presently refer.
    A scheme based on the recommendations of the Commission for the defence of our coaling stations was first laid before Parliament in 1884. Since then a fuller knowledge of the requirements of each place to be defended, and of the defences now thought essential by professional opinion, and still more the great cost of modern breech-loading armaments—at that time imperfectly developed—have largely added, as was foreseen by the Royal Commission, to the estimates of the necessary expenditure.
    The addition to the list of stations drawn up in 1884, to which I have just alluded, is that of Table Bay. The original scheme laid before Parliament made no financial provision for the defence of this important harbour; but I venture to think that my action in including it among the stations to be protected will not meet with disapproval. This work, therefore, has also been undertaken, and an agreement with regard to it was entered into with Sir Thomas Upington during the Colonial Conference last year. Its execution has been expedited as much as possible, though the completion of the necessary works depends upon the Colonial Government.
    With this exception, the programme which was prepared four years ago remains substantially unaltered, and has been carried out by means of annual Votes, which have averaged about £200,000 a-year.
    The following table will give a clear idea of the work already done:—

    Coaling Stations.

    Works.

    Armaments.

    Estimated amount agreed to by Treasury and Colonial
    Governments.

    Expended to 31st March, 1888.

    Remaining to be expended.

    Estimated amount agreed to by Treasury.

    Expended up to 31st March, 1888.

    Remaining to be expended by Imperial Government.

    To be paid by Colonial Government.

    To be paid by Imperial Government.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Aden

    64,500* (by Indian Government.)

    64,500

    42,300

    22,200†

    79,950‡

    51,220‡

    28,730‡

    Trincomalee

    25,000

    16,500

    8,500

    11,080

    11,080

    Colombo

    24,820

    1,820

    23,000

    60,660

    60,660

    Singapore

    81,000

    76,850

    4,150

    120,614

    87,204

    33,410

    Hong Kong

    116,000

    109,250

    6,750

    153,910

    130,310

    23,600

    Simon's Bay

    53,000

    40,700

    12,300

    43,280

    11,970

    31,310

    Table Bay

    59,000

    7,000

    Expenditure not yet reported.

    59,000

    75,000

    42,950

    32,050

    7,000

    Sierra Leone

    30,000

    30,300

    15,000

    10,840

    4,160

    St. Helena

    7,000

    5,600

    1,400

    2,400

    2,400

    Mauritius

    55,000

    12,800

    42,200 (money voted.)

    56,895

    17,195

    39,700

    Jamaica

    41,250

    19,500

    21,750

    70,750

    2,355

    68,395

    St. Lucia

    30,000

    30,000

    18,500

    4,000

    14,500

    King George's Sound and Thursday Island

    To be paid by Colonial Government.

    28,000

    28,000

    2nd class coaling stations§

    35,551

    9,721

    25,830

    Further unappropriated expenditure ║

    14,410

    14,410

    Total

    400,320

    257,750

    154,900

    103,150

    786,000

    395,655¶

    390,345

    200,720

    135,100

    * Figures (old-faced) represent the sums paid or payable by Colonial Governments.

    † Outstanding accounts between the Indian Government and the War Office make us unable to guarantee the accuracy of this estimate.

    ‡Same amount to be paid by Indian Government. § Including Esquimalt, Port Elizabeth, &c.
    ║ For completing guns not yet appropriated to particular stations. ¶ Part of this may not be paid before 1st April, 1888.

    From this table it will be seen that the Imperial expenditure remaining upon this service for works and armaments is £493,495. But this sum does not represent all that is necessary. It is much to be regretted that the original statement of the cost of protecting our coaling stations, which was made to Parliament in 1884, contained no allusion to certain items upon which outlay will be required. It made no provision whatever for the increased barrack accommodation necessary for the garrisons. At St. Lucia, for instance, where everything has to be created, the erection for the new defences, just about to be commenced, involves the simultaneous erection of barracks. At other places additions to existing barracks, or the adaptation of other buildings to the purpose, are required. It is impossible to form an absolutely accurate estimate of the sum required to complete the barracks necessary for the requisite garrisons for the coaling stations. The outside estimate of gross expenditure now before me amounts to £750,000. But the contributions from some Colonies, and the proceeds of the sale of properties to be vacated in others, have to be taken into account. I am, however, assured that the best estimate possible under the circumstances gives the sum necessary to meet immediate necessities, and without the expenditure of which it would be impossible to garrison our coaling stations satisfactorily, as £350,000.
    Again, there is the submarine mining defence of these stations, and the light armament necessary to protect it. This work has been carried on steadily during the last two years; and has, at several stations, made very satisfactory progress. £165,609 has already been expended on this service, and in order to complete it, £66,451 for buildings, ships, and stores will be required.
    Taking, therefore, the Estimates given above, we may assume that the minimum sum necessary from Imperial funds to place our coaling stations in a condition to properly resist the kind of attack they might anticipate in war is—

    £

    Works and armaments

    493,495

    Barracks

    350,000

    Submarine mines, stores, &c

    66,451

    Total

    909,946

    (B.) MILITARY PORTS.
    These ports, at home and abroad, include the great military fortresses for the protection of our arsenals and dockyards and certain other places which require protection on account of their value to the Navy. The question of their defence has long engaged the attention of Parliament which, under Lord Palmerston's advice, provided large sums of money for their fortifications. It is, perhaps, characteristic of the want of thoroughness which has too often marked our military preparations, that the cost of the armaments, corresponding to these fortifications, which was to have been borne on the Annual Estimates, was not provided till a later period. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that these preparations, dilatory though they may have been, did for a considerable time answer the purpose of their author, and give protection to our Arsenals and Dockyards. But of late years the problem of the defence of fortresses has become more complicated. The power of the guns on board foreign ironclads, and carried even by comparatively small vessels, necessitates a partial and, in some cases, an almost complete reconstruction of our defences. Schemes have accordingly been prepared for the requisite alterations. They have been from time to time revised and extended; though the system of organization recently prevailing at the War Office seems to me to have been singularly ill-calculated to promote a comprehensive, and, at the same time, a critical examination of the whole subject. Eventually, the Estimates, pre-
    212

    213
    pared in full detail, which were presented to me in 1887, amounted to the following sums for the military ports:—

    £

    For works

    1,561,302

    For armaments and ammunition

    1,576,500

    3,137,802

    To this must be added the cost of submarine mining defence—

    £

    Total Estimate

    472,939

    Completed up to 31st March 1887

    415,982

    Required to complete

    56,957

    Total

    3,194,759

    The amount therefore of, say, £3,200,000, may be taken to represent the total sum then put forward as necessary to place the military ports in a satisfactory state of defence.

    (C.) MERCANTILE PORTS.
    The examination which took place into the defences of our military ports led also to the consideration of the condition of the principal mercantile ports of the United Kingdom, some of which were wholly unprotected; while the remainder had to rely upon armaments rapidly becoming obsolete. The result of this inquiry, in which the Earl of Morley and Lord Wolseley took a prominent part, was the preparation of plans for the improvement of their defences. The Estimates for this purpose have not been worked out in the same detail as in the case of the military ports; but the figures laid before me in 1887 are as follows:—

    £

    For works

    735,000

    For armaments

    1,022,000

    1,757,000

    To this must be added the cost of submarine mining defence—

    £

    Total Estimates

    315,954

    Expended up to 31st March 1887

    134,443

    Required to complete

    181,511

    Total

    1,938,511

    which may be considered as the expenditure then recommended for mercantile ports.
    All these Estimates were based upon the prices current at the time they were made. They did not include any provision for guard boats, now recognized as an important factor in submarine mining defence, nor for the installation of the Brennan torpedo. Additions may probably have to be made for increase in barrack accommodation; though this is somewhat mixed up with the larger question of the reconstruction of some of our existing barracks, a work which cannot be very long postponed. Nor would it be right, in attempting a complete
    214

    215
    review of what lies before us, to omit mention of the fact that the maintenance of these works and armaments will necessarily involve an increased annual charge upon the Estimates of the year; although part of it, in the case of certain coaling stations, will no doubt be borne by the Colonial Governments.
    The best mode of dealing with these very costly proposals was a difficult one to solve. In one case, that namely of the coaling stations, the examination already made by a Royal Commission has been so thorough, and the knowledge at my disposal so complete, that it has been possible to decide upon what should be undertaken without further inquiry. This cannot be said, however, with regard to the proposals for the defence either of the military or the mercantile ports. A scrutiny of these disclosed the fact that mixed up with demands of the most vital and urgent importance were proposed alterations, either comparatively unimportant in themselves, or to be introduced at places of minor consequence in the general scheme of the defences of this country. It, therefore, appeared desirable that such a comprehensive and business-like examination of these proposals should be made from every point of view, together with such a careful and independent consideration of the particular circumstances of each port to be defended, as would enable the Government to lay a scheme before Parliament, for which they could make themselves in every respect responsible.
    The Government accordingly requested the following gentlemen to undertake, with the Secretary of State, the duty of making this examination:—

    Sir Frederick Bramwell, M. Inst. C.E.

    Sir W. H. Houldsworth, Bart., M.P.

    Mr. J. W. Lowther, M.P.

    Mr. S. Whitbread, M.P.

    Mr. E. R. Wodehouse, M.P.

    Mr. G. L. Ryder.

    (representing the Treasury),
    and (to represent naval and military opinion)
    Lieut.-Gen. Sir E. B. Hamley, M.P., K.C.B.
    and
    Admiral Sir W. M. Dowell, K.C.B.
    This Committee held a large number of sittings, and made a minute examination of the subject. Their Report, omitting all detail of a confidential character, and shortly summarizing their conclusions, is now presented to Parliament.
    It will be seen from this Report that the Committee, having considered the relative importance of all the proposals laid before them, determined to indicate the improvements which the evidence had shown to be, in the case of the military and mercantile ports, most urgently required.
    They believed, and in this opinion they are supported by my military advisers, that it is not desirable at the present time to make public the details of the improvements proposed in our defences; but, having carefully examined into them, they recommended, unanimously and very strongly, that the most urgent works, at an expenditure of not less than £1,500,000, should be undertaken with as little delay as possible.
    As regards the mercantile ports, they expressed the opinion that the work of submarine mining defence—for which, I am happy to say, the necessary volunteers appear to be readily coming forward in the localities where they are required—should be completed as speedily as possible, and protected, as in all other cases, by the necessary light armament of quick-firing guns. But they were also unanimously of opinion that, in undertaking any other works of defence necessary at these ports, the Government is entitled to expect the
    216

    217
    co-operation of the localities which are to be so largely benefited by the protection of their trade.
    Since this Report was presented, which in its original form took place in the autumn, Her Majesty's Government have considered the whole question of the defences of our ports and coaling stations from the point of view of what is necessary, and what it is possible to do without loss of time; and the conclusions to which they have come may be stated generally as follows:—

    (1.) That the works and armaments which are vitally necessary for the protection of our arsenals and our commerce should be at once undertaken, and prosecuted with the least possible delay.

    (2.) That any scheme for this purpose should be submitted to Parliament as a whole, in order that the consent of Parliament having been once obtained, the necessary works may proceed without any hindrance.

    (3.) That the whole of the expense of the lighter armaments, of ammunition, and other more perishable material, should be borne upon the Annual Estimates; while that of the works and buildings and of the heavier armaments is of a sufficiently permanent character to render it right to follow the general lines of the precedent of the Military Forces Localization Act, 1872, and, by placing the expenditure under statutory authority, keep it outside the ordinary Estimates.

    The scheme which we now, therefore, submit to Parliament is based upon a programme which, we have every reason to hope, can be completed within three years. The time necessary for building and for the construction of heavy guns makes it improbable that any less period will suffice; but, on the other hand, we trust that the time named will not be exceeded, and every effort will be used to finish them as speedily as possible.
    First, we propose to complete, as quickly as possible, the works and armaments at the coaling stations within the accepted programme; and, in addition, to provide the armament for King George's Sound and Thursday Island, which was asked for by the Colonial representatives at the recent Colonial Conference. In addition, the submarine mining defences will be perfected, and the absolutely necessary barrack accommodation provided.
    We propose to undertake the most urgent requirements of our great military ports, in accordance with the general lines laid down by my Committee, and to complete the submarine mining defences.
    And, lastly, we propose to finish the submarine mining defences of our principal mercantile ports, and to supply the light armament necessary to protect them.
    The details of this scheme have been submitted to me by my military advisers. If it is to be completed within three years, it is absolutely necessary to commence operations as soon as possible. Indeed, in the case of one, and that the most important defect of all, we have not felt justified in delaying the attempt at a remedy, and the necessary works for this purpose are already in a very forward state.
    The subjoined table shows the general character of the works which it is proposed to carry out.

    Estimated cost of works and buildings.

    Estimated cost at present prices, heavy guns.

    Estimated cost at present prices of machine and quick-firing guns, torpedoes, and ammunition.

    Total.

    Defence works and buildings.

    Barracks.

    1.

    Military Ports—

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Portsmouth

    78,410

    106,370

    167,965

    352,745

    Plymouth

    103,590

    78,940

    51,500

    234,030

    The Thames

    119,276

    60,380

    44,910

    224,566

    The Medway

    Harwich

    21,630

    23,440

    22,440

    67,510

    Malta

    46,340

    76,730

    93,720

    216,790

    Gibraltar

    26,300

    51,635

    29,935

    107,870

    Bermuda

    16,193

    6,120

    22,313

    Halifax

    70,600

    17,290

    12,450

    100,340

    Minor Ports

    33,701

    17,390

    30,050

    81,141

    Strengthening magazines.

    95,000

    95,000

    Position - finding stations.

    50,000

    15,000

    65,000

    Minor services at various stations.

    85,000

    57,000

    142,000

    Total

    746,040

    432,175

    531,090

    1,709,305

    2.

    Coaling stations

    139,005†

    350,000

    220,265

    126,455

    835,725*

    3.

    Mercantile Ports

    92,405

    141,885

    234,290

    4.

    For incidental works and armaments.

    220,110

    220,110

    Grand total

    1,197,560

    350,000

    652,440

    799,430

    2,999,430

    * The difference between this amount and the sum of £909,916 shown in table on page 10 is caused by the fact that certain reserves of ammunition estimated for in the latter table are not included above.

    † This includes submarine mining buildings.

    The total sum to be provided will be seen to be £2,999,430, of which £799,430 is required for ammunition, submarine mining stores, and lighter armaments. This latter sum must be provided in the Estimates of the next two or three years. In the year 1888–9, £305,000 is included for this purpose; but the precise amount to be taken in each year depends upon the progress made with the manufacture of the necessary guns, which must be sent out with all necessary equipments. Proposals as to the means of providing the remaining sum of £2,200,000 will shortly be laid before Parliament.
    It will be fully understood that the scheme now submitted does not pretend to be an exhaustive one, or to complete all the defences which the military authorities think necessary, and desire to see carried out. What it does aim at is to carry out, in the next three years, or, in other words, as quickly as possible, all the most urgent of these defences; while the very rapid progress of military science from the defensive as well as the offensive point of view, makes it, in our opinion, eminently desirable that Parliament should have the opportunity, before the end of that period, of judging of the results achieved, and of forming an opinion as to the further steps which may be necessary to give that security to our arsenals and our commerce which is essential to our national existence.
    It only remains for me to explain what we hope to accomplish, during the coming year.
    We hope that all the guns required for the defence of the coaling stations, with the exception of two where the work is only just undertaken, will be ready to be sent out. The works, whose progress depends upon the Imperial Government, will be pushed forward with every endeavour, that they may all be ready for the guns when received. The programme for the coaling stations ought, therefore, to be very nearly completed. The remaining expenditure of the year will be mainly devoted to improving the defences of Portsmouth and the Thames.

III.

  ESTIMATES.
  The explanations already given will enable the changes proposed in the Estimates for the present year to be more readily followed. Speaking generally, the form of the Votes (except Vote 12) remains unaltered. In accordance with a promise made last year, tables are published as a supplement to the Estimates, showing the true cost of each separate service and institution connected with the Army. This has prevented the necessity of entirely recasting the present form of the Estimates, which was adopted as the most convenient for accounting purposes; but I should, in any case, have been reluctant to have introduced—while a Committee of Inquiry was sitting—any such vital changes in form as would have made a fair comparison with previous years more difficult than before. The information thus given for the first time will enable the cost of each special institution to be minutely examined. All the Votes, as to which practical suggestions of economy have been made, have undergone special and detailed scrutiny during the past year. That this has not been without result is shown by the fact that, although the numbers on the establishment are slightly greater than last year, no less than 18 Votes out of 25 show a reduction of expenditure.
  The changes in organization already described have necessitated a complete reconstruction of Vote 12 for warlike and other stores, which in its old form was certainly not very intelligible. In order to maintain full Parliamentary control over the manufacturing departments, a separate Vote is submitted for the Ordnance Factories. The principle on which it is framed is as follows:—
  The price of the articles produced by the Ordnance Factories will no longer be based upon what has been technically known as Balance Sheet No 1, but will be, to all the departments to which they are furnished, the actual cost of manufacture and inspection, with the addition of a percentage for depreciation of buildings and machinery. The Army, the Navy, the Colonies, and India, will advance from time to time to the Ordnance Factories the sums required for the manufacture of the articles ordered by them; and the balance only, being the cost of new buildings properly chargeable to capital, will be included in this Vote.
  The new Vote 12 omits the cost of naval armaments, and of the establishments of the Ordnance Factories, and presents in a simple form the actual cost of all the armaments and stores supplied to the Army, either by the Government Departments or by private contract, and of their inspection. The organization required for some form of inspection has always existed, but from the way in which the Vote has hitherto been framed, it has been impossible to trace the gross cost of the inspection and proof of stores and armaments. These now appear on the face of the Vote, and the contributions for this service paid by the Navy, the Colonies, and India, are treated as appropriations in aid. I have been compelled to make two additions to it. The object of the first is to carry out the pledge given last Session, that all weapons in the hands of the troops shall be
  222

  223
  passed by the military authorities before being issued for service, and afterwards periodically inspected. And, secondly, the Report of Sir J. F. Stephen's Commission, and more recently that of the Judge Advocate General, have pointed out great imperfections in the inspection of leather goods, to which I hope to apply an effective remedy. The Vote is also swollen by the transfer to it of the cost of certain inspectors who have hitherto appeared under Vote 9. Lastly, it is attempted to show, in the case of all ordnance stores, the amount required for annual maintenance as distinguished from equipment and reserves. The net increase in the Vote this year is £97,624, which is entirely accounted for by the largo amount taken for light armaments and ammunition at our principal ports.
  The Works Vote (13) also is largely affected by the new scheme of organization. It shows a decrease of £122,312, but it must be remembered that the whole cost of buildings and repairs, for the manufacturing departments of the Army, has been transferred from this Vote to that for the Ordnance Factories; and also that the scheme now put forward for the improvements in the defences of our ports provides for the execution of all the works and buildings necessary for that; purpose, but which hitherto have been borne upon this Vote. In order, therefore, to make a fair comparison with previous years, we must deduct from the net amount of this Vote in 1887–8—viz., £862,300—

  £

  Cost of works at the manufacturing establishments, Parts I., II., and III.

  96,688

  Cost of works of defence and submarine mining buildings at coaling stations

  77,200

  Cost of submarine mining buildings at home

  9,000

  Total

  182,888

  Leaving a balance of £679,412, with which we have to compare the net amount taken in 1888–89 of £643,300. The true result, therefore, is a reduction, of £36,112.
  The only Votes which show a substantial increase are Vote 1, (£44,175), which is raised in consequence of the reduction in the Egyptian contribution (£90,000), which, however, is compensated for by reduced expenditure on other Votes; Vote 7, which is swollen by the increased capitation grant to the Volunteers and by other concessions amounting in all to about £65,700; and Vote 11, for which, owing to the larger stock of materials available last year, we are now compelled to ask an increase of £15,600.
  On the other hand there are decreases to record on many Votes.
  I stated last year that the general improvement in the education of the country was beginning to tell upon the special charges for this purpose in the Army, and it was therefore necessary to consider whether some economy could not be effected in Vote 14. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State has examined the subject from all points of view with the assistance of a strong Committee, and has made recommendations which have been adopted.
  For the regimental adult schools now existing, involving a schoolmaster on the establishment of every regiment, garrison schools have been substituted.
  As regards adults, the compulsory system of education which, so far as the fourth-class certificate is concerned, has hitherto prevailed with very unsatisfactory results, has been abolished; every encouragement being given to soldiers to attend school voluntarily. The effect of this alteration in many cases already appears to exceed expectation. These changes will enable a reduction to be made in the number of Army schoolmasters and school assistants.
  The elder children who have hitherto been taught by the regimental schoolmaster will in future attend the nearest garrison school, care being taken that they have not an inconvenient distance to walk. For the education of infants it is proposed to appoint the wives of non-commissioned officers as acting schoolmistresses at a reduced salary and without allowances or pension, instead of employing trained schoolmistresses to perform the very elementary work now required.
  The Normal School at Chelsea has been abolished.
  These, with other changes of less importance, have enabled a reduction to be made in the Vote for the present year, so far as Army schools is concerned, of £6,905; and it is expected that the ultimate saving will be very considerable.
  I am also causing inquiry to be made into the administration of Sandhurst and Woolwich. The only decision which has hitherto been arrived at with respect to these institutions is that, on the occurrence of vacancies, the offices of Governor and Commandant will in both cases be amalgamated, effecting a saving of £2,900 a-year.
  The cost of the Army Medical Department (Vote 4) has undergone careful examination; the rapid growth of the charge for non-effective services having called special attention to the present system. The scale of remuneration now in force was adopted on the Report of a Committee, which sat in 1878, to consider the grievances of the department, and the disinclination of the profession to enter its ranks. But it is obvious that a system which offers inducements to officers to retire upon a pension, after only 20 years' service, is expensive to the State, and not even acceptable to that large section of the profession who, while feeling themselves unfitted for further service abroad, are ready and anxious to continue their duties at home stations. It is proposed to utilize in this manner the services of a large number of retired Officers, and further not to allow any Medical Officer to retire on the pension attached to his rank until he has served in it for a reasonable period. By these means a large reduction will be effected in the pension list; while, by extending the term of foreign service by one year, and by other steps now under consideration, we hope to make a considerable reduction in the establishment. For the present, therefore, all admissions to the Service are suspended, and it is probable that by the end of the financial year 28 Officers will have been absorbed. The net result this year is a saving of £19,100; but the effect of these changes, especially upon the Non-Effective Votes, will be more marked in future years.
  The Vote for the War Office (Vote 16), in spite of the increased cost of the Intelligence Department, caused by the seconding of the Officers employed in it—a step very strongly recommended before the recent Parliamentary Committee—and of the transfer to that Vote of the charge for the Inspector General of Remounts, shows a decrease of £1,200. Any attempt to effect an extensive re-organization of the clerical staff at the present time would add largely to the pension list, and cause a large temporary increase of expenditure. The position of this establishment is well described by the Royal Commission on Civil Departments, who, in objecting to the great multiplicity of classes of clerks at the War Office, point out that it has resulted partly from frequent re-organizations, and partly from the automatic growth of salaries and pensions resulting from the introduction of a large number of clerks at the time of the Crimean War. The retirements, however, which will necessarily take place in the course of the next few years will admit of the formation of an establishment, less costly and more suited to the special requirements of the War Office.
  The reduction just alluded to has been arrived at by a careful redistribution of work, and the automatic growth of salaries has been compensated for by a decrease in the establishment, the places of four higher division clerks, which foil vacant during the year, not having been filled up. But the actual
  226

  227
  numbers on the establishment cannot be sensibly diminished while the work remains unaltered. Whether some of that work is really necessary, or whether the numerous checks imposed at every stage of each item of expenditure, and the complicated vouchers insisted on for the most trifling amounts might not be dispensed with, at a great saving of clerical labour, and with no disadvantage to the public service, are questions which deserve the most careful examination, but which rest to a great extent with the Treasury.
  So far as it lies within, the power of the War Office, every effort will be made to reduce the amount of clerical labour required in the compilation of detailed accounts. For instance, it may be mentioned that by an alteration in the method of keeping the clothing accounts a great number of entries will be rendered unnecessary at a comparatively trifling loss to the State.
  We hope also to be able to simplify very considerably the present system of accounts of Army Paymasters, by establishing a monthly account in the place of the present complicated half-yearly account, and by throwing some of the work hitherto done by Army Paymasters on the present Staff of the War Office.
  The Vote for Military Law (Vote 3) shows a reduction of £3,600. The change in the office of Judge Advocate General will enable the separate establishment now maintained to be absorbed into the War Office. Economies have been effected in the management of the military prisons, two of which have been entirely closed.
  It is satisfactory to be able to note a decrease of £61,000 on the Non-Effective Votes. This is partly due to the gradual decrease of purchase claims, and partly to the Warrant altering the age of retirement of Majors and Captains.
  It is to be noted that considerable reductions in the Staff at Headquarters are taking place, some of which have already been alluded to. The offices of Surveyor General of Ordnance and Director of Supply and Transport have been abolished. The Assistant Director of Supply and Transport has become a Deputy Accountant General. We have found it possible to dispense with an Assistant Director of Military Education, a Deputy Judge Advocate, and a Deputy Surgeon General at Headquarters. A large number of minor Staff appointments have been reduced in various districts.
  In conclusion it may be pointed out that, if there had been no increase in the Capitation Grant for Volunteers, and if the sum required for the defence of ports and coaling stations had not exceeded the normal amount of recent years, the present Estimates, though making provision for 276 more men, would have shown a decrease of about £300,000.
  EDWARD STANHOPE.
  27 th February 1888

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  PROTECTION OF THE EMPIRE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    CAPTAIN COLOMBsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling attention to the growth of Army expenditure and to the relative decrease of Naval expenditure; and to submit a Resolution to the following effect:—
    "That it is desirable that this House, before having submitted to its consideration the Army Estimates, should be in possession of an explanatory statement from Her Majesty's Government, setting forth the general principles of defence which have determined the gross amount proposed to be allocated to Naval and Military purposes respectively, and indicating the main lines of the general plan, or programme, of British Defence, to which the Admiralty and the War Office administration, arrangement, and expenditure are respectively to conform."
    He had modified the original Resolution by striking out the word "Naval," for fear it might be thought he was transgressing the Rules of the House by raising any question of naval detail on going into Committee on the Army Estimates. He would only point out that the total of the Estimates for defence was for naval and military expenditure, and if they deducted the military expenditure from the total only the naval expenditure was left. As a young Member of the House, he so much felt the gravity of the situation and the danger of our policy in this matter, that he asked the House to listen to him while he stated the reasons for having put the Resolution down. Before dealing with, the subject, he desired to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, and especially the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), on the information afforded to the House in regard to two great Departments—the Admiralty and War Office. He thought the country was indebted to the War Office and the Admiralty for having taken Parliament
    230
    and the country more into their confidence in the last two Sessions than had ever been done before. The object of his (Captain Colomb's) Resolution was not to cavil at any action of the present or past Governments, but to ask for information, and to draw the attention of the House to matters which appeared to him to be of great importance. The Motion was to go into Committee upon the Army Estimates, upon an expenditure of nearly £17,000,000. He wished to point out that that represented a force of over 680,000 men, consisting of two parts—the Regular Army, available for general service, and the Auxiliary Army, which was limited to home defence. The Auxiliary Forces in these Estimates supplied a total force equal to 56 per cent of the entire number, and, therefore, exceeded the Regular Forces to which they were Auxiliary. From the Auxiliary he deducted the 30,000 Militia Reserve and added them to the Regular Army as part and parcel of our Regular Service. Now, what was the distribution of the Forces of the Regular Army? Roughly speaking, there was 36 per cent at home, 24 per cent in India, 10 per cent in the Colonies, 1 per cent in Egypt, and 28 per cent in the Reserves. We were told that we were in a better position than we were formerly, because we might be able to despatch two Army Corps to take the field if required. Consequently two Army Corps appeared to be the extreme limit of the national military striking power. Out of more than 680,000 men, which cost £17,000,000 per annum, the striking power of two Army Corps represented only 28 per cent of the total Regular Force at home, and 11 per cent of the total Military Forces on the Estimates. It was obvious that our military policy of self-defence was to "sit down and wait" if a great war overtook us. This was a policy without precedent in successful defence, and it was a policy contrary to our national experience and the traditions of the country in the past. It was a policy that we had gradually slid into, rather than directly formulated; because no Parliament and only one statesman had ever so laid it down. He should refer to the observations of that statesman in a few minutes. We seemed to have this policy nevertheless, for our military expenditure had grown while the striking

    231
    power of that Military Force had shrunk. What he wished to bring before the House was that it was due to the fact that the country scorned to have lost faith in its own naval power, perhaps because naval power was more expensive than it used to be. The question was, what kind of Army did we want? He had high authority for asking that question—it was a question which only the House could answer. It was not one which the Military Authorities could answer, for Lord Wolseley, speaking on the 27th of April last, said—
    "Before the Military Authorities were called upon to provide an Army, they ought to be informed clearly and distinctly what kind of an Army the country wanted, and if that were done there would be no difficulty in providing the necessary force for the defence of the Empire."
    Well, who was to inform the Military I Authorities what kind of an Army we wanted but that House? The difficulty rested with the House of Commons and not with the Military Authorities, and he thought the real root of it lay in the system of Party Government. He ventured to submit to the House that we could not say what sort of Army we wanted without reference to our naval position, policy, and power, because, situated as we were, the naval question ruled the military question. Until they had settled the naval question, they could not settle what sort of Army they wanted, and the naval question was only to be determined by reference to three things—the physical facts of our position, the teachings of past experience, and the conditions of modern war. The teachings of experience in regard to England acting on the defensive were in a dim and distant past. Since then, the facts of our position had materially changed, and to illustrate that he would divide the present century into three periods and give the rough results of a comparison between the three. He took three periods of 29 years. In 1801 the Army Estimates were £17,750,000; the Naval Estimates were only £500,000 less, being £17,250,000. That showed the sort of policy we were carrying out before we fought Trafalgar. He would point out to the House the very remarkable fact that although we fought Trafalgar and practically annihilated the Fleets of the
    232
    two great European Powers opposed to us, our fathers, the year afterwards, added £2,000,000 to the' Navy Estimates, and increased annual naval expenditure down to the battle of Waterloo, when it was £22,000,000. That illustrated the feeling that then prevailed. England, although triumphant, realized the enormous danger of maritime war and the great influence the element of chance might have. What was our position then? The population amounted to 16,000,000; our sea trade was a little over £4 per head; one ton of shipping entered and cleared at our ports in the year did the sea business of five inhabitants; one person only in 23 was fed on sea-borne food. In 1830, the last year of the first period, the population had increased to 24,000,000; the sea trade had risen to nearly £5 per head; one ton of shipping entered and cleared in the year did the business of four inhabitants; for every £100 spent on the Navy then, £105 was spent on the Army, but it was an Army that could strike. Coming to the closing year of the middle period, 1859, he found that the population had increased to 28,000,000; the sea trade per head had risen to £11 15 s.; one ton of shipping entered and cleared annually did the business of only one inhabitant, and one inhabitant in three was fed on sea-borne food. It would thus be seen that gradually the interest of the people tended more and more seaward. What was the condition now in the closing year of the third period? The population had increased to over 37,000,000; the sea trade had risen to some £17 per head; each inhabitant employed one and a-half tons of shipping entered and cleared in the year to himself; soine20,000,000of people were fed on sea-borne food, and for every £100 spent on the Navy we spent £127 on the Army. He had compared the first year of the first period with the last year of the third period, and he found that whereas we spent only £500,000 a-year more upon the Army in 1801 than upon the Navy, we now spent nearly £4,000,000 more upon the Army than upon the Navy. In other words, for every £100 we spent on the Navy at the beginning of the century, we only spent £103 upon the Army; we now for every £100 spent on the Navy, spend £127 upon our Military Forces. Whereas only some 700,000 inhabitants were in 1801 fed on sea-borne food, some 20,000,000 were now

    233
    supplied from abroad. In 1801 the sea-borne trade per head amounted to £4 per annum; it was now £17. In 1801 one ton of shipping entered and cleared in the year did the business of five inhabitants; now each inhabitant required one and a-half tons to do his own annual sea business. That showed the enormous growth of our naval responsibility. But there was another point to which he desired briefly to refer, and it was this. The relation of extent of area to the amount of force required to protect it was the same upon water as upon land, and the area over which our sea interests operated in 1801 was illustrated by our export of produce In the first period of the 87 years which had elapsed since the beginning of the century, five-sixths of our export trade was confined to the North Atlantic, including the Mediterannean and the Baltic; in the second period, four-fifths were so confined, and now only one-half. The other half of our enormous commerce now went to the other side of the world; and three-fourths of the whole sea area of the world had been added to our naval responsibility of defence. In point of fact, we had since 1801 added another hemisphere to be defended by our naval arrangements. But this was not all. He had hitherto dealt exclusively with the position of the United Kingdom then and now; but while these changes were going on our own position abroad was undergoing a still greater change, and the interests of our Empire beyond the sea must now be added to the British interests to be defended—the interests of that outlying Empire which had grown up since the beginning of the century. In 1800 the British trade meant the trade of the United Kingdom; but now it meant that of the independent trade of the outlying Empire also. The value of British sea trade was under£70,000,000, and now it was closeupon£ 1,000,000,000. Whereas they had at the beginning of the century only £70,000,000 of sea trade, and a limited area to protect, they had now £1,000,000,000 of sea trade, and the whole water area of the world to protect. This distribution of British trade at this moment was not without interest and importance with regard to his Resolution, The sea trade of the Mother Country was over £600,000,000 a-year, and the sea trade of the outlying
    234
    Empire, independent of that with the Mother Country, was £400,000,000. The tonnage entered and cleared in British ports abroad in any year was now greater than the tonnage entered and cleared in British ports at home. Thus had our sea interest grown, and our naval responsibility increased; but our policy and arrangements for defence had been to reduce the Naval Estimates and increase the Army Estimates for the "sit down and wait "policy. The time was when all our attention was directed to the naval safety of the State, and it was considered necessary for the country to possess an overwhelming naval power, with an Army prepared to strike, and not to sit down and remain passive. Our naval power was applied to keep the enemies battle fleet in port, or, if it got out, to compel conflict against great odds.
    MR. SPEAKER: the hon. and gallant Member is now entering into a subject which would more properly come in upon the Navy rather than the Army Estimates.
    CAPTAIN COLOMBsaid, he was sorry if he had transgressed the Rules of the House. It was not his intention to do so, and this only showed the enormous difficulty of considering the question of defence. He would endoavour, as far as he could, scrupulously to obey the ruling of the Chair, and he would, therefore, pass by the arguments he was about to adduce. The conditions of war had changed. To whatever branch of service they referred, it would be found that there had been great changes. Preparations for war now took a far longer time, were more costly, but decisive results were sooner attained. The heavy guns which formerly only took a few days to cast now took months to manufacture. The Artillery, whether sea or land, which before could be formed in a few days, now took a very long period to ensure its efficiency, and it would appear, on comparing our position then and the relative expenditure for defence in the past with the present, that we had thrown aside the teachings of experience and the former national principles which carried us safely through war. We had been developing a theory of purely military defence, based on the presumption that it was necessary because of the weakness of our naval

    235
    defence. At the first year of the last period—1859—we first took a definite new departure with regard to a military policy of passive defence; we appointed a Commission to investigate the defence of the United Kingdom, and to that Commission we assigned the duty of saying what was to be done under certain assumed naval conditions; but the assumed naval conditions had never been really examined or approved by the nation. The Commission had presented a Report, and upon that Report we spent a large sum of money upon fortifications, not only for the protection of the sea front of certain ports, which everybody must see was absolutely necessary, bat for the protection of these ports from land attack. Therefore, the assumed naval conditions involved this—that the rear of our ports might be attacked—in other words, we admitted naval weakness. The point he wished to bring forward was this—that the Army and the military arrangements were only a part of their general scheme; that they could not tell what it was necessary to have, or what it was necessary to spend upon their Army, unless they had before them the whole necessities of their national position. Unfortunately, he was precluded by the Forms of the House from discussing the whole question. Therefore it was necessary to confine himself to the Army. But he maintained that they could not deal with the Army from that limited point of view, and that if they w ere to get economy and efficiency in their administration, it must be from a review of their whole position, and adapting their forces, whether military or naval, to suit the necessities of their position. He would not road what was recommended by the Commission of 1859, and which was in process of development down to 1870. In that year there was a considerable alarm in the country. War had broken out on the Continent, and the public mind was agitated and anxious about the situation of this country. He proposed to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), not for any Party purpose, for he could not do so if he wished, seeing that the declaration which was made by the Head of one Party had never been controverted by the other. In the words of the Prime Minister in 1870—
    236
    "Steam applied to navigation has done at least as much for a defending as for an invading Power; even the stores of coals needed for marine locomotion are principally ours, and while by aid of this powerful agent the ships of both nations may scour the coasts, with favourable weather, at from 12 to 15 or 16 miles an hour, the railways which gird the land—to say nothing of the telegraphs—may, in all weathers, carry the armies which are to guard it and their matériel from point to point at 20, 30, or 40."
    The principle of defence was thus explained—that they were to meet the danger of a hostile Fleet scouring their shores by the use of an Army constituted and only adapted and capable of passive defence within these shores. That was the principle of the Estimates the House was asked to vote that day. He asked hon. Members to consider in what position, oven if they had 10,000,000 men in the Army, the country would be under the circumstances he had described? Moro than 20,000,000 out of the 37,000,000 of the population would be entirely cut off from food. The absence of raw material, upon the manufacture of which 30,000,000 out of 37,000,000 inhabitants depended for their sustenance, would cause them to be thrown out of work, because that raw material could not come in, or, if it did, such a price would be demanded for it as to extinguish all profit, and therefore the mills would have to be shut up. Their foreign and coasting trade would have to be suspended; their Army would be unable to secure the ingress and egress at their mercantile ports, for, even though defended by the Army, they would be absolutely closed, and the moral effect he dared not speculate upon. Yet a defence such as this had been pictured by a Prime Minister of England as a cause of satisfaction. If ever it did come to pass, he (Captain Colomb) doubted whether the government of the country would be possible, and that was one of the points he wished to press upon the House, although he could not press it as forcibly as he should like without transgressing the Rules of the House. He could only indicate the point he wished to bring forward, and that was that the House was not in a position to discuss the Military or Naval Estimates until they had before them the general necessities of the position and the general policy which the Estimates were to carry out. He would conclude by pointing out the

    237
    last result of the present policy and illustrate what was the effect of existing ideas on the subject of defence. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates, there was an answer given by the head of the Intelligence Department of the Army. Question 4,247, Major General Brackenbury was asked—
    "And, as a corollary from that, I presume you think that our defensive condition should be made perfect?—I would then go on to say this; that I have not the slightest doubt that if our Channel Fleet were to be temporarily—for a, period, I will say, of three weeks—made powerless, to be removed from controlling the Channel for a period of three weeks, a strong Maritime Power would be able to place, crowding them together on board ships for the short voyage, such a number of men that they might land or attempt to land a force of from 100,000 men to 150,000 men upon these shores."
    What he wanted to point out was that whether an enemy could do this or not was not a military, but a naval question; and the answer itself was based upon the supposition that the assumed naval conditions existed for three weeks. He regretted that the Committee did not ask this officer to give the data upon which he formed his opinion, and did not ask him to state what ports he had in his mind from which the invading force could be despatched, the carrying power of the nation owning such ports, and the time it would take to collect it at such ports. He also regretted that so grave a statement in support of passive defence should have been accepted without proof and without inquiry. Assuming it to be true, what then? It meant that if, instead of this immense undertaking of embarking simultaneously 150,000 men, the enemy armed this vast multitude of ships—assumed to exist—with guns, torpedoes, and a handful of gunners and torpedoists, they might for three weeks swarm in the offings of our commercial ports. What, then, would be the value of passive military defence and defended harbours? Practically, the country would be absolutely invested, and three weeks of this condition of things would bring about the absolute necessity of a surrender without a single man having been landed on our shores. He would no longer trespass on the time of the House. He hoped he had said sufficient to indicate
    238
    the impossibility of discussing the military policy and the Army military expenditure without some general statement before the House indicating the principle on which the State was to rely for safety, and the main lines of the policy by which it was to be attained. Such a plan would involve full naval and military considerations, and he thought there was a necessity for the country and Parliament being informed as to the general outline on which the Army and Navy Administration was to be framed. It was proposed to have the Army Estimates discussed by a Committee, who would, however, only deal with the military part, while the Naval Estimates would be referred to another Committee, who would only deal with the naval part. He thought they were working a system of national defence in two water-tight compartments without any real responsibility, and no central controlling authority for both. Our safety in war would have to be evolved out of dual control and divided responsibility. That was a serious question, and if the House would accept his Resolution, before sending the Army Estimates to one Committee and the Navy Estimates to another, the House could settle first what both were expected to do. The position of the House in discussing the defence question was that they were asked one day by the Secretary for War to put on red spectacles and only look at the Army, shutting out the Navy altogether; another day they would be invited by the First Lord of the Admiralty to put on blue spectacles and only look at the Navy, shutting out the Army altogether. He thought that was a most unsatisfactory state of things, and it was in the interests of the country and the interests of safety, economy, and efficiency, that they should have a statement from a Minister responsible to the country for its defence, and answerable for general principles, being followed both by the Army and Navy. He believed that would be the first step towards effecting those reforms which were necessary to provide for our safety in war, and also to insure the economy and efficiency of the Public Service.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member move the Resolution?
    CAPTAIN COLOMB: No, Sir.
    SIR. WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had on the Paper a Resolution which, was one of the greatest importance that could be brought under the notice of the House. The question was one the House ought to consider, and there ought to be no Member of Parliament, on whichever side of the House he sat, who should be afraid to get up in the present condition of affairs and state his views and opinions with regard to the defences of this great country. It was most certainly not a Party question. No military question and. no naval question ought to be made a Party question, and the particular question he was about to bring forward was of such vital importance that he hoped for the indulgence of the House in making the statement he desired to lay before it. He said it was no Party question, and he was fortified in that opinion, because there was a meeting upstairs on Thursday last of the military and naval Members of the House sitting on both sides of that House, and they were all unanimously in favour of the Resolution he was about to submit. It was most certainly not intended that there should be any attack whatever upon the Government; but what would the people of the country know about the matter unless the real condition of our defences was placed before them? So far as the Government were concerned, they ought to feel obliged to any hon. Member who got up in his place and gave his opinion in order to show what was imperatively demanded for the safety of the country. Most certainly no attack was intended to be made on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope). His right hon. Friend had placed before the House a most able statement of his views indicating what he intended to carry out. He had placed before them exactly what it was the Government intended to do; but without going into that question he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) ventured to say that the Government were dealing with this great question piecemeal, and that they had only a plan for the present year, or for two or three years at most, without going to the root of the whole matter, and enabling Parliament to say whether there was any continuity of plan for the defence of the country to be carried out which would have his support. The Government
    240
    proposed to raise some £2,000,000 or more of money only. He was satisfied that if the country knew the present condition of affairs and how defenceless we were at this moment, they would not only vote £2,000,000, but any reasonable sum, considering the enormous interests involved, that the Secretary of State came down and demanded. Unfortunately, the country did not know the condition of our defences, and, therefore, it cavilled at what Parliament was asked to vote. He was afraid that the country not only did not know, but would never know the condition in which our defences were placed, unless public attention was called to it by statements in that House. It was said that this was a great Constitutional question, and the power rested entirely in the hands of the Government, and that no one had a right to ask that it should be taken from them. It was an authority which they alone ought to possess. He denied that proposition absolutely, and when he came to look at what had been done in the past, what was our present position, and what might happen in the future, he thought he was entitled to ask that a Royal Commission should sit and inquire into the present state of our defences, and also what re-organization, if any, should take place in the War Office. At any rate, those military advisers who were now consulted and had now to state their views and opinions, and those who had been answerable in a time of war for everything being right, should have the responsibility of spending the money that was asked for in order to put our defensive forces into decent and good order. If that were done, and they were made absolutely responsible to the House, and could, show that the money had been spent in the interest of the country, there would not only be greater efficiency but greater economy than we had now. There was, however, another question. No one knew what the defences of the country were, or how many men in a normal condition o affairs we ought to have. That was one of the questions which had often been asked and never answered. Parliament ought to know the number of men absolutely necessary, the quantity of arms in store, the quantity of ammunition, and the quantity of stores of all kinds. There ought to be no reserve in a matter of

    241
    that kind; but the country ought to know whether, in a case of emergency, we possessed all the men and all the stores we absolutely required. It was also necessary to know the requirements of our naval and military ports. In the Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for War, and presented to both Houses of Parliament the other day, would be found a list of military ports. The Report was as follows:—
    "Among the so-called military ports three at once suggest themselves as far exceeding all others in importance. They are Portsmouth, Plymouth, and the ports included within the Thames and Medway defences. It is not too much to say that the destruction of our great Dockyard at Portsmouth—and in a less degree of that at Plymouth—might be decisive of the issue of a great war."
    And yet the House of Commons was absolutely without knowledge as to whether any one of these ports was in a condition to resist the attack of an enemy. He maintained that that was a very serious matter for the nation at the present moment; and what would be the consequences to our Colonial ports if it were found necessary to keep our Fleet and Reserve at home to look after England alone, so as to meet any Fleet, of whatever size that Fleet might be, which might choose to threaten an attack on any of our ports around these Islands? There was another very important matter—namely, our coaling stations, for which a special Vote was about to be taken. He did not propose to enter into the condition of the different stations. Malta and Gibraltar formed the great highway to India, and in our interests in the Mediterranean it was absolutely necessary to maintain them. Was Gibraltar at the present moment fit to sustain an attack? He was told that there was only one gun there fit to cope with the guns of large calibre which largo iron-clads carried now. What he asked for was that a Royal Commission should go carefully through the whole of these questions, and decide what should be the normal number of the men, and the necessary expenditure to be made upon our naval and military ports, coaling stations, and mercantile ports. These were very serious questions, and he should like, if the House would permit him, to read some of the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission on War-
    242
    like Stores presided over by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. One of the questions which naturally occurred to hon. Members at the present moment was, how was it that, with the enormous amount of money voted annually by Parliament, we should find that our Army was not at the present moment in a far better state than it was? How was it that we found perpetual changes in policy? No single plan was carried out from year to year. The number of men was reduced to suit the interests of the Government and Party warfare, while the country was left out in the cold. He would soon show whether he had a right to make a statement like that. The first witness examined before the Royal Commission was his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), then the Secretary of State for War, and this was one of the first questions put to him—
    "But his Colleagues, the other Members of the Cabinet, must have something to go upon when they say—' You must do without this or that improvement?'—Well, they never enter into the details of the expenditure; the whole responsibility for that rests with the Secretary of State.
    "I mean does the Cabinet say—' Well, you may arrange it how you please; but you must do with £500,000 less?'—Practically, that is very much the result.
    "After you have consulted upon the various rave matters which must regulate the taxation, the feeling of the House of Commons, the prospects of peace and war, and other things of that kind, it finally conies to this—that the Cabinet say—' Well, the War Department must take off £250,000?'—Substantially, that is the mode in which the result is arrived at.
    "Then, when the Secretary of State is told that he is to take off £250,000, or whatever it is, he has to take it off really from the elastic part of the expenditure?—Yes; he calls the officers of the Department round him, and asks for their advice and for their opinions, and he exercises his discretion and judgment.
    "He has to do without some of the things?—He might have to do without men, or he might have to do without stores of every description."
    These were the answers of the right hon. Gentleman the then Secretary of State for War. In further examination the right hon. Gentleman was asked—
    "Practically, therefore, it comes to this—that when the Cabinet finally determines that the Secretary of State for War is to do with a smaller amount than he has proposed, it has all to come out of the elastic part of the expenditure—namely, the stores and the labour?—Or the men.
    "That would be the labour?—No; I am speaking now of the number of men voted. It might happen that there is a reduction of 5,000

    243
    men in the Army; that is a mode in which economy, so to speak, has been effected.''
    That is the answer given by the then Secretary of State for War, who was truthfulness personified, and who, when asked by the Royal Commission to state his views, told them, as clearly as it was possible to state it, what his real opinion was. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wanted to know if the country was to be placed in such a position that when, for political purposes, and for political purposes only, in order to please outsiders and reduce the Votes—he was not accusing one side more than another—they were to find that the men were cut down and the stores cut down in order to meet the cry for economy which had been raised. He did not propose to quote more from this Blue Book than he could help; but he felt that it was necessary, at the same time, that in an important matter like this every hon. Member should state what he believed to be the truth; so that they might all, upon an occasion like this, examine carefully into the matter as it stood. There was one other question which he desired to place before the House. His right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury was asked—
    "Does anything occur to you as capable of improvement in regard to the general system that you have stated—namely, putting it shortly, the Secretary of State with the ultimate decision, the Secretary of State with the Surveyor General under him as a practical officer advised by the Director of Artillery, and with the power of consulting the Ordnance Committee; can you suggest any alteration in the system?—I am not prepared to suggest an alteration in the system. I think h is possible that the office of artillery and stores might be strengthened; but that is a matter of detail. So long as our political system exists as it is, it does not appear to me to be easily practicable to make any considerable change in the system. Everything depends upon the individuals who have to work the system. If I was in the position which some Ministers of War occupy in other countries, with a power over the purse which I do not possess, and an. uncontrolled responsibility which does not attach to me—for I am checked and controlled—I could imagine a better system than that which exists at the present time—a greater amount of freedom with an increased responsibility attaching to the Secretary of State. But, looking to our Parliamentary system, it does not seem to me practicable to introduce any great changes in the existing system.
    He now came to the evidence of the hon. Baronet the late Surveyor General of Ordnance (Sir Stafford Northcote).
    244
    The hon. Baronet (then Mr. Northcote) was asked—
    "I think you said that Vote 12 is by far the most important Vote that you have to deal with?—I think it is the most contentious. I think it is the one upon which more discussion usually takes place in the House of Commons than any of the others.
    "In fact, I suppose the two Votes which take the most consideration are Vote 1 and Vote 12?—Yes; of course, Vote 1 is the great Vote; I was only alluding to any special Vote.
    "Taking your business as Surveyor General of Ordnance, you have very little to do with Vote 1. You have to do with the other Votes, especially with warlike stores, Vote 12?—Quite so.
    "Is it not the fact, because we have had it stated before, that it is upon these two Votes, Vole 1 and Vote 12, that the manipulation of the Estimates usually takes place?—Yes; I think that is so.
    "That is to say, there are many charges which are fixed charges, and certain other things which are obliged to be done; but whether it is in the interest of the country, or whether it is not, when Votes have to be cut down, it is, generally speaking, upon Vote 1 and Vote 12 that the reduction takes place?—Yes; principally.
    "And although you yourself may have thought that it would be necessary that certain Supplies with regard to Vote 12 should be granted, yet in the exigencies of the case they are not able to be granted because you have not sufficient money?—Yes; that is so."
    That was the evidence of his hon. Friend sitting below him, and was as truthful evidence as could be given. These were the facts of the ease, and the House had to deal with them as they found them. He would turn now to the evidence of Lord Wolseley, who gave evidence before the Commission. The evidence of the noble and gallant Lord would of course be acceptable to both sides of the House, because the noble and gallant Lord had been appointed to very high commands by both Parties when in power. Indeed, he had been regarded as a military officer of a specially high type, and therefore he would read the evidence of the noble and gallant Lord with great confidence. Lord Wolseley, in answer to questions whether they ought not to have some standard laid down to work up to, said, "Yes; but at present they had none," and he suggested a Royal Commission. In answer to Question 2,643—
    "Do you think it would bean impossible thing, or even a difficult thing, if serious inquiry were made into the subject, to draw out some permanent system of the nature of that which you describe?—I think it would be a very simple process, a process that might be very easily accomplished by a Royal Commission of both Houses of Parliament, not constituted of military

    245
    men, but of judicial men who would look at it as a judicial inquiry, and examine experts on the various topics connected with the subject."
    Lord Wolseley, in Question 2,764, was asked—
    "You made one very correct and at the same time strong statement, that the worst part of our system is that we never tell the truth so that the English people may know the position in which we are?—We never take the English people into our confidence, We never tell them what are our shortcomings; they have no means of ascertaining what are the military views of the highest military officers they employ. The highest military officers are employed and paid very well; but the English people have never the benefit of knowing what their military views are; as long as military men are employed in the War Office their tongues are tied. They are not allowed to express their opinions, even in ordinary conversation, much less in print, upon the most important subjects connected with the defence of the Empire.
    '' And is it not your view that until we get such a Committee, and until we have our Army and our stores in the position which you have named, we are liable to the greatest panics that can he imagined?—Yes; I consider that the position of England at the present moment, as regards its Army, is very unsatisfactory; that if a hostile force were to land upon our shores of, say, 100,000 men, there is no reason whatever, if that 100,000 men were properly led, why they should not take possession of London."
    That was the statement of Lord Wolseley. The noble and gallant Lord made another statement in answer to a question from the Chairman of the Commission, 2,649—
    "The effect, therefore, is that when, for a very general political reason, it is desired to reduce the Estimates, the stores, man, and horses fall off?—Yes."
    There were two or three other points which Lord Wolseley most carefully stated before the Commission; but his views and opinions distinctly were that it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the country that a Royal Commission, or a Committee as he called it, should be granted, and that before that Committee all the best experts in the Service should be brought, be that the requirements of the country might be made known. He felt sure those requirements would be granted, as well as the necessary money to carry them out. By the extracts he had given from the Blue Book of the evidence before the Royal Commission which sat to inquire into the condition of warlike stores, he thought he had been able to show the position in which the country was in and what Parliament had to deal with. There was another question.
    246
    Going back to the Crimean War, would anybody say that the Government had in regard to the Army and Navy done their duty? When we went into the Crimean War we had made no preparation of any kind, either in regard to men or stores. The result was that we incurred a large, and what ought to have been, both in men and money, an unnecessary expenditure. Thousands of young soldiers lost their lives, and millions of money were thrown away. We were not prepared then in any one single point, and we had taken no precautions, believing that the necessity would not arise. Mr. Cardwell—afterwards Lord Card well—was, in 1870–1, Secretary of State for War. He passed the Short Service Act and formed a Reserve, but in doing so thought it absolutely necessary that those regiments which were first for duty should, have their strength raised. A plan was prepared, but the Treasury would not allow the regiments to be raised to the number suggested by Mr. Cardwell. One of the small African Wars came shortly afterwards, and the consequence was that regiments were sent abroad short-handed, and then those which were first on the rota were called upon to furnish drafts for those regiments serving in Africa making them quite inefficient, though next for duty. In this way we went on from hand to mouth. He would instance another campaign—that which took place in Abyssinia in 1868, That campaign was organized by Lord Napier of Magdala. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was on the Committee which sat to inquire into the expenditure connected with that expedition.
    MR. CHILDERS: No; I was not on that Committee.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman would recollect the inquiry which took place, and would be aware that, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure which was incurred, the provisions which were made might have been altogether inadequate. It was a great expedition up to a certain point—namely, up to Magdala; but if King Theodore had not remained there, and had retired with his army, our troops could not have gone one step further, as there were not sufficient men to keep

    247
    open the communications. He mentioned this fact to show that it -was impossible in a time of war to be guided by an economical policy only. Whenever it was necessary to go to war we ought to be fully prepared. What happened in reference to the Egyptian War? We sent out an excellent army to Egypt, but we had to draw troops from India and to call out a portion of the Army Reserve; by that means denuding this country of its defenders. The number of men who went out to Egypt was considerable; but, at the same time, some of the Reserves went with them and the rest were called out for service at home, to make the regiments at home efficient. Not long ago it was thought that we intended to take a firm stand against the encroachments of Russia in Afghanistan. £11,000,000 was voted for that purpose, as well as for continuing the operations in Egypt. Most of the money, however, was devoted to replenishing our stores, which were in a most unsatisfactory condition. He could only say, and he thought he had a right to say it, that Party considerations were always considered before the great honour of the country. Let them for one moment look at the present condition of affairs; let them look at the enormous host of Russian troops echeloned along Bessarabia, Podolia, Volhynia and Poland, facing Roumania, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. Could anyone read the papers that morning, having regard to the statements of the Emperor of Russia, and say how long it might be before a state of things would arise which, as in the case of the Crimea, might drive us against our will and inclination at once into war? To go one step further—what was our policy now with regard to Bulgaria? They would all recollect the Bulgarian atrocities, which brought Russia to the gates of Constantinople, when we had to intervene. What was our policy now? Were we going to allow Bulgaria to be swallowed up by Russia, or was that young nation, rightly struggling for its liberty, still to have the sympathy and support of England? Was our policy still, as in the old days, to prevent Russia reaching the great goal of her ambition—the gates of Constantinople? To allow Russia to establish herself in Constantinople, so that we should not have a free entrance into the Black Sea,
    248
    would be a fatal stop in the interests of the British Empire, of which we were so justly proud. Russia had millions of men, some of them well armed, some of them badly armed; but there they were with 280,000 horsemen. France could put 2,500,000 men into the field, and could mobilize 1,500,000 more as occasion might require. Her fortresses were perfectly armed and provisioned.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: His right hon. Friend said "No." Would his right hon. Friend mention one fort which was not properly garrisoned and provisioned? He should like his right hon. Friend to state what towns in France were not properly fortified and garrisoned. It might be so in regard to one or two; it was certainly not the rule. So far as Germany was concerned, she could now put 1,280,000 men into line if she pleased, one-half on the frontier of France, and the other half on the frontier of Russia. She could produce 750,000 more within a fortnight to keep up the communications between the two Armies on the frontier, and besides that she could raise 750,000 more for her home defence. All her railways were complete; all her fortifications he believed were complete; and he did not think that his right hon. Friend would say that they were not all of them properly provisioned. He trusted that this country was not likely to have anything but the most friendly relations with Germany; but all we had to do was to be prepared for anything that might happen. He gave his right hon. Friend credit for having done a great deal more than his Predecessors. Nevertheless, what had been done fell very far short of what the country required. He asked his right hon. Friend, how many field guns in case of a great emergency could be produced at this moment? His own impression was that, taking into consideration all the batteries which had been broken up, and the resolution which had been taken with regard to ammunition trains in connection with the formation of two Army Corps, we could not send out into the field 200 field guns. He asked if that were so or not? If it were true, it was out of the question that if we were to send these two Army Corps abroad, with the guns they required, we

    249
    should have a single gun left for the home force to whom the defence of the country would have to be entrusted. At the lowest calculation we ought to have at this moment at least from 500 to 600 field guns for the 500,000 men of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces we had at home. At Sedan—when the German Emperor showed the Emperor Napoleon the case of iron which surrounded that position—the whole work was over, and the slaughter stopped, because it became at once apparent how hopeless it was to make any further resistance. He thought that was a case which deserved the most careful consideration. He had looked through his right hon. Friend's Statement most carefully, and he had endeavoured to find whether there had been any increase in the Estimate, but he found no increase whatever. He did find a statement that, considering the defenceless position of the forts at certain stations, it was absolutely necessary that more Garrison Artillery should be got.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was explained in the Statement what this Garrison Artillery was required for.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there was undoubtedly a very small increase in the Estimate of the number of Garrison Artillery, and he wished to know for what purpose it was required? He considered it absolutely essential for the welfare and the well-being of the country that we should have in all our fortifications, and at our coaling stations and elsewhere, such a force as we could rely upon. He did not want the Navy to be obliged to go out and look after the coaling stations. He knew the necessity of the coaling stations in the interest of our food supply, upon which the great masses of our people depended. They ought, no doubt, to be in a better position to feed themselves, but, unhappily, at this moment that was not the case. He should like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to some statistics that were given in an admirable work written by Sir Charles Dilke, showing the proportion of men and field guns possessed by different countries. Belgium, with 105,000 men, had 240 guns; Servia, including the National Militia, had 175,000 men and 200 guns; Roumania 200,000 men and 336 guns; and Switzerland, 215,000 men and 348 guns; and yet, in this country, we could not
    250
    put two Army Corps in the field without denuding the country of its 200 field guns. Turning to the question of the rifle, his right hon. Friend was no doubt quite right in not adopting a rifle until he was quite certain that the weapon was the best that could be produced. He believed his right hon. Friend was now making inquiries in that direction, but what was to happen when the best rifle was discovered? It was to be manufactured only for the Army, and not for the Militia or Volunteers, so that it was impossible to foretell what might happen if ever it became necessary to call all our Forces into play. He was afraid that the same thing would occur here at home as occurred in the Soudan. Shells were sent out without powder in them, and other shells which did not fit the guns. Above all, Parliament had a right to know how many arms we had in store, and he maintained that that information would never be supplied until a Royal Commission inquired into our position with respect to bringing this question before the House. He felt that he had simply done his duty. His object was to place the facts before the country, and he trusted that his statement would be amplified by other hon. Members who would follow him. He had read with pleasure and gratification the remarks which had been made by Sir Charles Dilke, who was a Radical at heart. That gentleman knew France well, had lived in it for years, and he told his countrymen as frankly as a man could tell them that we were in a most defenceless position, and that the position we occupied was one that was not creditable to the nation. He recommended hon. Members to read the statements made by Sir Charles Dilke which showed the condition of our Army and Navy. The highest military authorities—such as Sir Frederick Roberts and Lord Wolseley, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) who made an admirable speech last year—clearly showed what the condition of affairs was, and how absolutely defenceless we were in the event of being attacked. If the enemy by any evil fortune should come here and take possession of London, how many millions would be demanded in the shape of ransom? [Laughter.] He saw an hon. Member laugh. He would be the very

    251
    man, if such a thing should happen, to fall into a panic and lose his head. Now was the time, when we were at peace with all the world, to consider what ought to be done. He remembered some very weighty words that were used by the Prime Minister of this country. At Derby the Prime Minister said, "Your fate will depend upon the preparations you have made in time of peace. He recommended that statement to his right hon. Friends on the Front Benches, and he asked them to consider the question fairly and honestly. He had been for many years a Member of the House. Could it be supposed that if he did not believe the gravity of the situation and the necessity for action that he would have offered these remarks? He believed that it was absolutely necessary and essential that we should know the exact position in which we stood. He was satisfied that if money was required the country would freely grant it, and if the Government, in any attempt to deal with the defences of the country, were blamed, they would feel that in making preparation for a time of need they had done their duty to their country. Let him say in conclusion—May God grant that should the evil day come we may be found prepared. He bogged to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in order accurately to ascertain our position, She may be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the military and naval requirements for the protection of the Empire."
    LORD HENRY BRUCE, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had to complain of the issue of different kinds of rifles to the Army. They ought to have the newest and best weapon for their troops. As to stores, he also pointed out that there were defects, and in this democratic age the country would never tolerate another Crimea. If a calamity like that occurred it would shake the country to its foundations.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that in accordance with the view of the Chair he would withdraw all reference to the Navy from his Motion.
    Motion, amended accordingly.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That'' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty
    252
    praying that, in order accurately to ascertain our position, She may be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the requirements for the protection of the Empire."—(Sir Walter Barttelot.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid, he rose with considerable pleasure to support the Motion, as modified, proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He did so with more pleasure now that the words "and naval" had been struck out, because there could be no doubt that, technically, it would not be right to raise the question of the naval resources of the Empire on the Army Estimates; but he should have been prepared to support the Resolution, whether the words had been struck out or not, because he was persuaded, from circumstances which had lately occurred, that there was no question more vital to the interests of the country at this moment than that our naval and military resources should be referred to some independent Body, independent both of the House and of the Principals of Departments employed in supplying those Departments. He could not but hope that the rumour which had reached him would not turn out to be unfounded—that before the end of the discussion, which he was afraid would be somewhat prolonged, they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he was able to see his way to accede, in some shape or other, to the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex—namely, that the condition and power of expansion of the resources of the country, from a military point of view, should be made a matter of inquiry by some great and independent authority. Before proceeding to deal with the necessity for an inquiry, he might be permitted to say that nothing was further from, his intention than of, in the slightest degree, hampering the Government, or of tying the hands of the Secretary of State for War, or in any way unfairly criticizing any of the changes which they were happy to see the right hon. Gentleman, had made during the last 12 months. He believed the Secretary of State for

    253
    War had already more than fulfilled the anticipations which were formed last year as to his probable action; the steps he had taken had been almost, without exception, in the right direction; and no doubt, when he came to have a longer experience in his Office, he would show that confidence had been very rightly reposed in him. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) considered that we were now entering upon a happy period of wise and decisive military change; but there were blots on every sun, and, touching for a moment points of detail before he dealt with the general Resolution before the House, he should like to say that in one ort we things he was extremely disappointed with the Estimate presented to them. The House would recollect that last year they were much exercised in their minds in regard to the question of the reduction of the Horse Artillery. He hoped the Government would take warning from what happened last year; many Members of the House would have been pleased to test the matter by taking a Division, because they thought that the reductions made were unwise, and were not justified by the reasons put forward for the step. He trusted they would not be put to that shift to-night; but he would recall to the right hon. Gentleman that which was, to some degree, the tacit understanding on which he, for one, voted for the Government last year. He understood that the reductions which were made in the Horse Artillery—a branch of the Service which everybody in the House and in the country agreed was one of the most highly scientific and efficient, both from a military and an economical point of view—wouldbemore than counterbalanced by some large increases in other branches of the Artillery. He had searched the Estimates, and the explanatory Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman had issued, but had been unable to find what the corresponding increase in the effective force of the country was, It was with much reluctance that hon. Members consented to a large reduction of that brilliant force, the Horse Artillery; but they were told that they were to have in place of it a very large expansion of the Field Artillery of the country; they were told that they were to have a large expansion of the Military Transport Corps; that they were
    254
    going to have 14 ammunition columns formed; but he could find no reference to these columns in the Estimates. Perhaps, before the discussion ended, they would receive some explanation upon the point. Upon another question of detail he found in the Memorandum points which to him had rather a suspicious sound. They were told that the intention of the Government and of the Secretary of State for War, an intention with which he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) entirely acquiesced, was that we should have two Army Corps and a Cavalry Division ready for mobilization. He could not say how strongly he would advocate that measure being carried out in its entirety. He found every detail given as to the efficiency of the First Army Corps; as to its Infantry battalions and its adjuncts; but he found nothing of the sort with regard to the Second Army Corps. He found only that the units existed somewhere; there was nothing shown in detail as to the mode of expanding the units. The First Army Corps was supposed to consist of eight battalions at home, exclusive of three battalions of Guards and the five battalions at Gibraltar and Malta, which were supposed to be in readiness for immediate service, and which, taken altogether, constituted the Infantry of the First Army Corps. These units were in a fair state of efficiency. The three battalions of Guards, for instance, had, under the present short-service system, a mode of expansion of their own which was so admirable that he wished the system were extended to the rest of the Army. The system observed in the Brigade of Guards had been to reduce the term of service from seven years to three, and to allow the men to spend the remainder of their service in the Reserves. He might say—not, of course, for the information of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, but for the general information of the country—that that system had been most wonderfully effective, and that whereas the battalions of Guards had a strength of 750 each, they had in addition, by the operation or expansion of the short-service system, a reserve of their own numbering about 3,000 men—that was to say, that they were able to fill up their battalions with men who had already belonged to the Brigade.

    255
    He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was about to develop the system by applying it to other arms which did not serve in India, and to which the system of short service could best be applied. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) would like to know by what means the right hon. Gentleman proposed to expand the 21 battalions which were to constitute the Infantry of the Second Army Corps? For every one of those battalions there would be at least 200 men required who could only be taken from the Reserve or from regiments at home. He did not know whether the redistribution of the Infantry was the wisest which could have been made. Formerly there were no less than five different scales, ranging from 920 to 550; undoubtedly, the battalions upon the smaller scale were too weak, and there were obvious reasons why they should be strengthened. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little too far in the other direction. It stood to reason that whenever the Second Army Corps was called upon, the 21 battalions would have to be reinforced by at least 200 men, and perhaps by as many as 400. He saw considerable reason to apprehend great weakness and great difficulty in an arrangement of that sort, and he did not know whether it would not be better if the right hon. Gentleman were to recast his scheme so far as to have, at all events, one-half of the battalions of the Second. Army Corps in the highest degree of readiness. In the same way, as regarded the Cavalry, last year he drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the difficulties which existed in the present machinery for the expansion on short notice of the Cavalry service. The right hon. Gentleman had raised the Establishment of certain regiments by 44 horses and a corresponding number of men; but he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) did not see that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with a subject which was of primary importance—namely, the general re-organization of the Cavalry, which would enable him to readily expand that branch of the Service on a great emergency. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would find that there was no arm of the Service which would respond more readily to anything that was done in the direction of giving increased efficiency; and he hoped that when the Army Estimates
    256
    were produced next year, they would find that the whole Cavalry system had received the attention of the Secretary of State for War. There was another point deserving of consideration, and that was the means of suddenly finding a useful adjunct to our small Cavalry force by a greater development of the system of Mounted Infantry. The right hon. Gentleman had already taken a great step in advance by the course he had pursued at Aldershot in respect to providing Cavalry adjuncts. He had also taken a step in advance by putting a greater amount of responsibility, which also included a greater degree of power, in the hands of the Military Chiefs of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had, for instance, put the transports and supplies under the Quartermaster General, instead of retaining them under the Civil Department of the War Office; that was a change in respect of which nothing could be said but in praise. There was another change which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and which was an essential feature of his scheme, but the result of it could only be judged by experience; he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) thought its success was somewhat questionable. That change was the abolition of the Office of Surveyor General of Ordnance. The hon. Baronet the Member for Exeter (Sir Stafford Northcote) had set an example of patriotic abnegation in this matter which could not be over-estimated; he had allowed the Office he held to be abolished in the interests of the Army and of the country generally. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) doubted whether it was wise to do away with the Office of Surveyor General of Ordnance; they had now two military heads of the great branches of the Army, the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General, working under a Chief; but they had nothing which corresponded in the smallest possible degree with what he might call the intermediate position between the Financial Secretary and the two military heads. The recommendation of Sir James Stephen's Committee was not that the office should be done away with, but that it should be put into the hands of a military man; and he believed that if that recommendation had been carried out, it would have been a far better change than that which the

    257
    right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had determined upon. There were many military men who were perfectly competent to fill that position with credit to themselves and advantage to the country; indeed, he need not go farther than to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) was an officer well calculated by his wide experience to discharge the duties of the Office faithfully and well. He quite agreed that the holder of the Office should be a military man who had a seat in the House of Commons. Having said so much as to detail, he might he allowed to give the reason why he was heartily in accord with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex: (Sir Waiter H. Barttelot), whose Resolution was now before the House. The hon. and gallant Baronet asked the House to allow the whole question of our military resources to be examined by a competent tribunal which would be independent and apart from this House. That was also the recommendation of Lord Wolseley, a great and distinguished soldier, whose opinion could not be supposed to be biassed by any personal feeling at all. If there were any great changes at all in the military system, they must carry popular opinion with them, they must carry the constituencies with them, and that could not be done with the present mode of dealing with the three great branches of military defences. The three great branches of our defensive resources consisted of the Army, Navy, and the Indian defences. These were intimately connected with each other for it was impossible to say how interlaced and intertwined one was with the other. Questions were constantly arising in the one branch or the other which ought to be considered by someone who could take a purview of the whole. The supporters of the Resolution simply asked that, considering how widely spread these three branches were, considering that it was impossible for any one Department of the three to deal with any but its own branch, the whole question of our resources should be referred to an independent tribunal, not for Executive purposes, but for the purpose of ascertaining in gross what if was we required, and for familiarizing the country with our requirements, and.
    258
    therefore, allowing us to have popular opinion and support at the back of such increased demands as the best and most competent authorities might desire to make. Take, for instance, the case of our Imperial defence. Our Imperial defence was not confined to our Army. As we lost our insular position and came to regard our Indian possessions, the question branched out and became one to be dealt with by those who had an entire view of the military as well as the naval requirements. Our Colonial defence could only be conducted by the Navy and the Army combined. If any large developments were to be made, they must be backed up by popular opinion. To go a little into detail, he was bound to admit that he felt a very great responsibility in thin matter, for three reasons. The first was that since the institution of the short-service system in 1871, he had been one of those who had warmly espoused the cause of short service. If Lord Cranbrook were in the House, he would recollect that in 1874 he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) begged the noble Lord not to make any great or sweeping change in the principle of short service until it had been submitted to a thorough investigation. We had now readied, however, a period when we could see whether the system had answered to expectations or not. They were told by those who advocated the system in 1871 that it would give them an effective Reserve of l60,000 trained men. He pointed out in 1876 that, from causes which were on the surface, the Reserve would never reach more than 45,000 or 50,000 men; and now, after an experience of 15 years, they found that that was the result achieved. By these Estimates, public attention was directed to the fact that the Reserve had now reached a maximum of 51,000 men, and that the passage of 8,000 men to the Reserve would be more than compensated for by the discharge of an equal or larger number of men. Therefore, at all events in this year, and in the next year, and, perhaps, the year after that, there would be no development of the Reserve. Thus we had reached a period of progress when we might look back on the Reserve system, and see what it had done for us and what it had failed to do for us. There was another important branch of the

    259
    subject, and that was the social condition of the men of the Reserve. The great bulk of the 51,000 men were now wandering about the country in the painful condition of waifs and strays. From long personal experience he knew that, in the present depression of the labour market and in the present depression of our trade, men in every employment were being discharged, and the Reserve men were those who suffered most. Our Reserve men were in a condition but very little above that of paupers. That was a discredit to the country, and he trusted some step would be taken very shortly to remedy that great defect. As regarded the Militia, which was the next branch of our defensive force, the painful fact came out year after year that it was dwindling in numbers. The Inspector General of Recruiting mentioned that this year the enlistments were 1,700 men less than last year. But that did not represent the decline altogether. Last year 17,000 men had failed to appear at the annual trainings. The Establishment of the Militia was 113,000; and if they struck out 17,000 who failed to appear, and 31,000 who were in the Militia Reserve, they would find that if the Militia were called out to-morrow to reinforce the Army, nearly 40 per cent of the whole would not be found. Then, as regarded the Volunteers, he was happy to say that the numbers and efficiency were increasing year by year; but if they supposed that the Volunteers were filling a position in the defensive force of this country which would enable them to be of great importance to us in case of foreign war, we were very much mistaken. It was because he believed that the people of this country were misinformed as to the office which each part of our military resources had to play, and as to what we could reasonably expect from it, that he thought a general inquiry should be hold—an inquiry which would make every detail of our military organization familiar to the electors of the country, who might, therefore, give them their support when great changes were contemplated. He had the pleasure and advantage, a few days ago, of listening to the discussion at the United Service Institution, in which the work, merits, and detects of the Indian Army were brought out in striking light. As regarded the Indian
    260
    Army, he believed that the changes made of late years had had the effect of rendering it, for its numbers, more efficient than ever it was before. But there was a great change—a political change, it might be called—with regard to that Army which had been on the carpet for 25 years past, and which, if made, would, in the opinion of the best military authorities, render that Army by no means such an effective assistance to us as we supposed it would be in the contingency of a great European war. The enormous reserve of officers we had in. the Indian Army had entirely disappeared; that was a question of vital importance. These men, for their numbers, might be as efficient as they could be; their patriotism, their earnestness, and zeal was everything that could be desired; but the organization under successive changes, made by successive Governments—all because we had no such thing as continuity of military policy—had been such as to deprive the Indian Army of any reserve of officers, and if we were depending upon that Army in time of need we were depending upon a broken reed. It was sometimes said that we had lost weight in the Councils of the world. He had before him some opinions uttered by a distinguished German officer. The disparaging opinions which this officer formed of us arose solely from the fact that the whole of our resources were never dealt with as a whole. In Germany they had just the opposite state of things. We, of course, did not aspire to imitate the German nation in military matters, because they were beset with dangers on the right and on the left, and, therefore, the whole population was armed for the purpose of defence. What he complained of was that we had nothing corresponding to that in this country; and so long as the present system continued of dealing with the requirements of each of the three branches—the Army, the Navy, and the Indian Service—each on its own lines alone, we should never have a corresponding advantage. He had read the excellent articles of Sir Charles Dilke on the Armies of Europe: Sir Charles Dilke viewed the matter from a different point of view, but came to the same conclusion that he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) came to, and that was that, in spite of our Reserve system, and in spite

    261
    of the development of our military system in many respects, our great and most serious difficulty had never been touched at all, and that the total number of men we could muster was not only ludicrously inadequate for Imperial and Colonial wants, but that it would not carry us through a war of three months' duration. If there was any semblance of truth for these opinions, a case had been made out which required the earnest attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who, he hoped, in this matter would not be influenced at all by any section of opinion—by, for instance, the Secretary of State for War on the one hand, or by the First Lord of the Admiralty on the other. He could not suppose for one moment that anyone would maintain that the two Gentlemen he had mentioned were the proper tribunals to settle a great national question like this. Military and naval Members of the House had great responsibilities to discharge; they were sent to Parliament by their various constituencies with the implied understanding that they would do all they could to further the Imperial interests of the country, and to see that the nation got their money's worth. They endeavoured to discharge that duty; but they could never do it by criticizing the Army or Navy Estimates alone, or by discussing the Estimates for the Indian Service alone. They never would be able to do that until they had raised, by some means or other, an opinion that matters were not altogether right in the sense that they were not dealt with by a separate and large tribunal which took a view of the whole system. He believed it was the opinion of every military man—Sir Charles Dilke was not a military man, but he was a highly trained politician who, perhaps, more than any other man in the country, was acquainted with what our requirements were in consequence of the great developments of the Continent, and he came to the same conclusion—that until they had the support of the nation at their back, and until they had developed some system of universal military training, the requirements of this country with regard to Imperial and Colonial defence would never be fulfilled. In 1876 he had the honour of serving on a Committee which had several changes in the Army referred to it, and among other ques-
    262
    tions was that of the possibility, under certain circumstances, of reverting to the old system of balloting for the Militia or a modified form of conscription. He produced before that Committee evidence showing that where a ballot for the Militia, together with the money substitution, was allowed, the one killed the other, and balloting for the Militia became invalid. Militia substitutes were purchased at a great rate—as high as 60 guineas a man—and that killed recruiting for the Army then employed under the conduct of Wellington in the Pensinula. Did anyone suppose that this country would permit for a moment the revival of such a system? If that was so, we were still leaning on a false hope and were still living in a fool's paradise. Under no conceivable circumstances would the ballot fur the Militia ever be tolerated in this country again. There was now a large electorate and a democratic form of government. Was it to be supposed that if there was balloting for the Militia money exemptions would be tolerated? If they came to make a demand on the people, the first thing the people would demand under a democratic form of government would be that there should be no destination whatever, that money substitutes should be entirely done away with, and that the son of the duke and the son of the labourer should serve in the ranks side by side. Was it not possible to devise some scheme by which, instead of going against popular sentiment, they could carry popular sentiment with them? Was it not possible that by a wise development of our resources we might have a larger number of men trained who might be brought to the military assistance of the country if required? He could conceive no better tribunal to which the question could be referred than a Royal Commission. The question to be decided was how they were to reconcile the military requirements of the country with the democratic feeling which existed nowadays, and the longer they deferred the consideration of such a question the longer they would be living in a fool's paradise, and the crash must eventually come upon them in such a way that it would be dangerous to the foundations of the Empire. He believed that a system of universal training might be devised which would not only be popular but

    263
    which would be demanded instead of resisted by the democracy. The Reserve system, which had cost the country millions sterling, had reached its utmost point of expansion. We were obliged to take men into the Reserve who had 17 years' service in the Army. In that degree the system did not differ from the old service in which we kept men in the Army for 16 and 17 years and them discharged them. He had the honour of being continually brought in contact with one of the moat democratic constituencies in the country, and he could say that if such a tribunal as a Royal Commission were allowed to investigate the question of the power of expansion of our military resources, taken as a whole, it would very soon arrive at the result that a system of universal training could be devised which would not be uncongenial to the labouring classes, but actually demanded by them. The Volunteers were kept up to an effective strength of 230,000 or 240,000, but from their very constitution they could not be called out in case of a foreign war. From every point of view a large development of the voluntary military system was absolutely necessary. He had the pleasure and privilege of passing many months during the hot summer of 1877 with the Russian Army in the field, and he could bear witness that the Russian soldiers were almost matchless for their enormous enthusiasm and their great patriotism. They were taken from a population which numbered 80,000,000, and therefore the power of expansion which the Russian Army possessed was almost unlimited. Russia had an effective force of very nearly 4,000,000 of men, and a gradual development of her system of communication had brought her to our very doors, so to speak. There were people in this country who supposed that the delimitation of the Afghan Frontier would be security for us in the future, but that delimitation was the very thing which would compel this country some day to come actively to the assistance of the Ameer at Cabul. We ought to be prepared for such an event, and not allow ourselves to be taken unawares. To return to what he had previously referred to, let him say he had found, in appealing to a democratic constituency that the one thing of all others which the people desired was free education. He was persuaded that moans could
    264
    easily be devised whereby the children of the working men of the country could be given an absolutely free education, beginning at the age of 10 years, and going on as long as desired. And then if they provided for the people from 15 to 21 years of age free technical education, combined with a certain portion of military training, such a project would be readly accepted by the working class, because they would feel it was one which was not beneath their dignity to accept.
    SIR EDWARD HAMLEYsaid, that it so happened that both the present Resolution and the former one had be much in common with the Memorandum and Report which the Secretary of State for War had laid before the House, that they all related to that most urgent question—the do-fence of the Empire. That brought with it the great advantage that the debate on military subjects, instead of being diffused, and one might say lost, over a vast variety of matters, was directed to a practical end. The Secretary of State for War proposed, after reference to the Report of his Committee, to complete the fortifications of Portsmouth, Plymouth, and the Thames, of Gibraltar and Malta, and of the other coaling stations so essential to the maintenance of the Empire, and would ask for a sum of £2,200,000 to be specially devoted to these purposes. For his (Sir Edward Hamley's) own part, he thought that both the House and the country might well be congratulated on the fact that a Secretary of State for War had at length brought forward a specific proposal for the national defences of the country, and had done it in earnest and in a practical way. They had been but too much accustomed to see it dealt with in a make-believe fashion. They had heard words of promise uttered to the ear but broken to the hope, never intended, perhaps, to be kept, but meant only as a decent shelving of the question. But now the Secretary of State for War told the House not only that those matters were urgent and must receive attention, but had also indicated the financial mode of putting his proposal into execution; and that mode, he was happy to say, was not by the illusory means of the Army Estimates. But he confessed that he wished the right hon. Gentleman could

    265
    have seen his way to make a larger and bolder demand, for it would appear to be only necessary to convince the House, as he was sure could be done, that certain measures were absolutely indispensable for the safety of the country, and then it would follow, as the night the day, that the means for giving them effect to the full extent would be forthcoming. If the House was convinced and would admit that certain measures were indispensable to the safety of the country, and were at the same time to refuse the means of giving effect to those measures, that would argue a degree of unreason which it would be disrespectful to attribute to that Assembly. Of course, in coming to a conclusion the House would wish to put itself in accord with the feeling of the country. But the same might be said of the country as of the House—that if it were convinced that its own safety depended on certain measures, it would certainly press for their immediate execution. Hitherto the public had been very little acquainted with the matter. It had had no means of informing itself. It was not to be supposed that many persons outside of that House ever saw or examined the Army Estimates; still less was it to be supposed that if they did they would understand them. They knew that we had Naval fortresses, but they were only now learning that as fortresses they had become ineffective. They knew also we had spent a great deal of money on guns, but they were only beginning to understand that those weapons had become useless, because they were obsolete. They saw that in our Volunteers we had a body of very fine and very zealous men, smartly dressed and carrying a rifle; but the public were only just realizing the fact that the National Army was unable to keep the field for a couple of days for want of equipment. They knew that in their time no enemy had ever appeared on our coasts, and they were not prone to believe that any ever would appear. They saw the nations of the Continent groaning beneath their huge armaments, military and naval, but they were not yet accustomed to connect these in their minds with the idea of danger to England; and as they had the natural disinclination of all subjects in all States to give money for public
    266
    purposes, they had been exactly in the condition of mind to give ear to those trading politicians who, knowing no more of the state of the case than the people themselves did, had been always ready to persuade them that it was a heinous offence to give money for armaments or defences, and who only looked on the relations of the great Military Powers with each other, where the indiscretion of an outpost might precipitate a general war, to draw from thence the happy conclusion that nobody desired, or ever would desire, to interrupt the peace of the world. He thought it was Mr. Cobden, an eminent apostle of peace, who once said—it might have been in that House for all he (Sir Edward Hamley) knew—he could crumple up Russia like a sheet of paper. It was a great pity he did not do it, for it would have saved us an immense amount of expense and panic. But he could not doubt that that declaration, coming from so trusted a source, did a great deal of harm to the nation. Now, he was happy to think that the people were beginning to emerge from that condition of ignorance, and there were many signs abroad that the idea that our defences must be looked to was spreading fast. He wished very much, therefore, that the Secretary of State for War had felt himself able to repose a larger confidence in the willingness both of the House and of the people to render themselves, their property, and their honour safe against the formidable States which might, on some sudden occasion, direct their weapons against us, and which were always prepared to the last detail for war. But he willingly accepted this instalment which the right hon. Gentleman offered. What was proposed would be so much indispensable work done, cleared out of the way, and carried to the credit of the nation. Our naval fortresses would no longer present the ridiculous spectacle of defensive works which were not defensible, armed with obsolete and dismounted artillery. It would be seen from the proposals in the Memorandum that part of the sum was to be appropriated to the completion of what was to be done in this Island, and part to what was to be done outside of it. Now there was so much to be done for our defences both at home and abroad that it was, perhaps, difficult to say what should first

    267
    demand attention. Where all was so urgent it might, perhaps, be thought that there was no first. But, without meaning to dispute that it was indispensable to the interests of the Empire to place our Mediterranean fortresses in a the rough condition of defence, he was of opinion that if part only of the defences was to be undertaken, that part should he within the four seas of Britain. It was better to have one piece of work finished than many pieces incomplete, and, consequently, so long as incomplete, absolutely ineffectual; and he should, therefore, have preferred to see the proposed sum appropriated in that direction. It would be doubtless an excellent thing to have our great Dockyards, and the river by which an enemy's ships would approach London, made secure. So far all must agree; nor need there be any dissent from that part of the Report which placed Malta and Gibraltar next in importance among military ports. These places were certainly rightly placed high in the list of military ports; but he could not but remember that while we were fortifying them, the commercial ports, the avenues on which we depended for so large a portion of our daily bread, would be left, he would not say undefended, but still open to those attacks which naval men thought we would be especially exposed to in the future. Admiral Aube, one of the French Ministers of Marine, speaking on this subject, said—
    "The attack on every source of riches will become not only legitimate, lint obligatory…We must expect to see iron-clad Hoots turn their power of attack find destruction against all littoral towns, fortified or unfortified, whether purely peace establishments or warlike, to burn them, ruin them, or extort ransoms from them without mercy. With this new duty which we are therefore to conclude is now laid upon our iron-clad fleets, we are now entering upon a new system of maritime warfare—namely, that of the attack and defence of coasts. Every littoral town may be burnt down or laid under contribution by fleets or even by hostile cruisers…‥All this is coming… even the day when England's shores will be insulted and her ports burnt by the fleet of a victorious enemy."
    Such was the declared policy of the French Navy. Now, our own officers seemed to have come to the conclusion that what the commercial ports had chiefly to fear was not an attack by iron-clad fleets. It was considered pro-
    268
    bable that in no case except that of some great naval disaster should we be loft without a Channel Squadron; but it was not easy to guard a large circumference of coast like that of this Island; and the experiments with our Navy last autumn had shown that swift cruisers could always evade a naval squadron, and could enter and occupy ports long enough to inflict immense damage in many ways. The remedy for this was to enable the port to defend itself against the cruisers till the warships, summoned by the telegraph that surrounded the coast, should have time to arrive; and the means of so defending itself were held to be a fleet of gunboats and torpedo boats capable of going outside the port and engaging the enemy, supported by long-ranging guns in batteries on shore. These were the moans which, in addition to submarine mine fields in suitable localities, were held by those who had studied the matter to be sufficient for the purpose—that was, for the defence and security of our commercial ports. Such, then, would constitute the security of our coasts against an enemy's ships; and only those who denied that we could ever be at war would dispute that we could not obtain that security too soon; Now, the supply of these floating defences was the business not of the War Office, but the Admiralty. It was, however, necessary to take them into account in the discussion of any general scheme of defence, and he now adverted to them in the hope that provision for them might be among the proposals made to the House by the First Lord of the Admiralty. But there were two other matters included in the scheme which belonged to the province of the War Office—the submarine mines, including the light artillery attached to them, and the guns for the coast batteries of our commercial ports. The submarine mines were, in many situations, likely to be most effective—for instance, where the towns to be defended were situated far up rivers, with a long channel of approach, like London or Newcastle, or in our fortified harbours. But there were other situations where they were less applicable, as where towns were at the mouths of rivers, so that they could be fired on from the sea. The Mersey, for instance, appeared to him to be a case where an increased supply of guns would be more appropriate than an increase of sub-

    269
    marine mines. Liverpool was a port which it was essential to keep as open as possible, and ships making for it should find no obstacle. There were already considerable difficulties in the channel, and it was quite possible that submarine mines would be as likely to impede our own ships as the enemy's. He should, therefore, have been glad to see a large part of the sum which was here appropriated to submarine mines and their light artillery given to a supply of the best guns for the coast batteries of our commercial ports, for it must be remembered that the mines could be made quickly, and put down on an emergency, while the guns took a long time to construct. Thus far he had been only speaking of those defences which were to oppose the enterprizes of an enemy's ships; but there remained another equally important kind of defence—namely; that which should oppose invasion, and for that he found little or no provision made in the Memorandum. It was true we had a splendid Army of defenders, increasing in numbers and efficiency every year. But so long as they were kept unprovided for their purpose, so long they could not be counted among the defences of the country. They were quite inefficient, for want of equipment in what would enable them to keep the field. In order to enable them to do that, they wanted personal equipment, stores, and magazines; their transport ought to be organized ready for a crisis; the best rifle and the most powerful gun should be given to them, and the positions they would occupy should be selected and made places of exercise. In fact, a general plan of defence, in all its details, should be most carefully prepared. But for all that he found there was scarcely any provision made in the Memorandum; the chief item of preparation was the announcement that 21 batteries of position were to be given to the Volunteer Artillery. These, he presumed, were to be such guns as were already in store, which, perhaps, were a little behind the present stage of effectiveness. But it was quite a stop in the right direction to give these to the Volunteers till better were forthcoming, since these must be, until then, what they would have to use against an enemy. But in scarcely any other respect was a perceptible approach made towards rendering our
    270
    Auxiliary Forces efficient in equipment. Even the land defence of London received no notice. So long as this extraordinary anomaly existed of a vast and ever-increasing force of defenders who were not permitted to be capable of defending us, so long should he continue to think that to render them efficient was among the most pressing needs of the country. It seemed so illogical for what called itself a practical people to bring them to a certain point and leave them—to stop short of that animating touch, which alone was wanting to give them vitality and purpose; and all that was needful would be amply provided for by the addition of £1,000,000 to the sum that was now proposed to be asked for. Now, he knew, and indeed they all knew, that every proposal to spend money in order to render the Kingdom secure was sure to be opposed by a particular class of politicians. But, he would ask, what was their title to be listened to? Did they know anything specially about the defence of coasts? Could they suggest cheaper, better, and equally effective methods? Were they better able than the rest of us to judge of the probabilities of invasion? They did not profess, so far as he knew, to have bestowed any attention on the subject, except to look at the figures which represented the cost. In fact, they might very properly be described as professional cheeseparers. The economy they advocated was not a rational or a respectable economy. It was penuriousness of the kind which refused to replace the missing state on the roof, or the broken pane in the window. It was the frugality of the miser. But, at the same time, he feared it was allowed to have too much influence on our policy. He felt sure that if this spectre were resolutely grappled with, it would prove a sham—that this ghost in the churchyard would turn out to be a thing with a turnip for a head, lighted by a farthing candle. Now, it might, perhaps, fairly be inferred from passages in the Memorandum that although much that was needed was to be left undone, yet everything was to be undertaken that could be done in the time assigned for the completion of the military ports—that was to say, in three years. But nothing could be clearer than this—that with more money a great deal more could be done; everything that was needed could be done in that time.

    271
    In three years—much less, indeed—the Volunteers could be completely equipped, the necessary magazines and stores built, the country reconnoitred and positions defined, the Auxiliary Forces assigned to their posts, the means of transport the roughly registered, and the land defences of the capital provided for. Matters could to arranged with the commercial ports for joint contributions, and their defence could be proceeded with and rendered complete. All that could go on simultaneously with the works at the military ports. It might be said that we were at present producing guns as fast as the resources of our gun factories would admit. That might be so, though there was a belief, in which he shared, that an important addition would shortly be made to our power of producing guns. But everything else could be set on foot forthwith. If we were to wait three years for the proposed instalment, the present generation would not at that rate see the Kingdom rendered secure. It was impossible to understand why this matter should not be put plainly to the people, and why they should not be directly asked to give the means for effecting it. If that were done, and the means were withheld, it would be impossible to blame anybody but themselves; but now it might truly be said if the matter were not clearly put before them, and if they were not asked to find the money, that there was somebody to blame. He had thought it his duty to put those matters before the House; but, at the tame time, he should cordially support the present proposals. Although they formed but a slow and short step, and although they indicated a perilous dallying with a momentous subject, yet the step, so far as it went, was in the right direction, and would have his hearty concurrence. To the Resolution of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) he would also give his hearty concurrence. He had long been of opinion, and had freely expressed it, that tills was a time when publicity had come to be a necessary element in our military system. Now that the constituencies, by their numbers, formed so important an element in the Councils of the Nation, it was not only imprudent—it was worse—not to call them into council in everything which required their attention. What higher
    272
    interest could they have than in rendering the country secure from an enemy? He would not attribute to the people so unreasoning a condition of mind as to suppose that if these matters were put clearly before them they would refuse their ready concurrence in providing the means for giving them effect.
    SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANsaid, he had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley), but it seemed to him that no greater argument could be used in favour of the Motion before the House than was contained in the Memorandum of the Secretary for War itself. The country, he thought, had a right to demand that the scheme of defence adopted should be an exhaustive one, and they ought to know exactly what sum of money was required to put the whole empire in a state of defence he could easily understand that in the present critical state of political affairs the Government did not like to place their whole scheme before the country at once, but surely if the Commission asked for were appointed, on that Commission would be thrown the responsibility of stating what was wanted, and only on the Government would be thrown the responsibility of making demands in order to meet the requirements pointed out. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead, in the remarks he had made as to the defence of our mercantile ports. We had, he thought, gone rather wild of late in regard to submarine mines—and he spoke with some experience on the question—having been connected with the War Office for some time. The hon. and gallant Member had said that Liverpool and Birkenhead should be kept clear of submarine mines, and he (Sir William Crossman) thought that the entrance not only to those ports should be kept clear but also to the other commercial ports in the country, considering the attacks which could be made on shipping by armoured cruisers. He did not think our ships should have to wait for pilots to clear them, through the mine fields. He was sure that guns of position—6-inch guns with disappearing carriages, each supplied with 300 rounds of ammunition, but which would not cost more than £7,500—would be much better suited for the defence of these

    273
    ports than submarine mines. The money which would be spoilt in this way would be much better laid out than on submarine mines. No doubt there were some places where submarine mines, protected by quick firing guns, would be useful, but he thought that as a general principle they should not be entirely depended upon. With regard to the defences of the forts, both at home and abroad, which were built after Lord Palmerston's Commission, and most of which he had seen, they were no doubt relatively weakened by the increased power of weapons of offence, and it was desirable to strengthen them. The forts at Portsmouth in particular required strengthening. The forts at Spithead were being strengthened to some extent, but he feared they would never be as strong as they ought to be, having regard to their size and importance. With regard to the coaling stations he thought there was a very serious omission in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War. It ought to have been stated what money had been voted by the Colonies for the defence of the coaling stations, because some people in the country appeared to imagine that all the works had been carried out at the expense of the British taxpayer. Large sums had been spent by the Crown Colonies, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ceylon. Mauritius, and Capo Colony. It must be remembered that Hong Kong and Singapore had nearly completed the works. He thought these Colonies had just cause of complaint because, although they had completed, or nearly completed, their forts, no guns had been sent out to them. Natal had voted £10,000 for guns, and the Colony of Victoria had spent £3,500,000 on naval and military matters, and contemplated spending £500,000 more. He had seen most of these places, and could assure the House that they were remarkably well defended; indeed, he believed that Sydney and Melbourne were better defended than some ports at home. But what was wanted was guns, and he was afraid the home Government was neglecting its duty in not making a larger number of guns than they were making. The Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War informed them that the Department hoped that all the guns required for the defence of
    274
    the coaling stations, with the exception of two cases, would be sent out shortly. Did they contemplate sending out 10-inch guns after the accident which happened the other day? If they did not intend to do so, then the guns as promised to the coaling stations could not possibly go out yet. It was said that the works in progress depended on the Imperial Government, but he thought there were few places as to which that could be said with accuracy. St. Lucia and the Mauritius were, he believed, the only places where we were actually paying for our works, and in the case of St. Lucia it was on account of £56,000 having been spent by the Colony on deepening the harbour, so as to make it available for a coaling station. There was another point on which some stress ought to be laid—namely, the garrisons of the coaling stations; for it was the fact that in some cases, whilst we had very small garrisons of only 400 or so, the French in neighbouring Colonies had 7,000 or 8,000. He trusted the Government were taking into consideration the desirability of raising local Volunteer forces for the defence of the coaling stations, and that they had decided also to employ the Royal Marine Artillery on this duty. He also trusted the Government had reflected upon the desirability of giving one person, whether military or naval, supreme command of a fortress. It was of the greatest importance, where a fortress was besieged, that they should know who was in command. The operations, naval and military, were so mixed up together that it was essential that there should be no undefined power, and that there should be one supreme head to direct both the sea and the land operations. For instance, the Navy provides boats for defence of submarine mines, while the guns for the defence of these boats are manned by the Army. He did not care whether it were a soldier or a sailor who was in command, at all events, it should only be one man. He thought he had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in a remark he had made state that the garrison Artillery was now complete. He only hoped it might be so. It was not many years ago that he was told of a strange circumstance which occurred at one of our principal Naval stations. It happened that while some impor-

    275
    tant experiments were being carried on by the garrison Artillery, a Royal salute was required to be fired, and in order to fire it, the experiments had to be stopped, as there was no one to man the guns. He believed that arrangements were now made by which all the batteries in that important port could be manned. He thought that if the country only knew what was really wanted to complete the defences of the Empire, there would not be that opposition to its being granted on the part of the House which was generally supposed. He wished to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the very able Statement he had put before them, and on the information he had given, them in other documents, which he thought the y should have had longer time given them to consider, as, he was sorry to say, they had only reached hon. Members on Saturday. He should have been glad if the Memorandum had gone somewhat farther, and he trusted the Government would see their way to appointing a Committee without going to a Division in the matter.
    SIR JOHN COMMERELLsaid, he had heard the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) use a remark which seemed the key to the whole position, and it was—"Why do not the Government inform the country of the real state the defences are in?" It appeared that the Government had only one answer to that question—namely, "We are not game." The truth was, the Government considered everything depended upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting what they called a respectable Budget to the country. However, he believed sincerely that if the country were let into the secret, and the people felt that they got 20 s. for their £1, there would be no necessity for having only a "respectable Budget." He believed that a Royal Commission would do more to assist the Government than anything else. He could not for a moment see why they objected to it. Those who supported the appeal for a Commission desired to strengthen the hands of the Government. They desired to bring such evidence before the country that they would see that the Empire was not in a proper state of defence and
    276
    the Services not in a proper state of efficiency. If our coaling stations were not in a fit state; if our mercantile ports were not sufficiently protected; if Malta and Gibraltar were not strong enough to resist the attack of a powerful enemy, then all he could say was that the sooner we put all these things to rights the better. It was no use saying, "Oh! we will do it all in three years." No one knew in the present state of affairs what would happen in three years. In three years' time, if these things were not attended to, England might cease to be a nation. If there were certain absolutely necessary arrangements to be carried out, it was better that they should be carried out at once, and that there should be no delay in going to the country and asking for £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, whatever amount was considered necessary. He did not believe that the country, when it know that it was getting value for its money in insurance, would for a moment hesitate to pay. No man cut off half the insurance on his house because the times were bad. If a property was worth insuring at all, surely it was necessary that it should be insured up to its full value. He did not wish to enter into detail, but there were one or two points upon which he should like to dwell for a few moments. The country must remember the geographical position of England—it must remember that it was not enough for the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to say, "We have 30 iron-clads"—we had not 30 iron-clads—"and the French have only 25." We had first of all to remember that our geographical position divided and split up our forces. On the one hand we had Malta to watch, and command of the Mediterranean to retain, and on the other hand we had the Channel and our mercantile ports to protect. The French would be able to concentrate a force in the Mediterranean which we should find it impossible to withstand. Another thing to be considered was this, we put a great deal too much reliance on torpedoes. Torpedoes were all very well, but it must be remembered that the same science which laid them down on the one side, could take them up or destroy them on the other side. He was perfectly certain that we placed too much reliance on

    277
    torpedoes. Much as he desired to see the country in possession of a strong Navy, much, as he wished to see the number of iron-clads and cruisers increased, he put much greater faith in a proper defence of the coaling stations than anything else. It was much better that we should have our coaling stations properly defended, and should be able to utilize the ships we had to attack an enemy and to defend our own shores than lay out money on new vessels which we could not use in consequence of having improper coal supplies. He believed that in the event of a future war, our great safety would he in having properly defended and well supplied coaling stations. He observed in the Report of the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was Chairman, the remark that Bermuda was our principal military station in North America, and that it was surrounded by reefs which would render it impossible for any vessel to attack it, except under the guns of the forts. Now there never was anything more fallacious or untrue than that statement. There was no question of opinion here. If the Committee had had the proper evidence before it, it would have known that in 1812 an 80 and a 74 gunship and a whole convoy passed through the reef with the greatest possible ease, and did not go within seven miles of the places on which guns were now mounted. These ships went out under sail, but now we had steam power which very materially reduced the difficulties. This statement he made from practical experience. He had been through the reefs himself, and knew every inch of the ground; and he had no doubt there were other observations in the Report of the Committee which other officers could deal with, as he was able to deal with, that with reference to the Island of Bermuda. It was said—"Do not mention these things; you should not breathe them, lest you should let the foreigner into the secret." But were they to suppose that their naval brethren of Germany, France, and Russia were such fools that they did not know those things? If he wanted a correct chart of the Bermuda Channel, where would he go for it? To America. The United States and other countries sent intelligent naval officers about visiting our coaling stations and colonial defences,
    278
    and these officers made reports week by week and month by month. We might depend upon it that the officers of foreign countries knew more about our weak points and where we should suffer—and, in his view, fatally suffer—in the event of a war than we did ourselves, or, at any rate, than the vast majority of the people of the country did. What was the condition of things at the present moment? If he wanted to go down to Shoeburyness and desired to see experiments carried on there, he would find almost insuperable difficulties in the way, but not so in the case of the foreigner. A foreign officer would find very little difficulty in ascertaining all he desired to know, and that was because it had been laid down that nations must mutually confide to each other what was going on. He remembered during the time of the Russo-Turkish war, in 1878, he happened to be at Chatham one day when a very clever Russian Admiral—a man who, if there was anything to be found out, would find it out precious sharp—came down and said he wanted to see the hydraulic machinery of the Temeraire. The Admiral—the late Admiral Fellowes—said to him—"I cannot show it to you." "But," said the Russian, "I have an order from the Admiralty to see it." "I cannot accept that," answered the gallant Admiral, well appreciating the importance of the matter and willing to accept the responsibility of his attitude. "I must be in direct communication with the Admiralty on the subject before I can allow you to see the machinery." Upon that the Russian Admiral flew into a great rage, and said—"I will return to the Admiralty at once." "Do so," said Admiral Fellowes, handing the other a time table; "there is a very good train at 12.20." He (Sir John Commerell) was certain that if they wanted these things dealt with in a generous spirit and desired the country's defences put in the state in which they ought to be, the Royal Commission asked for should be granted. The Commission would obtain the best evidence possible, and the Ministry, let it be on one side or the other, he did not care a snip which, would have their hands strengthened in going to the country and showing it what was wanted. When the country was, in this way, made acquainted with the needs of the Services, he was certain

    279
    that it would never turn away and grudge, the money asked for. If it did, then the responsibility would rest with the country. The House would have done its duty; the Ministers of the day would have done their duty; and if disaster should happen, and we should lose our position in the world through unreadiness, it would be the fault of the people and not of Parliament. This country had always been in a state of unreadiness. If hon. Members would read the past history of the country they would see that England had never been up to the mark when a war broke out—that it had always been months and years after the breaking out of a war that England had come up to the mark. But things were not now as they used to be. We did not now read of a 10 years' war, a 15 years' war, a 20 years' war. "Would they in future even hear of a 20 months' war, a 15 months' war, or a 10 months' war? In the future wars would be decided in the promptest manner, and would be won by the Powers that looked things straight in the face in times of peace, and that was prepared the moment a blow was struck either for defensive or offensive operations.
    COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, there are periods in the life of a nation when it is wise to consider its defensive system in a special manner. The French did this after 1870. We had not had such disasters as the French in the war with Germany; but an enormous change had taken place in the last 50 years in the wealth, population, and means of this nation, and also in its vulnerability. The insulation of these Islands, speaking in a military and defensive sense, was not nearly so great as it was before the days of steam. It used to be said that steam had bridged the Channel; in his remarkable letter written to Sir John Burgoyne, our greatest Commander of the last generation had emphatically shown to what an extent we had become more vulnerable. What had happened since then? The Western Nations had been compelled, for their own security, to arrange a system by which they could organize and equip their forces, the whole manhood of the country, and to mobilize it within a few days: while railway systems had been developed, and
    280
    it would be possible very rapidly to concentrate forces on many points of the coast of the Continent where there are harbours convenient for embarkation, and to which the telegraph could summon vessels from distant ports. If a nation, by accident, obtained temporary command of the Channel, all those reasons would help them to throw a force into this country. Now, what chances were there of a nation getting temporary command of the Channel? In the Navy invention succeeded invention. Ships of war were now most complicated machines, and no man could say what would happen to them till they were tested. Formerly, naval wars were tactical; in the future they would be strategical also; and even if we had always the power to command the Channel, the demands on our Fleet to protect our ocean commerce would be so great that we should probably have to send it away from the Channel. Now, if an enemy, or enemies, got the temporary command of the Channel, what had we to oppose to them? The great majority of people seemed to look to forts and works as the mainstay of defence. But that was not so. The Duke of Wellington said, in the celebrated letter previously quoted—
    "Let any man examine our maps and road books, and consider the matter, and judge for himself. I know of no mode of resistance, much less of protection, from this danger, excepting by an Army in the field capable of meeting and contending with its formidable enemy, aided by all the means of fortification which experience in war can suggest."
    The backbone of defence was an Army in the field; and he maintained that defensive security was the basis and foundation of our power of offence. It was absolutely necessary that we should organize and equip our forces, and enable them to be used as an Army for the defence of London, or anywhere else; and that London should no longer remain capable of being "rushed." we should take strategic points round London, and there form our ranges for the Volunteers; and upon those points, the main avenues of approach, we should place guns in position, and there drills should be regularly carried on by the Artillery Volunteers. If the large force we had in this country were organized as it ought to be, and if we also had those points around London

    281
    made the nuclei of a system of field fortifications that could be rapidly improvised, should the occasion arise, the temptation to invade the country would be gone. What was the latent power of this country? The latent power of the country could only be rendered active by keeping the country secure from invasion. They could measure the latent power of this country very well by comparing that of the North Americans during the Civil War, a nation which had no conscription. In a war of four years, they put 2,040,000 men in the field, out of a population of 20,000,000; while in the British Isles we had a population of 37,000,000. Therefore, our power for defence or offence was, no doubt, enormous, upon the condition that we maintained the security of these Islands. As had been truly said, a prudent householder did not refuse to insure because he was short of money; he knew that it was no economy not to insure. The money that we spent upon defences, if it was not sufficient, was wasted money. He believed if we had a Royal Commission, presided over by a man like Lord Dufferin, in whom the country and both political Parties had confidence, we should get something elaborated which would give us a feeling of much greater security. He did not believe that was a thing which would load to any great expenditure; but he did believe we should get a system on which we could really rely. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) to give some information with regard to furnishing the Army with magazine rifles. Just as the introduction of the breech-loader in 1866 gave a decisive advantage to the Prussian Army against the Austrians, so he thought it highly probable that at the present time the possession of a magazine rifle would give a similar decisive advantage to the Power using it. If that weapon was the right weapon, after it had been the roughly tested, not a moment should be delayed; but the whole Army must be armed with it, as well as the Militia and the Volunteers. It must be recollected that, whether they wished it or not, this country was, in consequence of its foreign possessions, also in a sense an offensive Power, and must be ready to attack. He trusted the Government would allow a Royal
    282
    Commission to inquire into the matter, because he believed that this work would strengthen the hands of the Government.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZWYGRAMsaid, he should gladly support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot). To his mind, an inquiry would not only be useful, but in the present condition of the country, it was absolutely essential. He did not take the pessimistic view of our military affairs which many people did. He did not think that everything of a military character in this country was wrong and badly done and that everything that was foreign was good. He did not believe that the armaments and organization of foreign nations were perfect; but he thought there was very considerable doubt as to whether our state of security was such as it behoved a great country to rest content with; and if there was any doubt on the point he thought that Her Majesty's Government would do well to grant the Commission of Inquiry, which he believed to be necessary for the investigation of the question. If he had any doubts about this point, he thought the evidence they had heard read this evening of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) when Secretary of State for War, would completely establish the case and be the best argument for the granting of the Commission. He (Sir Frederick Fitzwygram) did not support the Motion in any sense in opposition to the Government of the day—not the smallest degree in the world. But for many years past successive Secretaries of State for War had dangled before the eyes of the country delusive statements as to the improvement they had made in the state of our organizations in our arms and defences, only, as a general rule, to be snuffed out when a new Secretary came into Office. He lived in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, and saw a good deal of the Spithead Forts, which had been spoken of in course of the debate, and he could say, from his own observations, that these forts were perfectly insufficient for the defence of the Dockyard and the Solent against the long-range guns of the present day. He saw that a certain sum of money had been taken

    283
    for the strengthening of these forts; but he thought that, however they were strengthened, they would prove insufficient because they were too near the places they had to defend. Cruisers could he a mile or more outside the most advanced fort and pitch shells into the Dockyard and Arsenal, destroying the whole of the shipping and stores there. Well, if this were the case with regard to our great Port and Arsenal at Portsmouth, which were under the immediate view of the Commander-in-Chief and the First Lord of the Admiralty, he could easily conceive that many of our defences, which were further off, were in a position which was not creditable to this country and would not give safety to our shores. At Portsmouth and in the Solent there were an immense number of guns on the fortifications, many more than could be manned by the Royal Artillery. They had, however, at Portsmouth and Southampton very good corps of Volunteer Artillery. Last year he had had a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and had pressed on him the complaints made by the commanding officers of these corps, that they had had no training in the use of the new large guns. Well, a gun had lately been given—one, he believed, to each of these corps. So far, to a certain degree, good work was being done, but the officers still complained that the supply of ammunition was so short that though the men had learnt the use of the gun they could not become efficient gunners for want of practice. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would take this into consideration. If our great Arsenals were to be of any use at all, great dependence must be placed on the Volunteers. Volunteers might to a certain degree fail in the field; but he believed that the Artillery Volunteers, who lived in the towns they were called upon to protect, who had no marching about to face and no encampments and so forth, would prove to be a very efficient force if only they were fairly treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Regarding this question generally, he thought they might divide the nation into three parts. There was one party who denied the danger, and, because they denied the danger, therefore they grudged the cost—that was a small and
    284
    fanatical party; then there was the party who knew the danger and feared the cost, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government were not to be found in that second party; then there was another party, of good men and true, who knew the danger and were prepared to pay the cost, who preferred the safety of the country to the money bags of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    COLONEL EYREsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), not from any feeling of antagonism to the Government, but because he believed that if this Royal Commission were granted it would be calculated to strengthen the hands of the Government instead of weakening it. Let them remember in what condition Europe was at present. It would not do for this country to be behindhand when every nation was an armed camp—all whose inhabitants were practically soldiers, where even every train, as in Germany, was marked with the number of men, horses, and goods to be carried in time of war. In such circumstances it was necessary, although we might not profess to be a military nation, that if we had interests and shores and coasts worth defending, we should be ready in case of war. It was important, first of all, to know what Army we wanted, and, secondly, what they had to do. For that purpose a Commission was required which would report favourably or unfavourably on the state of the defence of the country. The inquiry suggested would discover what was the weakest link in their armour of national defence. He did not understand why the Government objected to the Committee. He would call attention to the unnecessary expense connected with brigade depôts, and he condemned the equipment of our soldiers, beside the general want of system. He also thought we should have a cordon of Volunteer Artillery round our coasts. For a long period of the year the staff at these depôts was far in excess of the men quartered there or the work to be done. Economy might very well be practised in this direction. He hoped that the Government would consent to grant the Royal Commission, and he felt convinced that any Government which had the recommendations of this

    285
    Commission at their back in the measures they undertook for the defence of the country would be infinitely stronger than they could otherwise be.
    SIR LEWIS PELLYsaid, he ventured to think that this discussion had travelled a little beyond the limits of the Motion before the House. The Motion itself seemed to him simple and propose, its effect being that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the requirements for the protection of the Empire. Its scope was to inquire and to report. Perhaps some of the speeches which had been made on it had dealt more with the details of the condition of our present defences. No one doubted that our iron-clads would give a good account of an enemy in line of battle, would guard carefully our coasts in some parts, and watch also the naval ports of the enemy; but what was felt was that the Channel in its whole length might not be quite secure, that the supplies on which we depended in our Island Kingdom might be cut off, and our coast line insulted. In other quarters it is felt that our Cape or our alternative Line to the East is not so safe as may be supposed, since the French hold all the Naval positions between the East coast of Africa and the Mauritius—namely, the Islands of the Comorro group, with the ample and secure anchorage of Mayotte, the Isles and Ports on the West and on the East coast of Madagascar and Bourbon. In other quarters it was assumed that our Indian Possessions were not sufficiently protected. But, however that might be, the question was whether there should or should not be a Commission of Inquiry into all those affairs, and to submit recommendations as to what ought really to be done to place this Kingdom and this Empire in a position to meet contingencies. He could understand very well that there would be a feeling in the country that men connected with the Warlike Services attached too much importance to these matters; but, for himself, he could truly say that he abhorred the very idea of war. He might say more than that, for he thought influences and causes even now were at work which would tend, in the long run, to induce, by the concurrence and co-operation of the civilized nations of the Wrest, to a lasting and general peace; but the danger
    286
    lay in the transitional period. The lasting peace might come; but this Empire might not survive to enjoy it. What was wanted was to ascertain what were the real facts of the case, and if we found ourselves not in a position to face the transitional period successfully, then to put ourselves into such position. He did not know that the Motion was founded on anything more than that. If it was granted, he thought the Treasury Bench would receive strength and support from it, for I they would find that they had at their back not only the naval and military classes in the House, but also the commercial and professional Members. They would, undoubtedly, have the country behind them. In his opinion, the country would not grudge a large sum if it felt that by the expenditure it could put its war like forces in such a state as to prevent anxiety and panic. Whatever the additional cost of money might be to place this country in a safe position, they must remember that no expenditure was so great, no outlay was so extravagant, as that which followed on a panic. It would be more economical to spend even a large sum in carrying out a settled plan; and he trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to allowing a Royal Commission to be appointed.
    COLONEL SANDYSsaid, he desired to make a few remarks on the Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, which he considered a most important document, marking a great step in advance of everything that had been done before. It was a most able and exhaustive document, and he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having issued it. The provision in regard to the organization of a small force was an admirable one; but he should like to see provision made for calling out a large force. Up to the present we had been able to organize for our small wars; but the scheme we had to consider at the present time was what we should do if we had to provide a force for a war in the East. The step which had been taken, however, was a step in the right direction; but it did not go far enough. The statement that the accoutrements, equipments, &c, of the First Army Corps was practically complete was a matter for great satis-

    287
    faction; but although the scheme might be complete on paper, he should like to see the men paraded in line of battle, for the purpose of testing their efficiency and numbers. He observed that arrangements had been made for the formation of 20 batteries of Artillery Volunteers. It was very advisable that our Volunteers should devote their attention to gunnery and coast defence rather than attempt to organize a force of Field Artillery, the duties of which they were not fitted to discharge. He did not know whether it was the intention that the guns in position should be entirely for coast and battery defence, or whether they should include field guns.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: It is not the intention to include field guns at present.
    COLONEL SANDYSsaid, he had always considered Field Artillery beyond the Volunteer Force, and he therefore trusted that their attention would be centred on guns for coast defences. With regard to the branch of the Service with which he was intimately connected—the Militia—it had always appeared to him (Colonel Sandys) that the Militia Force was not made enough of. The Militia Force was the great Constitutional force of the country. It was the force on which we must rely as the second line of our Army. It was the Army's true support. There had of late arisen a habit on the part of successive Secretaries of State to pass over the Militia, and to turn attention chiefly in the direction of the development of the Volunteers. The Militia ought, however, to be made as efficient as possible; and in the scheme he would no doubt bring forward, he hoped the Secretary for War would not lose sight of that branch of the Service. The large proportion of desertions from the Militia was a matter deserving of serious attention, and we ought to endeavour to get together Militia forces in which we could rely upon every man turning up on parade. Deducting the Army Reserve men and the 10,000 men who deserted last year, the Militia had only 60,000 available men left who could be put on parade. A considerable item in that 60,000 men consisted of Irish Militia. Could we, considering what had been going on in the Sister Isle, look upon these men as a reliable force? If not, that would make a con-
    288
    siderable reduction in the figures. Then there was a medical examination for them to go through, and it was not certain they would all pass the doctor. The original figure of the Militia was 108,000, and it was generally supposed that that number was available. But many of those men enlisted in two and even three regiments, which they were enabled to do, as the training took place at different periods. He should like to see one day appointed for the calling out of the whole of the Militia, and in that way they would be able to ascertain exactly the number of men who were available; and much valuable information might be obtained in many respects. Then, again, the Militia was under-officered; nearly all the younger officers were men who were going into the Line regiments, and who, on a declaration of war, would be posted at once to Line regiments, leaving the Militia with very few officers below the rank of captain. That was a serious matter, to which attention should be given. Another mistake in our territorial system with regard to the Militia was that too many battalions were formed, the result being that it was impossible to get sufficient officers. The true constitution of a regiment, in his opinion, was one battalion, a depôt of two companies as a nucleus for recruits, officers and men, and a Militia regiment attached to the depôt. That arrangement would involve the doing away with the linked battalion system. With regard to the Militia Reserve, last year there were 578 men passing from that Reserve. The total strength of the Army Reserve was 51,000; but again, he said, that was merely 51,000 on paper. He knew that on one occasion when they were called they all came out; but, as no doubt the House knew, a number of those men were at the present moment serving with Her Majesty's regiments elsewhere, and of course could not leave their posts. On this question, also, he should like to see a day appointed for calling out the whole of the men, so that we could ascertain how many men could be relied upon. No doubt, the Militia was the true Army support, and supplied 11,000 men to the Army last year, a fact of which Militia officers ought to be very proud. But it had been stated that on the declaration of war a force of 25,000 men would be drafted from the Militia into the active Army. He be-

    289
    lieved that would be the case; but what would be the position of the Militia Force if that quantity of men were taken from it? They would practically skim the cream from the Militia, for the Army men serving in the Militia were the very best men. Therefore, he thought it would be worth the while of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, in considering defensive schemes for this country, to see whether he could not devise some means for filling up the vacancies which the present system would cause. He would make a suggestion which might possibly meet the difficulty. Supposing the ranks of the Militia were depleted to the extent of 25,000, he should like to see a scheme promoted by which the Volunteer Forces should supply that quantity of men to step into the ranks of the Militia. Each corps could keep 100 men in its ranks ready to do that, who should be called extra-efficients, and who should receive some recognition from the State in that respect. He should like to ask if the Army Reserve was fixed at 50,000, and if so, why? He believed that an Army Reserve of 100,000 would be a cheap force, and that a grant could not be devoted to a better purpose. It might be said—" It is very easy to formulate a respectable military scheme, but where is the money to come from? "He maintained that this was the very reason why a Royal Commission should be appointed, because what the country wanted to know was how a symmetrical scheme was to be formed, the number of men, and the amount of money requisite. For many years past the military interests of this country had been set forth in the House and in the country by experienced military officers; but their views had always been set aside by the Secretary of State in power, who had given a formal, half-hearted adherence to the scheme, and had cramped it down because he had said that he had only a certain amount of money to spend, and that it would make his Party unpopular if he asked for any more. There never yet had been a Government in this country which had had the courage to stand before the country and, stating what were the real needs, ask for so much money, and stake their official and political existence upon getting it. Such an opportunity now presented itself to the Government—a Government which he was proud to sup-
    290
    port because he believed they had the honour and the well-being of this country at heart. It was because he believed in them that he called upon the Government on behalf of his constituents and many in the country who would suffer bitterly in their need if a scheme of military efficiency was not properly carried forward now, to grant the Inquiry which was asked for, so that when the strain came they might have prepared a scheme at leisure, and should not be called upon to prepare in a hurry, spending great sums of money, and spending them badly. He should like to know what the £5 bounty and free kit system of enlistment during the Crimean War cost? Supposing London be occupied for two days, he asked what sum of money would be levied in order to buy out the foreign occupiers? Would it not, therefore, be better now to add a few millions to the Estimates yearly in order that the Forces might become efficient? If the Government assented to the Motion, the country would, when the hour of danger came, thank them for their timely action, and the heart of England would not begrudge the money.
    COLONEL BRIDGEMANsaid, he could assure the Government that the supporters of the Motion did not wish that it should in any way be looked upon as a censure upon or as a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. They wished, as a matter of fact, to raise the matter above one of Party, and they saw no other way of doing that except through the means of a Royal Commission. The country knew there were in the House many members of the Military and Naval Professions, and they imagined that those Members would see that the safety of the country was maintained. Those Members were now making an effort to attain that object. The time might come—and come sooner than some expected—when we might be in the same great stress Paris was in in 1870; and then the country would naturally say that those she had looked upon to protect her had really betrayed her. The opinion of Lord Wolseley upon this matter was of the greatest importance, and it really put the contention of the supporters of the Motion in a nutshell. The evidence given by the noble Lord before the Committee, to which reference had been made to-night, showed clearly the necessity for

    291
    a Royal Commission. In Answer 2,641, Lord Wolseley said—
    "The greatest misfortune that occurs to me upon this subject, arises from the fact that our military requirements have never been inquired into—have never been tabulated and laid down. There 13 no fixed point up to which we work, whether it is the Commander-in-Chief or any official connected with the Army. We have had nothing decided by the country as to what the country wants, or as to what our military policy, its aims and requirements are."
    That was the point of hon. Members who supported the proposal now under consideration. They thought that there ought to be an inquiry as to what the aims and requirements of the country were. They thought that the inquiry should not be conducted by the Secretary of State for War, but by an independent tribunal which would look at the subject altogether apart from Party considerations. Lord Wolseley was then asked—
    "Then you do not know what you want? "
    and his reply was—
    "We do not know what we want. We do not know what we are working up to. We have a certain number of horses and regiments, and those numbers vary according to the particular exigencies of the political Party in power. There has never been any authoritative inquiry instituted as to what are the military requirements of the Empire; how many troops we require to have in England, how many we require in our Colonies, how many in India, and in our garrisons abroad."
    The next question was—
    "Do you think it would be an impossible thing, or even a difficult thing, if serious inquiry were made into the subject, to draw out some permanent system of the nature of that which you describe? "
    and Lord Wolseley, in reply, said—
    "I think it would be a very simple process, a process that might be very easily accomplished by a Royal Commission of both Houses of Parliament, not constituted of Military men but of judicial men who would look at it as a judicial inquiry, and examine experts on the various topics connected with the subject."
    Perhaps, the Government would say a Commission was appointed in 1886. But the answer would be that that Commission was appointed for totally different purposes. A Commission was wanted now to ascertain what were the requirements of the Army; and the Commission appointed in 1886 especially recommended that a Commission for that purpose should be appointed. Therefore, if the Commission in 1886 carried any weight at all, its recommendation in this
    292
    respect ought to be respected. He had heard it said that an inquiry would merely display our weaknesses. But it must be known to everybody that the points where we were weak, and the points where we were strong, were very well known to every one of the Intelligence Departments on the Continent. In all probability, the Intelligence Departments on the Continent know very nearly as much as our own Intelligence Department knew. He believed that the only people who would obtain knowledge as a result of the Commission would be our own people. He and his hon. Friends contended that it was of the utmost importance that our own people should know the real facts of the case. He was sure the country generally would not be afraid of spending money if they could be quite certain on two points—namely, that the expenditure was absolutely necessary, and that they got the worth of their expenditure. He had the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he was grateful for the consideration which the Volunteer Service had received at the hands of the Authorities within the last year; but there was one point upon which he desired to offer a suggestion. The equipment and training of the Volunteers was not yet on a satisfactory footing, because the Force had not the capital with which to meet the first outlay. Now, that the defence of the country was to be so much in the hands of the Volunteers, it was most important that the equipment of the Force and the permanent arrangements affecting it should be as perfect as possible. He found that in 1872 an Act of Parliament was passed to enable some millions sterling to be raised for the purpose of providing for the building of barracks, and also for the acquiring, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, of freehold ground for Militia depôt centres and storehouses. Although it might be inconvenient to add to the expenditure of the current year, still if the Volunteer Service was considered a permanent Service—and he hoped it now was—it might be advisable to consider whether headquarters and coats, valise equipment and stores of all kinds might not be provided in the same way as Militia training grounds were provided. The Com-

    293
    missioners for the reduction of the National Debt were, under the Act of 1872, allowed to invest their money in Terminable Annuities, running over a period of 30 years, and to take for that purpose money deposited in the Savings Banks and in the Post Office Bank. At the present moment, when the Volunteers required head-quarters, they either had to hire them at a large rent, or to expend a large sum of money on leasehold property, which of course ultimately reverted to the freeholder. If the Service was a permanent institution, he trusted the Government would do something similar to that which they did for the Militia—namely, provide for it freehold head-quarters. Only the other week he had occasion to negotiate a loan of £7,000 for the purposes of a cemetery, and he obtained the money from the Metropolitan Board of Works at 3½ per cent, the same rate of interest charged to the London School Board. He could have the money from the Works Commissioners at 4 per cent. At the present moment, if Volunteers provided head-quarters for themselves, they had to borrow money from private individuals, and probably pay 5 per cent. They received no assistance from any public Common Fund, such as he had indicated. It would be of immense advantage if some arrangement could be made by which Volunteers could have head-quarters provided, in the first instance, from some common fund, at a moderate rate of interest—say, at 3½ per cent. The Government would make money by the advances, that is the difference between Post Office Bank interest and 3½ per cent, and the Volunteers would save the difference between 3½ and 5 per cent, which they now had to pay. The same thing might happen with regard to equipment. In many instances, the first cost, which often amounted to £400, was defrayed by the officer in command, and he had to wait for years before he could get the whole of his money back; while, if the Government lent it, they could deduct the repayments out of the Capitation Grant, and would have the Freehold as security. This matter was urgent, and therefore lot some money be raised, not on the Revenue of the year, but by means of Terminable Annuities, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could devise; let the needs of the Volun-
    294
    teers, both as regarded equipment and head-quarters, be provided for, and the Force thus put in a permanent condition.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid that, having been recently connected with the War Office, he hoped the House would indulge him for a few minutes while he explained why he was unable to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, though he sympathized with its object. He was glad to hear from his hon. and gallant Friend, and others who had spoken, an expression of their cordial appreciation of the services which his right hon. Friend had rendered to the country during his tenure of office. Having had the honour of serving under him for the last twelve months, he must say it would be hard to find a man who had the welfare of the country more at heart, and the Memorandum he had submitted showed the earnest desire by which his right hon. Friend was actuated to promote the interests of the Army. There was very little which his hon. and gallant Friend had said with which he did not agree, and especially with respect to the deplorable system of allowing our stores to run down, buying in a hurry, whether it was £11,000,000 that was expended or a less sum, inspecting in a hurry, and paying the highest prices for inferior goods, which ought not to be served out to the British Army. A more pernicious system he could not conceive. Another point on which he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend was that some system of greater publicity was possible than any which at present prevailed with regard to our reserves of stores. There were certain classes of our warlike stores about which the world ought not to be informed; but he was afraid that foreigners were very often too well acquainted with the state of our military stores. But there were many classes of stores as to which no advantage could be gained by a foreign country knowing the quantity we had, while it would be well that our own people should know whether we were deficient in them or not. Then came the question whether a Royal Commission was the best machinery for obtaining such knowledge. His hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the Vote for improving the defence of our ports, arsenals, and coaling stations. Now, he would be prepared to support

    295
    his right hon. Friend if he were to propose a larger sum; but what was now proposed was a substantial step in advance. He was grateful to his right hon. Friend for proposing it, and he was convinced it would be accepted by a large majority of the House and endorsed by the voice of the country. As for the adoption of a Royal Commission, he would like to ask what the functions of that Commission were to be. They might be twofold. There might be a Commission to dictate to the Secretary of State and the Government for the time being what their military policy was to be in the future, or there might simply be a Commission to report to the Secretary of State and make known to the country what the exact state of our stores and supplies was. There was a wide difference between the two. He would be very unwilling to support a proposal for appointing a Commission which would take out of the hands of the Government the responsibility for our foreign policy. It must be remembered that a Commission of that kind would not be strengthening the hands of the Secretary of State. On the other hand, if the Commission was merely to report as to the state of our supplies, he thought sufficient data for that purpose existed already in the Reports of Lord Morley's, Sir Fitz James Stephen's, the Fortifications Committees, and other sources of information. If the proposed Commission were made a judicial rather than a military one, its findings would not long command the respect of military and naval men; and if, on the other hand, it consisted of military and naval men, it would embody the views merely of a body of officers whose views were already known to the Executive or could easily be ascertained by the Executive. Another practical objection was that a Royal Commission would be failing in its duty if it did not recommend various changes and an increase in the stores, which would lead to increased expenditure. The practical effect would be that inventors and inventions would be discouraged, because the officials of the Department would shelter themselves under the ægis of the standard which the Commission would lay down, and greater difficulty would be experienced in getting new inventions adopted into the Service. Suppose, for example, the Commission recommended
    296
    the introduction of a certain number of new transport waggons, and suppose a new waggon were to be discovered, if there were a large supply of the existing waggons in store there would be a great disposition on the part of the permanent officials to economize money by saying, "We had better not go behind the findings of the Royal Commission." he hoped his right hon. Friend would deprecate any plan which would tend to withdraw proper Parliamentary control from the money voted each year. No doubt recent changes would increase the responsibility of the military branch of the War Office, but it was absolutely impossible that the military advisers would ever be got to accept full responsibility for the Army Estimates unless they were given the full control over the money voted, and it was not possible to conceive a state of circumstances, in these democratic times, in which it would be possible, even if it were desirable, to withdraw such strict Parliamentary control over the Estimates of the House. He thought, without going the length of appointing a Royal Commission, there were many practical changes advantageous to the public and to the Army which might be made by the Secretary of State. His right hon. Friend had given to the country a full and ample earnest of his desire and intention to make those changes, and the House ought to treat with great confidence a Minister who had shown remarkable readiness to meet the views of the Army as far as he could, and, therefore, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion to a Division. If he did so, he should, though with much reluctance, be bound to vote against him.
    COLONEL HILLsaid, he rose to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He conceived there was no subject of deeper interest to the people of this country at large than that of our public defences. He believed the great majority of taxpayers were desirous and determined that our defences should be adequate for the protection of our coasts, our shipping, and our Colonies; but an opinion had got abroad that we did not get the protection we ought to receive for our money, and there was a feeling of apprehension that the non-combatant branches of the Service were not yet so

    297
    perfectly organized, that we could be quite sure that the mistakes arising therefrom in former times were not likely to appear again. He believed a Royal Commission would sift all those matters; it would ascertain what the defences were and how much money was necessary to be provided, and he believed the people would be contented to pay the cost of the work. He should not have intruded on the House were it not that he was anxious to draw attention to what he conceived to be an important matter in connection with the defence of our coaling stations. He was glad to see in the Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) that the matter was receiving attention, and that a sum was proposed to be voted for carrying out this important work. Without that it was impossible that the Navy could do its work and that our mercantile marine could receive the protection which it required; but, at the same time, if they merely defended the coaling stations and left the places where the coal was obtained unprotected, the work was only half done. It was well known to every Member of that House that the coal which is used in the Navy came from only one place, namely, South Wales. The coal of South Wales was much more adapted for steam purposes than all other coals, and it had the advantage of being smokeless. This coal was produced at Cardiff, Newport, and Swansea. Newport had practically no defences, Swansea had merely a small battery, while Cardiff had no defences at all. It was true that there were a chain of forts for the Bristol Channel defence, but those forts had no guns capable of coping with the arms of the present day, and they would be, therefore, absolutely usleess for the purpose of defence. There had been a suggestion that submarine mining would be an adequate means of defence, but in the Bristol Channel, where the tide ran very swiftly, he very much doubted whether that system could be effectually applied. Those rapid tides would be a great factor in favour of an attacking force, because a vessel coming up Channel with a five-knot tide and making 20 knots an hour would be an extremely difficult object to strike. Until efficient
    298
    fortifications were built, he urged that a few guns of the heaviest calibre should be placed in commanding positions at those ports where they would be ready in time of need, and likewise afford the Volunteer Artillery an opportunity of learning the drill of the guns they would have to use in case their service should be required on an emergency. He ventured to think that it was the expense which stood in the way of those works. When they came to consider the enormous national interest and the enormous private pecuniary interest involved in the preservation of those ports, he did not think that the question of money ought to be taken into consideration. He had been very much struck with the fact that at Tangiers there were, no loss than four 100-ton guns, and if that poor port could be supplied with the so guns, he did not think that this country ought to grudge the money necessary to secure so important an object as the protection of the ports to which he was referring. He looked with satisfaction and gratitude at the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was pleased to make with reference to the Volunteers. He could assure the House that the Volunteers were most desirous of doing everything in their power to render themselves efficient. Something had been said with regard to field batteries. He did not mean to say that the Volunteers could possibly acquire that precision in field drill which was gained by the Royal Artillery, but it seemed to him, if there were sufficient Artillery Volunteers for the purpose and the Government were prepared to grant the necessary money, there was no doubt that field batteries could be formed. At the present time he believed there was not a sufficiency of garrison gunners, and therefore the time was not yet come when they might agitate for field batteries; nevertheless he hoped that more facilities would be given to Artillery Volunteers for learning the drill of heavy guns. He was pleased to find that a sum of money was proposed to be voted for camp exorcise with the Regular Forces, and he was assured that this was going in a direction in which the greatest possible service could be done to the Volunteers. He should have been much pleased if, during the Recess, the Secretary of State for

    299
    War could have found himself in a position to add to the Estimates the email sum necessary for the old Adjutants of the Auxiliary Forces—that he had not been able to accede to the prayer of the Memorandum which was presented to him signed by over 100 Members of the House of Commons that their case should be considered. He would not attempt to go into the question now, but would only say generally that, although he had no reason to believe that anything he might say would induce the Secretary of State for War to alter the opinion he had formed, yet he thought it was hardly desirable in the interest of the Service that officers or public servants should have reason to feel that they were suffering under what they considered to be a grievance—namely, that the conditions of their Service had been altered to their injury without proper compensation. Finally he thought that grave reasons had been adduced for the granting of a Royal Commission. He believed that Commission would be a benefit to all the Services, and that their recommendations would be exceedingly valuable and would cause the taxpayers to provide the necessary money, for what had been properly called our assurance, with much greater satisfaction than they did at present.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)said, the Government had no reason to complain of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who introduced this subject, or of the speeches that followed. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex, in the course he had taken, was doubtless anxious to strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State for War; but it was to be noticed that the scope of the hon. and gallant Member's Motion had been considerably widened by every successive speaker. It was a remarkable fact that, the ugh the hon. Members who had spoken all supported the Motion for a Commission, not one of them insinuated that the present policy of Her Majesty's Government was proceeding in a wrong direction. Motions for a Commission were generally based on an allegation that the Government were pursuing a wrong
    300
    policy; but no such allegation was made in the present case. If hon. and gallant Gentlemen had pointed out that the Government was blind to the military needs of the Empire, then he could have understood their asking for a Commission; but, instead of that, they all seemed to admit that the Secretary of State was proceeding step by step in the direction that they themselves indicated. Under these circumstances, it certainly did seem anomalous that the Government should be asked to accept a Commission which would be fruitful of the most unfortunate consequences on the publication of its Report, and which, in addition, would widen questions and transfer responsibility. The hon. Baronet the Member for Exeter (Sir Stafford Northcote) alone of those who had spoken foresaw the disadvantages which would follow the granting of a Commission. The speeches of all the hon. and gallant Gentlemen practically amounted to proposals for a gigantic development of the military forces of the Crown. There was scarcely one hon. and gallant Gentleman whose speech, if pushed to its legitimate conclusion, would not involve an enormous increase in our Army Corps. The hon. and gallant Member for Bolton (Colonel Bridgeman) had spoken of working up to a fixed point; but he did not inform the House whether he considered two Army Corps to be the proper fixed point. Nor had any other hon. and gallant Gentleman expressed any opinion on this matter. But before appointing a Commission some diversity of opinion should exist to justify it. No one had said that two Army Corps were insufficient. The hon. and gallant Member for South - East Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allen) said that these Army Corps should be kept fully prepared. But there was no necessity for a Commission to enforce so obvious a fact as that. The hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) animadverted on the organization of the Volunteers, and proposed that magazines and stores for the whole of our 220,000 Volunteers should be erected, and that about £1,000,000 should be spent in providing them with field guns. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Durham said that if the Volunteers were called out they could not keep the

    301
    field for a week. Well, upon that point he would find many military authorities to differ from him.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid, he had stated that the Volunteers could not be kept together for a fortnight without unhinging the whole social system of the country.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken in that view. Some counties had already taken up the question of transport for Volunteers as a local matter, and it would be an excellent manifestation of public spirit if other counties acted likewise. A great deal had been said with regard to the defence of military ports; but no one had condemned the intention of the Secretary of State for War to proceed first of all with works at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and on the Thames. The only point made was that they wished to see larger sums expended. But to that the Secretary of State's reply was that the sum proposed to be spent was as much as could be advantageously expended in a certain time. As to mercantile ports—such as Bristol—if, after being provided with submarine mines and quick-firing guns, according to the Government scheme, they were not satisfied, they could make an additional effort on their own behalf, for the Government recognized the principle that localities, for the sake of their own trade, should do something for themselves in providing the necessary defence. He could not pass from this subject without aknowledging in the fullest degree the exertions made by our Colonies with regard to coaling stations. Nothing did more to knit together the different parts of this Empire than the exertions of the Colonies—hand-in-hand with the Mother Country—to put their coaling stations in a proper state of defence. He had listened with great attention to the speeches that had been, delivered, but had not been able to find one single word of genuine criticism upon the course pursued by the Government. If the Government had come down and said that they had effected great economy at the cost of efficiency, the House would have had some ground to find fault with them. Under all the circumstances he put this question to the House. Ought they not, before considering what they should do, to give some credit to, and repose some
    302
    confidence in, the Government for what had been done already? The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex went back to the Crimean War and the Abyssinian Expedition, and described the difficulties in which we had been landed in those expeditions by our utter state of unpreparedness. He would put this broad fact before the House. The Government could say that they had followed the lead indicated to them last year. With an increase of efficiency they had effected great economy. For the first time for eight years there had been no Supplementary Estimates; the sums voted for the Service for the year had been made sufficient, and more than sufficient. They showed on the Estimates an absolute reduction of £150,000. They had likewise appropriated for other urgent services for the defence of the country the sum of £170,000 more. Thus they had effected an economy of £320,000 without cutting down a single man or a single horse, while at the same time they added a small force to the Army. They had further provided and were providing new field guns for the whole of our two Army Corps. All that sum of £320,000 they had gained by sheer economy and hard work. They were proposing to spend £3,000,000 in a manner which the House evidently approved; and, under the circumstances, he would ask whether it was fair to say, as the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had asked, they were always to go on living in a fool's paradise. Far from that, almost for the first time the state of the country, of the forces of the Crown, and of our national resources had been brought forward perfectly openly, so that the House was able to grasp the position. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the discussion said the first thing he desired was that there should be such an organization at the the War Office that the soldiers who were responsible in time of war should also be responsible in time of peace. What more could he fairly ask for that had not been done already? As to the difficulties in the way of appointing this Commission, he would say this: They now had at the War Office Lord Wolseley, Sir Redvers Buller, General Brackenbury, and almost every one who had held commands in recent expeditions, and during the last six months there

    303
    had been transferred to them the whole responsibility of the administration of the spending Department. Now, he knew no step the House could take beyond that, unless Parliament meant to take the control away from itself and give it to those who spent the money, and who could not sit in this House to justify their expenditure. Without the control of the Treasury it would be impossible to keep the Estimates down. Soldiers naturally had a desire to spend money. He would put this point clearly before the House. In the first place, if they put the whole thing into the hands of soldiers, however able they might be as administrators, they would not always agree as to what the money should be spent upon, and they would always make a compromise with each other, saying, "If you will spend what is necessary on my service I will spend what is necessary on yours." In that way no economy would be possible. He would not, as to that, exclude sailors. The hon. and gallant Admiral said that we ought to do everything that was needed at once, and exercise a generous spirit. Well, but a generous spirit was often the word for universal squandering. What he would say was, we ought not to act in a niggardly spirit in doing what was necessary; but, at the same time, we ought not to do a single thing which was not absolutely necessary. He was inclined to ask this question—"Who were the economists to-night?" Last Session they heard a great deal in the Committee about the necessity of economy. The economists never rose to support a Minister. The whole tendency was on the other side. As to this Commission—if it were granted—were they to have on it Gentlemen who were anxious to spend, and also the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and one or two other Gentlemen of the Peace at any Price Party, in order to establish on that Commission a proper equilibrium. If they had both, they would be certain to have a minority Report. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex said that there was great danger at present of a European war. Did it not occur to the House that if a Commission were appointed, and that if the Commission recommended the immediate expenditure of £12,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000, people would say in two or
    304
    three years' time that their Report was made when a great war was expected? The scare would pass away, the war would be over, and a generation would arise which knew not Joseph, and which would criticize the system of hopeless, hapelss expenditure that had been established. Then the Commission was to be asked to decide what was needful in respect of foreign expeditions. He did not at first know what the expression meant, but it had been emphasized by the Mover of the Amendment and by the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley). The Mover spoke of the aggression of Russia and the misfortune of allowing Bulgaria at this moment to be taken by Russia. But was it not a dangerous and an ominous suggestion to make that we should transfer to a Commission, which could only have a delegated authority, a responsibility that could only rest properly upon the Cabinet? He would draw attention to an important utterance last year by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) to the effect that if our foreign policy were conducted with skill and judgment, armaments would be unnecessary and taxation for them unjustifiable. It had, therefore, been laid down on the noble Lord's authority that the strength of our forces might depend upon the foreign policy of the Government. To put into the hands of a Commission authority that could only be properly wielded by a responsible Cabinet would be to make the Government a mere machine for carrying out the mandates of that Commission. Then there was the further objection that such a Commission could not sit without exposing every weakness in our defence to the eyes of the whole world? There was a Committee appointed to consult with the Secretary for War last year, and such a Committee might be continued with advantage. The appointment of a Commission would involve serious delay, for it could scarcely conclude its labours within two years, and he hoped the greater part of the proposed programme of his hon. and gallant Friend would be carried out by that time. The Government were far from saying that the present system was perfect, and they had taken such steps as they could to improve and strengthen, its weak points, of which there were many,

    305
    in which public opinion might strengthen the hands of the Secretary for War; but the Government could not accept a proposal which would impair their own responsibility for the Estimates. The Government hoped they might be favoured with the opinions of some of the non-military Members of the House; for, with all respect to the military Members and giving them full credit for desire to advance the interests of the country, irrespective of those of the Service, that was a subject that should not be discussed by military Members exclusively. So far, the discussion had been highly advantageous. He supposed it might be taken as a compliment to the framers of the Estimates that no exception had been taken to anything they either contained or omitted. In conclusion, he submitted that no case had been made out for a Commission, whose inquiries might prove to be a distinct disadvantage to this country.
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that inquiry need not be shirked because of any possible disclosure, since foreign Governments probably knew our weaknesses as well as we know them ourselves. It was suggested that the proposed Commission would take two years to report, and that the matter of our defences would be hung up in the meantime. He, however, thought that the programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) might be proceeded with pending the inquiry, and he should imagine that if the Commission were appointed it might present its Report within six months at the outside. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Department (Mr. Brodrick) complained that hon. Members had not communicated to the Government any point to which they ought to work up. He (Viscount Ebrington) thought the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War was a sufficient proof that he had a point he would like to work up to, if he was sure that public opinion would back him. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to state there that the programme was not an exhaustive one, or one which showed the full amount of the work which the Military Authorities thought necessary, or oven desirable. He believed it would be of use to the House and the country that they should know
    306
    what works the Military Authorities did think necessary. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary seemed to think he had disposed of a good many of the previous arguments, when he said that a quarter of the Volunteer Force had been provided with great coats. In his opinion, however, great coats were things which they could afford to wait for, and there were many other things far more necessary which, unlike great coats, could not be improvised. Although the Volunteer Force might be so well provided with these garments, he found that the Secretary of State for War admitted that even the First Army Corps was not fully provided with all things necessary. And although he said that what was required would probable be completed without serious delay, yet unless the general opinion was incorrect there were some very important items in the shape of material which, were not available, and which it would take some time to provide. Turning from general matters to points of more detail, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a subject which, he thought, had not been touched upon in the discussion which had taken place—namely, the amount of Garrison Artillery which he proposed to provide for the defence of our Coaling Stations. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Memorandum of last year, spoke of the necessity of increasing that force by 1,800 men; and the ugh the Memorandum of this year stated that all the necessary garrison artillery was provided, yet the Estimates only showed an increase in that force, deducting Mountain Batteries and men in Egypt, of 1125 over 1886–7 and 59 over 1887–8.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The Estimate I gave in the Memorandum was the Estimate received from the War Office Authorities.
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that in that case those Authorities must have changed their minds a good deal since last year. He ventured to doubt whether the system they were pursuing with regard to heavy guns was the best system possible. Garrison service was by no means popular; it was generally conducted in out-of-the-way places, and it offered few opportunities for distinction. Under the present system an officer with a mule battery at Aldershot might be

    307
    transferred to a 100-ton gun at Gibraltar; and he believed that officers were habitually transferred from Horse and Field Batteries to another branch of the Service which was now practically quite a distinct one. Such transfers might have been unavoidable and even desirable in old days when guns of position were not so very much heavier than those which an army might take with it for siege operations; but while the dimensions of these and of field guns were practically unaltered, heavy guns were now of enormous size and had become such complicated machines that he believed we ought to follow the example of other nations, and constitute a special corps of Fortress Artillery. Of course that could not be done all at once, but he would suggest that as a beginning the Royal Marine Artillery should be entrusted with the garrisoning of our Coaling Stations. There were many advantages in the plan he suggested—there was no difference between the great guns in these places and ships' guns, the men therefore, whether on land or at sea would be working guns to which they were accustomed. Secondly, there would be great advantage in respect of the health and lives of the men. Many of our Coaling Stations were dismal, unhealthy places, and it was well known that many men were invalided, and died and even committed suicide in them unless frequently relieved. Now, under the plan he proposed these men could be relieved easily by the men in the squadrons on the various stations; the men of the garrison being taken on board ship and replaced by others at short intervals, whenever most convenient to the Admiral on the station. He (Viscount Ebrington) reminded the right hon. Gentleman that this was not a new system; it had, in fact, been practised in various parts of the world, by our Navy for more more than 100 years. The Diamond Rock in the old war afforded an instance of the practice. Ascension was another at the present time, while Port Hamilton also had been garrisoned by the China Squadron. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to adopting this system at the Coaling Stations.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he thought that the question of the defence of the country was exercising the mind of the
    308
    people at the present moment more than anything else except the question of Home Rule. He did not intend that evening to touch upon the question of administration, although he believed the system was utterly wrong, that it invited extravagance, and was certainly adverse to economy. The time had arrived when they should drop Party altogether in these matters, and see what they could do to put the Services in order, because late events and statements made by experts went to prove that the services were not in order, the ugh the country thought that they were. It seemed more or less ungrateful of the Service Members to agree on a Motion like that which his hon. and gallant Friend had brought forward. He (Lord Charles Beresford) admitted that the Secretary of State for War had done a very great deal for the Service, and there were many things in his Memorandum which were in the right direction, and with which he heartily agreed. But what he wanted to show was that these improvements would not help organization for war, and would not enable the Army, to a great extent, to fight any better; and more particularly they would not enable the country to know what was required for its defence. Only a Royal Commission such as was now proposed could possibly enable the country to see how it stood. The alteration of the system of administration in the War Office, by giving military men responsibility over the Departments, was apparently a very satisfactory point. But that responsibility was entirely a myth, or it would be, unless the Secretary of State for War could answer a question which he intended to put to him. It would be very much the same class of responsibility as that which the Sea Lords had at the Admiralty. At the Admiralty it was simply nil. For instance, our shipbuilding policy was dictated by the amount of money which the Party Head of the day thought he could spare for building ships, and not at all by the actual necessities of the case. His noble Friend had in his possession a paper which he had himself written, urging the necessity of building a great many more cruisers. But this matter they would have out on the Navy Estimates. Unless in the War Office the soldiers who were to be responsible were able to write out their demands and the

    309
    reasons for them, and the country knew what they thought, the demands would be laid on one side as they were now; and then the Secretary of State would cut them down, and after that the Treasury would cut them down still further. The Secretary of State had proposed a loan of £2,200,000 in order to put the Coaling Stations and Maritime Ports in order. The House ought to know what sum the experts thought was necessary. He did not say that the country should go by what the experts said, but they ought to know what their opinions were.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I gave the Estimates.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, that that might be so; but what he wished to know was whether they were what the experts recommended? That he doubted. As to Treasury control, it was all based on unsound evidence, or else he should have been at the Admiralty now he believed. He had seen the bent bayonets, the broken cutlasses, the cartridges that jammed, and the shrapnel shell that did not explode in the Soudan. Major Hunter, when he examined his shells in the Soudan to see that everything was right before going into action, found that out of 110 shrapnel shells, 19 were empty, 29 were partly empty, 10 were damp, and one had the plug jammed. As to responsibility, they were working under the same system now. [Mr. E. STANHOPE dissented.] Well, it was the same at the Admiralty. But when that happened who was hung for it? Who was even chided for it? The troops might have been at Metammeh, trusting to the shrapnel shell, waiting for the enemy to come within range; and had that been so, the shell would not have burst, the enemy would have been upon them, and would have done for them. That would have meant another expedition of an Army Corps from England. All this was the result of not having real responsibility from somebody, so that there would be somebody to be hung if anything went wrong. These shells might have been worth three times their weight in gold if they were all right; as it was, they were useless. Responsibility, as they now had it, was not worth a penny. In 1885, if we had gone to war, any seaman could have told the country that it would have lost its Mer-
    310
    cantile Marine, and that its food supply would have been stopped. If that had come to pass, would poor Lord North-brook have been hung? [Laughter.] It was no laughing matter, but a very serious question. What he wanted to prove, and would prove, was that the present system was utterly wrong and unbusiness-like. In 1885, Lord North-brook said, if he had been given £2,000,000—[An hon. MEMBER: £3,000,000.] £3,000,000, was it? It might as well been half-a-crown, because he said he would not have known what to do with it if he had to apply it to the Navy. Then war loomed in the distance, and Lord Northbrook asked for he did not know how many millions. [An hon. MEMBER: £5,000,000.] £5,000,000, was it? Well, he ventured to say, and he appealed to the present First Lord to confirm him, that a very large sum of that was as good as thrown into the sea. And this because the system was bad, because there was no organization in time of peace to enable the country to fight in time of war. He would read to the House what Lord Wolseley said in a letter to the Secretary of State for War. Lord Wolseley, writing from the Soudan, said—
    "It is difficult for me to adequately describe the feelings with which I have read the enclosed papers, describing the condition of the ammunition supplied from Woolwich to the only battery of Royal Artillery which accompanied the column recently operating from Korti across the Bayuda Desert. In all our small wars the British soldier has to contend against enemies vastly superior in number, and it is only by superior discipline and the efficiency of our arms of precision that we can secure victory. I have already addressed your Lordship on the subject of the carelessness shown by those responsible at home for the quality of the ammunition supplied to the troops in the field, in issuing star shells of a diff rent calibre from that of the guns of the battery serving here. I trust the new proof, contained in the enclosed papers, of the culpable negligence of some branch of department at home will lead to an inquiry into its working by a Board of selected officers of the Line, unconnected in every way with the Woolwich Manufacturing or Store Department, or with the administration under which they work. I write strongly because I feel strongly, when I think of how the lives of gallant soldiers may have been sacrificed in the present campaign, and may be again so sacrificed in the future, through the inexcusable carelessness of individuals in the Woolwich Arsenal, and through the unsoundness of a system under which such ammunition as that described in these enclosures could possibly have been issued for service in the field."

    311
    This was from a man who was responsible in time of war; but such men were not allowed to say anything in time of peace. Unless an expert had a seat in that House he had no hearing. It was only by proper organization in time of peace that we could be properly prepared for war. The country, he believed, would do anything to have its Army and Navy in the condition in which it ought to be and in which the people thought it was. Hon. Members objected to the Estimates because they saw the money was often spent in a wrong way and on a wrong system. It was suddenly found out when they went to war that they had not a lot of things which they ought to have had before the war was declared; and when money was spent in a panic they paid the highest price for the worst things. A Royal Commission would prevent such things as happened in 1885. It would prevent the scandals revealed in the Judge Advocate's Report. There was the question of the new shell with high explosives. Every nation except England had now got shells with high explosives, whether melanite, dynamite, or some other. In the new shell the velocity of dispersion was greater than the velocity of progression, and it burst all over the place in a circle. The French had actually spent £1,000,000 on melanite or other high explosive shells. The suggested Commission would find out how we stood in regard to that matter. He believed that if a French ship using these shells attacked one of our ships of the Ajax class, and one of those shells came into an important part of her and burst, it would knock a hole in her that would wholly unfit her to fight. He, as an expert, said that, and other experts would say the same. But, unfortunately, for Party reasons, the country never knew what the experts said. They might have to go to sea with those ships, and they would be in danger of having to meet and fight ships with those melanite shells. On ordinary business grounds, he asked why should not the country know exactly how they stood in regard to those things? There had been a great many comparisons drawn between this country, France, and Germany. Let them take the question of our stores. The Secretary of State for War ought to know all about the stores
    312
    in this country. Let the right hon. Gentleman get up and tell them how much gunpowder they had got in this country, He believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly bald and gray if the country knew how much gunpowder they had, because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that they had got very little, and that every bit of it that was made abroad would be stopped if war broke out. All their accounts were mixed up. The Royal Commission ought to find out a normal. Every great Empire ought to have so many men and so many ships; and to that should be added whatever was required that was abnormal—such as rearming the army, defence of the coaling stations, protection of mercantile ports, and so forth.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that if the noble Lord would look at Vote 12, he would see that this year, for the first time, they had separated the warlike stores, showing what were the requirements for ordinary and what for extraordinary purposes.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, that certainly was right, but it did not give them a normal. His remarks, the ugh they seemed to apply to the Army, had great reference to the sister Service, [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed; but it was impossible in the defence of this country to separate the two services. He noticed what the right hon. Gentleman stated, but he was not at all satisfied with the arrangement; he did not think it was at all a good one. He wished to remove a false impression which he had seen in the Press, and which had been conveyed to him by his Friends, in regard to his speeches. He believed that all the Service officers in that House agreed with him in this—they did not at all want that the experts should have the control of the administration. The soldier's and sailor's idea of administration was to give an order and carry it out; but the statesman's idea was very different. He had to administer by argument, and by a different method. The Heads of Departments—the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War—must necessarily, by the Constitution, have the power of coming into that House, and then also into the Cabinet. But what he complained of was that they

    313
    did not consult their experts, or might not consult them. Under the present system those two Chiefs of Departments were perfect almighties—they could say "we "when it was only "I," and the country thought that the experts had a great deal more to say in the management of the Service than they really had, and looked upon them as being a great deal more responsible than they were. The views of those experts ought to be placed—he would not say before the country, though he should like to see them placed before the House—at least before the Cabinet, and until this was done things would not get right. The idea of the Parliamentary control, what was it? They were given a volume, and they criticized it. The Radicals—he must pay them the compliment of saying they generally did try to criticize it, but they took up the wrong thing and criticized it very severely; they really had no control, as they did not understand it. The same remark applied to the other side, because it was the fault of the system. If they had a definite thing given them, they would know what they were talking about. He said that their Parliamentary control was a myth. They were asked for a certain sum of money for certain purposes; but in an ordinary line of business they ought to know what was necessary and what they were paying for. They were asked to vote a certain amount in the Estimates, and when war occurred they had to pay goodness knew what, and most of their money was then wasted. He did not see the Chancellor of the Exchequer then present. He was a very bad hand to tackle; but the Treasury control also was just as much a myth. It was based upon unsound evidence. The Treasury never, or rarely, saw what the necessity of the case was, as, for instance, in the case of the Intelligence Department. The Parliamentary Heads of the Departments came to the Treasury and said so-and-so, and the Treasury went by their opinion, and not by the opinion of the soldiers and sailors. He did not want the Treasury to go by the opinion of the soldiers and sailors, but to see what the evidence really was. It was said that a Royal Commission took time. In his opinion, this matter was so important for the safety of the Empire that it should be attended to first of all. Let them have some system—some Plan of Campaign. At present
    314
    there was not even a roster of ships for the various stations. That was not the way to carry on the defence of a great Empire at all. One thing he would like to ask was this—of what were the Government afraid in this Royal Commission? Were they afraid of France, or Germany, or any other country? He could assure them that if they wanted accurately to know the state of our defences, and every gun we had in the world, they could get the information by going to the Naval Attaché of any Embassy in London. Were they afraid of the British taxpayer? But the British taxpayer was, as it were, a shareholder in the business, and ought to know how his money was spent; at present he was in a perfect sea of blue dust, and knew nothing. He would only only ask the House of Commons whether they had found the system which they had got at present a satisfactory system? He maintained that it was a bad and utterly wrong one, and a Royal Commission would expose that system. All their bad expenditure was the result of the system of administration, and until they altered it they would never better themselves at all. Then his hon. Friend on the Front Bench said that this was very ridiculous—at all events, he had rather laughed at the idea of a Royal Commission. For his own part, he could not understand why. All that they asked of the Government was that the recommendations of their own Royal Commission should be attended to. That Commission had been presided over by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, an eminent Judge, accustomed to balance evidence, and he, in the strongest terms, and in words almost identical with those used by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North- West Sussex, had said—
    "The present system is directed to no definite object; it is regulated by no definite rules; it makes no regular stated provision either for the proper supply and manufacture of warlike stores, or for enforcing the responsibility of those who fail to make them properly; or for ascertaining the fact that they are made improperly. It is to these defects in the system that we attribute most of the matters complained of."
    Then, again, they found these words—
    "We think that the charge of inefficiency, both generally and in a variety of particular instances, has been proved to a considerable extent. We attribute this inefficiency to the defects in the system pointed out above."

    315
    This, it must be remembered, was the Government's own Commission. Then, with regard to the remedy, the Report went on to say—
    "We propose to remedy defects as follows:—A Commission, composed of men of the highest eminence and authority, should be formed to lay down a standard as to the amount of stores which should be kept in hand for the Public Service, and annual tables should be published showing how the existing stores stood in relation to this standard."
    His hon. Friend behind him did not even ask for a standard, but that the question should come before a Commission of business men, and that the facts should be stated in such a way that the country might judge what ought to be done. There was nothing about a Vote of Censure on the Government in this proposal; nothing could strengthen their hands more.
    MR. BRODRICKobserved, that he did not say it would be a Vote of Censure, but that it might prove a serious matter, and do injury to the country.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, that he certainly understood his hon. Friend to say that much, but something more as well. Now with regard to the question of economy, which was always preached whenever they went to address their constituents—["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]—Oh, yes; they were always preaching peace and reform and economy; they were bound to promise these things, but they could not have economy under their present system. If they wanted economy the system must be altered. What he asked was that they should not make this a Party question, but all join together to repair a system which had proved itself bad in every particular, and which, in his opinion, could not at all increase economy, but must increase extravagance, and which as long as it lasted would prevent their ever getting their Services in that state of efficiency which everybody desired.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I only wish, before the debate goes any further, to say a few words in order to remove a misapprehension which appears to have arisen. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who introduced this debate, is, I know, the roughly desirous to render every assistance to the Government in the discharge of their duty, and I regret that it is not in our power to
    316
    accede to the terms of the Motion he has put upon the Paper, although my desire is to give the fullest credit to him and to those hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have supported him in all that they have said, and as regards the motives by which they have been actuated. I wish, therefore, to say a few words to justify the course which the Government think it right to take in the circumstances in which they are placed. My hon. and gallant Friend asked the House to approach Her Majesty, in order that she may be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the military and naval requirements for the protection of the Empire. Well, Sir, I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). He emphasized the demand that is made in the Motion by saying that it was a demand which must embrace the requirements of the Army and Navy for home protection, as well as the necessities for foreign service, and it also raises the whole question of the defence of India. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for the Guildford Division of Surrey, the Financial Secretary to the War Department (Mr. Brodrick), referred with very great force to the circumstances in which any such inquiry as is now asked for must be held. He quoted, with admirable effect, the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) last year, in which that noble Lord showed conclusively that the proportion or amount of even the normal expenditure and strength of the country must depend upon the policy of the Government and of successive Governments, and upon the view they took of their responsibilities. I should like, therefore, to ask how a Commission, largely composed of experts, could be charged with the duty of making provision for the interests of this great Empire so far as concerned the providing the strength which would be required for every contingency, at the same time removing all responsibility from the shoulders of the Government of the day? I can imagine no greater relief, if it were not cowardice to seek it, to any Government than to devolve upon a Royal Commission the duty which, the Government now discharges. The Government would for the next three years,

    317
    at any rate, be relieved of any responsibility for the extension of the defences necessary for the protection of the Empire. All we should have to do would be to keep things going in the best way we could, and changes in ships for the protection of commerce, or in fighting ships and other questions connected with the Departments, must be held over until this Commission has made its Report. I have heard a remark made by my hon. and gallant Friend that this Commission was one that would report at once. I have had very great experience of the assistance of experts, and can bear testimony to their loyalty both at the Admiralty and the War Office, and it would be unfair to them if I allowed it to be supposed that they held office without a great sense of their responsibility, without communicating freely to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State, and without having the great satisfaction of knowing that their advice is followed as a rule on questions on which their advice ought to have the greatest weight. The amount of force required and of provision made rests upon the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State, checked and controlled to a great extent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to ask the House whether any system that could be devised could relieve the Ministers of the responsibility of making pecuniary provision for the Services in this House? I should prefer that the responsibility which at present rests upon Ministers should be insisted upon and maintained, though I am very far from saying that our system is perfect. I do not believe it to be perfect by any means. Even looking at the checks with which our Parliamentary system surrounds the Departments, it is almost impossible that they could avoid mistakes and to some extent errors and maladministration at times. But if you ask me whether it is desirable that there should be investigation into the system—a careful, persistent, and acute investigation—I should be perfectly ready to accept such an investigation. I have nothing whatever to hide; I have no desire whatever to maintain any portion of the organization or administration either of the Army or Navy which upon inquiry may be found to be defective. That is an object to which Parliament may properly
    318
    direct its attention with a view to ascertaining to what extent the present Naval and Military systems are adapted to the national needs. Such an inquiry I am perfectly prepared to grant; but, Sir, I am not prepared to accept proposals which must relieve the Government of responsibility in the future. Change the system if you like, if there is anything wrong in it; deal with the organization if you please, if it is defective; but adhere strictly to the maintenance of the responsibility which up to this time has rested with the Ministers of the day to provide for the safety and protection of the country, and to present to Parliament such measures as they think necessary to present in their duty to the Sovereign, the State, and the Empire. I, Sir, for one, should be no party at any time to relieve them of that responsibility. We cannot devolve on a Committee of the House of Commons or a Royal Commission of irresponsible Gentlemen the duty of determining what force and what strength may be required for the protection of the country. It would be a mistake to suppose that officers of the Army or Navy are uniformly agreed in their recommendations to the Secretary of State. It would be absurd to suppose that they recommended but one scheme or one proposal, either as to the strength of the forces, or the plan necessary for the defence of the Empire. We have had, Sir, the assistance of experts and officers who have investigated particular questions, and I am sorry to say that, from the intricacies of those questions, they have frequently been years before they have arrived at a conclusion. Take, for example, the case of the new rifle, which has lately been the subject of investigation. I believe that rifle has been in the hands of a Committee of officers for four or five years, and now the decision arrived at is only a tentative one. The Government must under the present constitution—and it is for the House to say whether that constitution requires to be changed or not, but of course we must as Ministers of the Crown retain to ourselves responsibility for the proposals to be made to Parliament. We are willing to take Parliament into our confidence; we are willing that Parliament should examine into any point, any item, or existing institution as an institution. Parliament should find out, if it pleases,

    319
    defects in those institutions, and may recommend changes; but so long as the Government remain in our present positions, we must, I regret to say, oppose the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend, to whom we wish to give the fullest possible credit. We desire, however, to obtain absolute security for the Empire in a different manner and by different methods to those by which he seeks to do so.
    Motion, made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)—put, and agreed to.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it will be understood that the Vote will be secured on Thursday, as that is absolutely necessary in the public interests.
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday.

  EAST INDIA (PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS) BILL.
  (Sir John Gorst, Mr. Jackson.)
  EAST INDIA (PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS) BILL.

    [BILL 143.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill was not a Bill to allow the Secretary of State for India to enter into any new obligations; it was for the purpose of enabling him to raise money in a manner that would be economical to the Government of India. The Bill consisted of two parts—one enabling the Secretary of State to raise a sum of money for the purchase of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway, and the other enabling him to borrow a sum of money in the English market in connection with the guarantee of lines in India by the State. The Oude and Rohilkund Railway was made under contract in 1867, and the capital of that Railway was guaranteed by the State for 999 years, at the rate of 5 per cent on a capital amounting to £4,000,000. But there was a clause in the original agreement giving the Secretary of State power at the expiration of 20 years to exercise the option of purchase, and, as at the present time the Indian Government could borrow money at less than 3½ percent, it would be obviously for the interest of the Revenue of India that this option should now be exercised—
    320
    because it must be exercised now or not for another ten years—and, accordingly, notice had been given to the Railway Company that the line would be purchased. The terms of the contract were that it should be purchased at a sum equal to the average market value of the capital stock during the three years immediately preceding the 2nd day of August, 1887. That had been calculated and found to amount to £125 18 s.0¼d. per cent. The effect of this purchase would be that the Revenues of India would be relieved to the extent of R.x. 33,295 a-year. That being the simple purpose of the first part of the Bill, there would be no opposition on the part of any Member of the House to allowing the Revenues of India to be benefited to that extent. The other portion of the Bill was not to enable the Secretary of State to make further guarantees, but to enable him to fulfil the guarantees already given to Railway Companies in a manner less onerous to the Indian Revenues. There were many Companies now in existence in India who were constructing new railways, and whose capital was guaranteed at from 3½ to 4 per cent by the Secretary of State for India. It had been suggested that, inasmuch as these Companies, even with the Secretary of State's guarantee, could frequently not borrow much under 4 percent, and, whereas the Secretary of State could borrow money in the open market at 3¼ per cent, it would be better, instead of guaranteeing the interest, for the Secretary of State to borrow money and then lend it to the Companies. That had been the view which the late Mr. Lionel Cohen had pressed on the Government in the House, and it was the principle of two previous Bills, which, unfortunately, owing to the pressure of Public Business, did not become law; and now, under the more auspicious circumstances of the present Session, an attempt was being repeated to pass this measure, which would have the effect of saving the Revenues of India. There was no intention of using the powers of the Bill for the purpose of guaranteeing any fresh Company. The House would observe also that the Secretary of State was to lay before Parliament an account of the monies raised, and there would therefore be a check as to their application. He trusted, under the circumstances, the House would agree to the

    321
    Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Gorst.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had no opposition to offer to the first part of the Bill, at any rate at this stage, for the purchase of the Oude and Rohilkund Railway. It would be for the Committee to consider whether the terms were satisfactory to the taxpayers of India. He avowed that it was desirable to obtain control over the railways of India, and although this was an instance in which we were paying the large premium of 26 per cent on the capital expended, he had no intention, as he had stated, of opposing the proposal then. The Notice of opposition he had placed on the Paper referred to the second part of the measure—namely, that which gave the Secretary of State power to raise any sum not exceeding £10,000,000 for constructing, extending, and equipping railways in India, and with regard to this he confessed that, after the declaration of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) that no fresh Companies would be guaranteed, his objections were to a great degree removed. His feeling was very strong against the system of guaranteeing, and it seemed to him very strange that we should constantly be buying these railways at enormous premiums, and at the same time guaranteeing others. We had bought the East India, Eastern Bengal, and Scinde and Delhi Railways, and now we were buying the Oude and Rohilkund Railway at a heavy premium, which would have to fall upon the revenues of India. With regard to the argument that they were likely to save by the system now proposed of lending money to the Railway Companies, it certainly seemed to him somewhat extraordinary. He believed the hon. Gentleman had stated that the guaranteed Companies were able to borrow money at 3½ per cent, whereas the Government could borrow at 3¼ per cent—the difference being about ¼per cent. Yet to those who made the railways we guaranteed 4 per cent plus a share of the profits. It seemed to him that if 3½ per cent was an extravagant rate, it must have been more
    322
    extravagant to give the Companies a guarantee of something more than 4 per cent. The recently guaranteed railways were now at a high premium, the Nagpore line being at 10, and the Indian Peninsula line at 13 premium. The consequence of the present system was that constant pressure was put upon the Government for the guaranteeing of the Railway Companies, into the pockets of the promoters of which the State put 10 or 13 per cent. He was bound to express his belief that these guarantees had been given simply under pressure of the syndicates in the London market. That pressure the Government had for years resisted, but they were attacked in every way by the newspapers which charged them with obstructing the development of the resources of India. Those articles were promoted by syndicates, and when the matter came to be analyzed it was found that they were written because the Government had refused to give guarantees which would enable them to go into the market to make the premiums at which the stock stood. He was glad the Secretary of State was now very much opposed to these guarantees being given. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India told the House that there would be a saving of the difference between 3½ and 3¼ per cent by lending to the Companies; but he very much doubted whether there would be such a saving. The Government ought to beware lest the result of their arrangements should be to make the railways dearer to purchase hereafter. He thought it necessary, therefore, under the circumstances, to make his protest against the idea that this money might be used at all for the purpose of guaranteeing fresh railways. With regard to the old railways, he admitted that it was desirable to raise money in the cheapest way; but it seemed to him most impolitic and unwise, situated as the Government were in India, with a great Public Works Department, to allow the railways to pass out of their hands into the hands of syndicates, in cases where those people were not willing to make them at their own risk and with their own money.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India a question of some importance.

    323
    During the Session of 1874 a most important Committee, presided over at one time by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and at another Ly the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), sat on the subject of Indian Railways, and the result of their inquiries was that they strongly deprecated any further guarantees of Indian Railways. He would like to know if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State could assure the House that the policy then recommended would be strictly observed?
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, the policy recommended by the Select Committees of 1879 and 1884 had been observed as far as possible; and he was authorized to state that there was no present intention of guaranteeing any more railways in India.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India would have allowed the House to suppose that the full effect of the Bill was to relieve the revenues of India of a charge which was at present onerous. That might or might not prove to be the case. But the Bill, after all, meant the addition of over £20,000,000 sterling to the fixed debt of India. Considering that India was now suffering from depreciation of the rupee, and had liabilities in respect of it, he thought there was a strong reason against this proposal. But, in addition, it was proposed to buy up the railways, because the Indian Government was liable to pay 5 per cent. That liability might or might not be very heavy at present; it depended entirely on the earnings of the railways and the proportion between gross and net revenue. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had not given the House any information as to the gross expenses or the gross or not income. If the railway paid nothing at all, the 5 per cent would be paid by the Government in its entirety. There was great danger with regard to the Oude and Rohilkund Railway that there would be the same experience with regard to it as in the case of every other railway in India—namely, that it will be found that the working expenses would bear a higher proportion to the revenue than would be at all healthy. Now, if the Government
    324
    bought the line, and found that they had to pay not only 5 per cent, but the amount of the guarantee for which they were liable; if they had to pay the whole of the working expenses, and had in return but a small revenue, then the loss would be not only the present £10,000,000, but an annual deficit of 5 per cent guaranteed. These points were so important that he thought the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India ought to have laid upon the Table of the House such information in connection with them as he possessed.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he was very sorry that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) did not move that the Bill be read that day six months. He was strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill, because at a time when the railway was beginning to pay and become a source of revenue to the Indian Government they were going to pay £125 for every £100 worth of stock. The drain for Home charges in India was at the present time so great that the country was being practically ruined, and the result was that the Government were compelled to raise the Salt Tax, which would be disastrous in its effects not only on the people of India, who could not buy enough salt for their own consumption, but upon the cattle, which would become diseased. With regard to the £10,000,000 asked for, he did not think that this sum ought to be added to the debt of India, because its effect would be to increase the Indian charges. For these reasons he should move that the Bill be read that day six months.
    It being Twelve of the clock the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Addison, Bill to amend the Law relating to the recovery of penalties for the unauthorized performance of Copyright Musical Compositions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Addison, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Dillwyn, and Mr. Lawson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 150.]

  RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Coleridge, Bill to abolish Prosecutions against Laymen for the expression of opinion on matters of Religion, ordered to be

  325
  brought in by Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Illingworth, and Mr. Courtney Kenny.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 157.]

  TIMBER ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill to amend the Acts relating to the planting of Timber Trees in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Colonel King-Harman, and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 158.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (1).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 1.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 1.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read, a second time, said, that if he could have had an assurance from the Government that they would be willing to take this matter in hand he would not have troubled their Lordships on the present occasion. He desired their Lordships to regard this question, from the point of view of health, of science, of more light, of safety, and of the preservation of property. The object of the Bill was to remove what had proved to be prohibitive restrictions upon an industry which was deserving of every support. The restrictions imposed by the Act of 1882 were certainly most unusual, if not altogether unprecedented, and they had acted very harshly. The President of the Board of Trade, replying last week to a Question in the House of Commons, said that since the passing of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, 59 provisional orders and five licences had been granted to Companies, and 15 provisional orders and two licences to Local Authorities. The President of the Board of Trade was not aware that in any single case where these powers had been obtained they had been exercised. Such was the crushing effect of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882. Still he wished to say a few words in praise of that measure, which it was the object of this Bill to amend in only one or two small but important particulars. The Act of 1882 was a most elaborate measure for dealing with a then almost unknown science. It successfully prescribed safeguards against dangers which had only since become manifiest, and its object was to impose checks on rash and ill-considered schemes. It now only required trifling
  140
  amendment to allow the industry to proceed, and he claimed that the time had arrived for action in that direction. In the United States there were 120 electric Light Companies, paying dividends from 6 to 14 per cent. In the German and Austrian Empires there were over 600 local Companies, and in almost every large town in Italy electric lighting was making great progress. It was only in England that the science was comparatively at a standstill, and he hoped that state of things would not be allowed to last much longer. The present time was propitious for several reasons. There never was a time when a larger amount of capital was lying idle, or when there was a larger army of unemployed seeking work and finding none, and by passing this Bill lucrative work might immediately be provided for thousands of men, women, and children. He thought it would not be too much to call upon the Board of Trade to make incandescent electric lighting compulsory in all mines, factories, schools, churches, theatres, hospitals, and other places where human beings congregated together, and where, under existing conditions, gas-jets consumed the lion's share of the oxygen. He ventured to say that when such a demand was made the Government of the day would be neither willing nor able to resist it. Many of their Lordships had no doubt visited factories lighted by gas full of toiling men, women, and children from 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., and had noticed the vitiated state of the atmosphere. The difference between that and a factory lighted by electricity was manifest in a moment. It was like being transported suddenly to another planet. Workmen who had been employed in factories lighted by electricity had told him that nothing short of starvation would induce them to work again in factories lighted by gas. It was the same in the case of mines. Electric lighting would minimize the dangers which now occurred through naked lights or faulty lamps. Then, as to fires in the Metropolis, Captain Shaw's Report showed that the total number of fires in 1887 was 2,363, and no less than 671, or 30 percent, were directly attributable to causes connected with existing systems of lighting. These figures did not include 691 fires, the origin of which was uncertain, and of these a

  141
  least 30 per cent might fairly be said to be due to the same cause. Then as to destruction and damage to property. Some of the first tradesmen in London had told him that they had effected great saving since they had substituted the electric light for gas in their showrooms and shops. It was also well-known that the use of gas was very prejudicial to pictures and books, and the employment of electric light in libraries would be a great advantage. The Bill was precisely similar to the Bill which was passed by this House last Session, and it proposed to extend the licence granted by provisional order to any Company from 21 years to 42 years. The period of 21 years fixed by the present Act was found to be too short and to be insufficient to allow electric lighting companies to recoup themselves. The Board of Trade acceded to this view, and this extension of the life of the provisional order would render the clauses with regard to the terms of purchase of loss importance. He would therefore be willing to strike out of the Bill all reference to the purchase of "the goodwill" which, he understood, had hitherto been a stumbling block and a cause of opposition to the Bill. In bringing forward this measure he was solely actuated by a desire for the public interest. There existed at present a great want of employment, and yet, as was well-known, there was a vast amount of capital waiting for investment. His connection with banks enabled him to say that, if the present Act was amended as this Bill proposed, he believed that of the £100,000,000 of capital now lying idle many millions would thereby find useful employment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the Bill did not appear to contain any regulations as to the laying down of the electric cables. At present these lines were growing in number and were being run over everybody's house without the assent or consent of householders, and he thought that it should be defined in any Bill dealing with this subject what the rights of Electric Companies exactly were. There had, so far as he knew, been no decision in the Law Courts upon the point. At present a quantity of telephone wires were to be
  142
  seen running in every direction in the Metropolis. The cables for electric lighting would be still more dangerous. They would in time become a great nuisance, and if the Acts dealing with electric lighting were silent on the point it would hereafter be said that Parliament had unreservedly conferred on these Companies the right of running these cables over houses as at present. In New York, where electric lighting was more developed than here, the Electric Companies were bound to place their cables underground. If it were found impossible to make a similar provision in this country, still some regulations ought to be made as to the course they should follow so as to prevent them crossing and recrossing public streets as at present.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he agreed that the Electric Lighting Act required Amendment, but he thought it was desirable, if they were to legislate in the direction of Amending an Act, that they should do so thoroughly, and not simply amend a single clause, which, in his opinion, would effect no good change. Besides, the Act of 1882 was really obsolete so far as the present position of electric lighting was concerned. Where an electrician six years ago would hesitate to supply a place a mile away with light, he would now undertake to supply houses 30 miles off. In 1882, when the first Act was passed, a determination was formed that the promoters of electric lighting schemes should not enjoy a monopoly, and was accordingly resolved that when cables were laid in the streets of any town by an electric company, its work should be purchase-able by the Local Authority. Another provision of the Act laid down that no work should be undertaken by a Company without licence from the Board of Trade, or a special Act, or a provisional order. These two provisions had been fatal to the measure. Licences and provisional orders had been applied for, but no work had been done. He suggested that the promoters of a scheme ought to be allowed to make their own arrangements with the Local Authority. Let the Company pay rent for the use of the streets in which they placed their mains, and let them be absolved from the obligation of supplying light to every corner of a given district when there might be no chance of a reasonable

  143
  return for their outlay. He looked forward to the day when Companies would be able to lay their cables underground with a good prospect of success; but he asserted that the risks attending exposed electric mains were fewer than the risks which attended either telephone or telegraph wires. When snow fell upon an electric light main it inevitably melted, but it accumulated on other wires with the result that serious accidents were not uncommon. He hoped that the Bill before their Lordships would be read a second time. Hereafter he intended to place before them a Bill of his own, and he hoped that his proposal would have the effect of removing a great many of the disabilities and disadvantages under which the Electric Lighting Companies at present laboured.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that the Government were not disposed to introduce a Bill upon this matter, because they had already announced a number of measures upon which it was desirable to legislate. They would consider themselves exceedingly fortunate if they were able to carry all those Bills, and they did not consider it wise now to add to the number. The Bill, as explained by the noble Lord opposite, was much less important than it was as printed. There was a long clause in the Bill which repealed some of the provisions of the existing Act; but he understood that when the Bill was considered in Committee the whole of that clause would be withdrawn in order that to the term of 21 years during which Provisional Orders must now run, a further term of 21 years might be added. The Bill, as it was amended, did not appear likely to be productive of great harm, and he was prepared to assent to the second reading on the conditions the noble Lord had suggested. He did not know whether the reason given was the only reason why electric lighting had not been more extensively adopted; but there could be no doubt that public expectation had been greatly disappointed in the matter. We had all hoped that electric lighting would have been much more largely used. Whether it was on account of the limitation in the number of years allowed to Companies and not to the fact that promoters found themselves unable to supply the electric light at prices that
  144
  would compete with gas, or whether it was on account of difficulties in carrying out the supply of electricity, he did not know; but of this he was certain, that if a small alteration in the law was likely to facilitate the adoption of the electric light in London and other large towns the Government would have no objection to it. He understood the noble Earl behind to intimate that he would introduce another Bill, and if that was the noble Earl's intention it would be well that they should be in possession of both Bills before this one was considered in Committee, and that both should be considered with reference to the provisions of the Bill of the Government dealing with Local Authorities, which would soon be produced in the other House, and which must naturally affect the powers of Local Authorities in this as in other matters.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid he was not quite sure he understood what it was the Government was prepared to assent to. As far as he could gather, it was that the Act of 1882 was to be amended by substituting 42 years for 21 years. If no other alteration was to be made, he much doubted whether the Bill would have the effect desired. It was very much to be regretted that in this country we had not made the advance in electric lighting which had been made in other parts of the world. He had long desired to avail himself of this important improvement; but he had found it to be utterly impossible, for the reason that the Legislature had put impediments in the way of the spread of this invention which was not put in its way in any other country. He believed that in the South Sea Islands the electric light was more used than it was in London. This was not altogether to our credit. Nobody could suppose that there was not plenty of capital in this country to be invested in this new enterprize, and that there were not plenty of people who would be desirous of availing themselves of it. Why, then, had they not electric lighting in this country to the same extent as on the other side of the Atlantic? There could be only one answer. The terms which had hitherto been imposed on those prepared to undertake the enterprize had been such as to render it impossible for them to obtain the necessary capital. The terms had been made too onerous. He quite

  145
  sympathized with the desire to prevent undue interference with the control of Local Authorities, and it might be expedient to provide that Local Authorities should ultimately, if they wished, be allowed to become purchasers of electric lighting apparatus, and to supply the electric light as they now supplied gas. He did not personally feel very strongly on that point; but he was not at all sure whether the balance of advantage was not against allowing Municipal Corporations to become trading bodies. With regard to the electric light, there was danger in doing this, because in some cases their conduct might be affected by the fact that they were owners of a gas business, and the electric light would be a serious rival to gas. At all events, the power to acquire apparatus ought to be conferred in such a way as not to cripple the progress of invention and improvement. It was too much to ask the present generation to forego the advantages of electric lighting because their doing so might render it cheaper 30 or 40 years hence. There was no difficulty, he thought, in arriving at a basis of purchase. They had gained experience in India with relation to railway matters. There the Government had been empowered to purchase railways on paying the value as indicated by the average price of shares during the preceding seven years. It had been found that capitalists were prepared to risk capital on these terms, and possibly a similar arrangement might be found satisfactory to the promoters of electric lighting. He would urge the Government to consider whether on some such terms the adoption of electric lighting might be facilitated.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I sympathize entirely with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord; but I cannot help remembering that he was a Member of the Government which passed the Act that he has denounced with so much vigour. When I sat exactly where he is sitting now I pleaded in vain for a greater extension of the number of years, and I prophesied the results which have actually occurred. I rather think the noble and learned Lord opposite is imitating those sectaries of the Middle Ages, who went about laying stripes on their own shoulders for the
  146
  sins they had committed. The noble and learned Lord has held up to our admiration the example of the South Sea Islands in this matter; however, I am too delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord recognizes the difficulty in which we find ourselves to be critical as to the precise means by which his conversion was brought about. It is matter of regret that we have not been able to make a greater use of this invention, considering the vast amount of capital we have at our disposal, and the great need in our smoky towns of diminishing the unconsumed carbon in our atmosphere. Although the Board of Trade has, acting under the guidance of the distinguished statesman who presided over it during the term of Office of the noble and learned Lord, to some extent, lam afraid, since that time, exaggerated the danger of liberty in this matter, it is fair we should remember that we have had very severe lessons in respect of leaving uncontrolled powers to municipalities and public authorities to make binding bargains with trading companies. On the subjects of water and gas we have had very severe lessons, and we are now struggling under the difficulties that have arisen. The noble Viscount near me (Viscount Cross) was said some years ago to have wrecked the Government by the proposals he made for the purchase of the undertakings of the London Water Companies. We now only wish that the proposals which were then denounced could be revived with success and carried into effect. We have bound ourselves by promises to the Water Companies which give them a hold upon us that I do not know we shall ever shake off. Undoubtedly, the price at which this essential article may be furnished must have very considerably affected the progress of sanitary measures so much required in many parts of the Metropolis. We have contrived to make some agreement with the Gas Companies. Twenty years ago we woke up to the fact that we had allowed most improvident agreements to be made with them, that we had allowed them, on the faith of competition which did not exist, to charge enormous prices. At the present moment, in regard to Gas Companies, we are under difficulties which could not have been foreseen by our forefathers when these terms were made, or I am convinced that the mea-

  147
  sures which they allowed to pass would have been seriously modified. The truth is that in both these cases we have made exceedingly bad bargains, and we are bound by them; and, therefore, it is not wholly unreasonable that in dealing with this new element we should approach it with some amount of caution. I quite believe we may have been too cautious, and may have run into an opposite extreme, and, by hindering the production of the electric light at the cheapest prices, may have prevented the development of this new industry. If the noble and learned Lord can show us that the terms we ask can be reason-ably modified, no feeling of self-love will prevent us from making any alteration which your Lordships may think desirable. I think we ought not to be misled by the desire to give the municipalities control over these matters. We have a sufficient number of examples as to the capacity of the municipalities to carry on the business of traders on a large scale. We know the temptations are enormous, and the danger we have to face is not that the municipalities themselves will administer these trading concerns, but that they will be in the hands of paid officers wielding an enormous and irresistible power, exposed to temptations to which the municipalities themselves will not be liable, and at the same time not having the responsibility which rests upon the municipalities. I feel that the whole question of the expediency of giving this power to the municipalities has of late years been too much assumed without sufficient proof, and we should be cautious about surrendering ourselves wholly to them, and preventing that protective competition of private Companies which has proved of so much benefit, and which is so desirable in the interests of the community at large.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he remembered perfectly well that the noble Marquess objected to the Bill of 1882 as being too stringent; but the latter part of the speech of the noble Marquess answered the preceding part, namely, that the Government and the House in 1882 had before them evidence of the previous mistakes that had been made with regard to gas and water legislation. The Board of Trade, which was then presided over by Mr. Chamberlain, was extremely anxious that in
  148
  the matter of this new invention they should not fall into their former errors. In the discussion on the Bill in 1882 he admitted that it was an experiment, and that they might possibly, by future legislation, be compelled to amend the Bill if they found that they had erred on the side of severity. It was much safer to err on that side than on the side of indulgence. With regard to the municipalities, they undoubtedly ran the risk of having too much officialism; but he would point out that there was likely to be a most severe pressure put upon the ratepayers in the carrying out of improvements, and it was a matter worthy, in his opinion, of very careful consideration whether by giving the municipalities the power to work this large invention, which provided what was, in fact, one of the necessaries of life, they should not be affording them the means of relieving themselves to a considerable extent of the burdens under which they laboured. It was on the whole reasonable, he thought, that the terms in this matter of electric lighting should be made somewhat less stringent.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

BRITISH AND OTHER FOREIGN COLONIES—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO NATIVE RACES—CORRESPONDENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government can lay upon the Table of the House further Papers and Correspondence relative to the sale of intoxicating spirits to the Native population in British and other Colonies, especially in the Islands of the Western Pacific and in the Congo and Niger countries of Western Africa; also Papers and Correspondence relating to the Berlin Conference in 1884–5, with regard to an International agreement on the question; also whether any information can be given as regards the prospect of effecting an International agreement? said, that, in a large number of instances where there were British and other settlements engaged in trade with Native races, there was a vast amount of traffic in intoxicating spirits, which was working ruin and destruction to the Natives both morally and physically. He was aware

  149
  that the subject had been for some time past under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He was also aware that attempts had been made to remedy, or at least to check, the evil. At the same time, he knew the difficulties which existed. Other countries besides England were concerned in the matter; but he could hardly think it possible that the Government of any civilized country could be so forgetful of the responsibility resting upon it as not to endeavour to repress an evil which was converting commerce into a degrading and demoralizing agent. On referring to Correspondence which was laid upon the Table of the House in September last year he found a despatch, dated April, 1884, from Mr. Thurston, now Sir John Thurston, Assistant High Commissioner in the Western Pacific. Mr. Thurston says—
  "The nationality of the persons found in charge of trading stations in the Western Pacific or trading from vessels is, as a rule, British, German, French, or American, and it is men subjects of these nations principally who, by the sale of arms, ammunition, and alcohol in its most ardent and poisonous forms, are demoralizing the Natives of the Pacific and bringing about their rapid destruction."
  He goes on to speak of the Natives of Samoa as being an interesting race of people, appreciating the advantages of civilized life. "But," he adds—
  "Notwithstanding these advantages, the history of Samoa is sad in the extreme. The Native inhabitants are decreasing rapidly, and their lands are passing into the hands of Europeans and other foreigners."
  He further says—" Arms, gunpowder, and alcohol are the solvents under which Native life disappears." In the same year, 1884, when the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) was at the Colonial Office, communications were made to other Powers with a view to effect an International agreement for the purpose of putting an end to this nefarious traffic. This course was strongly urged also by Sir W. Des Vœux, the Governor of the Fiji Islands. Further communications seemed to have been carried on in August last, in consequence of some difficulty raised by the Government of the United States with reference to an International agreement. The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office would, perhaps, be able to say whether this difficulty had been removed, and whether the result of the negotiations
  150
  with the European Powers with reference to the Western Pacific was a favourable one? There were not any recent Papers, so far as he knew, before Parliament on the same subject relating to the Congo and Niger countries; and he wished to remind their Lordships that a similar evil existed in those parts of Western Africa, if possible in a greater degree than in the Western Pacific. It appeared by the evidence of travellers and persons who had visited that country that spirits, especially rum and gin, constituted the principal medium of currency in dealing with the Natives. It was related by Mr. J. Thompson, a well-known traveller up the Niger, that—
  "At each port of call, the eye becomes bewildered in watching the discharge of thousands of cases of gin and hundreds of demijohns of rum."
  Mr. Tisdel, Special Agent of the United States, said, as appeared in the Consular Reports—
  "Of this variegated currency, gin is the most valuable; indeed, it may be said to be worth its weight in gold.… Unfortunately, a few bottles of trade gin will go much further in trade with the Natives than ten times its value in cloth."
  A well-known Lutheran missionary said—
  "The vilest liquors imaginable are being poured into Africa from almost every quarter of the civilized world."
  He might also add the forcible words of the Belgian Plenipotentiary, Count Van der Straten, at the Berlin Conference in 1884. He said—
  "The Native races of the free zone will be sober, or will soon cease to exist.…If the Powers do not save him (the negro) from this vice (drunkenness), they will make of him a monster which will swallow up the work of the Conference.… He would wish the Powers to take the moral engagement to continue their work as they took it formerly in the Treaty of Vienna in regard to the suppression of slavery."
  Statements to the same effect could be given almost without number. He wished now to refer for one moment to the Berlin Conference of 1884. That Conference of all the principal Powers of Europe, including also a Representative of the United States, was assembled with the view of settling trading and commercial questions relative to the Niger and Congo Free State, and at the same time as to furthering the moral and material well-being of the Native

  151
  populations. Among other matters, the liquor question was introduced; and although opinions were strongly ex-pressed in favour of restrictions upon that traffic, no satisfactory results were arrived at. The evils which were going on were admitted, and the wish was expressed by some members of the Conference that an International agreement should be arrived at in "such manner as to conciliate the rights of humanity with the interests of commerce." He did not think, however, that he was wrong in saying that the deliberations of the Conference, so far as that question was concerned, resulted in little more than a recognition of the evil and the expression of a wish. He might draw their Lordships' attention to the words of Prince Bismarck, who presided over the Conference. Prince Bismarck said, in his concluding address—
  "In another series of regulations you have shown much careful solicitude for the moral and physical welfare of the Native races, and we may cherish the hope that the principle adopted in a spirit of wise moderation will bear fruit, and will help to introduce these populations to the advantages of civilization."
  He was sorry to say that he could not see that any course had yet been adopted which was likely to produce those happy results; and if no change was made it was certainly a somewhat novel mode of introducing populations to the advantages of civilization, and it was to be feared that hopes and wishes would avail but little unless something further was done. How, it might well be asked, could civilization or moral progress be promoted while unrestricted traffic in liquor was carried on and gin and rum were the chief medium of currency with the Natives? He believed he was supported in what he had said by the most rev. Prelate in a letter dated August, 1887, addressed to the Bishops of the British Colonies and Dependencies, from which he would ask permission to read a few words—
  "The attention of the Church has been recently drawn to the widespread and still growing evils caused by the introduction of intoxicating liquors among the Native races in the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire and in other countries to which British trade has access.… Uncivilized people are weaker to resist, and are utterly unable to control temptations of this kind. The accounts given of the numbers that perish from this cause and of the misery and degradation of those who survive are painful in the extreme,
  152
  and besides the grievous wrong thus inflicted on the Native races, reproach has been brought on the name of Christ. … It is asserted by travellers of repute that in many parts of the world the moral character of the Native gains more by the preaching of Mahomedanism than by the preaching of the Gospel, for the former tends to make them sober."
  He would say no more. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government in the hope that they would be able to give such further information as might show how that question stood at the present moment and what progress had been made in the direction of an International agreement. There would doubtless be an increase of commerce, especially in the Niger and Congo countries; but whether that commerce was to be civilizing or debasing would greatly depend upon the future course that might be adopted by the Governments of Europe and of the United States with regard to the traffic in intoxicating spirits; and he did not hesitate to say that unless some restrictions, and those very stringent ones, were put upon the liquor traffic, there might be commerce—there might be an increase of commerce—but that commerce, instead of promoting, would be crushing to civilization, and would make Christianity a byword among the nations of the earth.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had nothing to add to the statement which had just been made to their Lordships on that subject; but as the traffic which had been described was demoralizing in the extreme, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not wait for an opportunity, but would renew the attempt to obtain the assent of the United States Government to the International Agreement already assented to by the European Powers. It would seem that the present was a favourite moment for approaching the Government of the United States on the subject. When, two years ago, that Government declined to assent, no reasons were given for that course; but the United States Secretary of State said that "he was not entirely prepared to join in the International Agreement," but at the same time he offered to take measures in the sense of the International Agreement. Now, a man who was not entirely prepared to join in an agreement was more likely to join in one than a person who was asked to do so for the first time, and he hoped Her

  153
  Majesty's Government would not, by delay, run the risk of having to treat with a successor of Mr. Bayard. Her Majesty's Government must be in possession of new facts since two years ago to place before the United States Government; and he gathered from the Blue Book that the assent of the German Government had been given since that date. There was a subsidiary reason for renewing these negotiations—namely, the maintenance of continuity of action of the Foreign Office, which had been so beneficial, and that the time and trouble taken by the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should not be lost. Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's subjects were not alone, nor entirely responsible for what took place in the Pacific Islands; but they were responsible for India, and from the papers circulated by the Committee for the Prevention of the Drink Traffic it appeared that the Excise Duties on spirits had trebled in Assam in the last 10 years, and that they had more than doubled in Bengal since 1868. Her Majesty's Government were probably aware of the correspondence in the papers at the beginning of this year on the failure of Christian missionaries. Various causes might be given for that, but it was certain that the missionaries complained of being handicapped by the Government encouragement of the sale of drink.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)said, that he had received a visit lately from a leading member of the Representative Council of one of the Crown Colonies of Africa, who informed him that some of the oldest Christian families in Sierra Leone had subscribed recently to the building of a mosque. The reason they gave for doing so was that they knew no better means of putting a stop to the spread of intoxication, which was destroying their own race, while their own Government gave them no aid or support, and Mahomedanism forbade the use of intoxicating drink by positive precept. Wrong inferences had hence been drawn, as if Christianity were less able to grapple with the vices of Native races than Mahomedanism; and Mr. Bosworth Smith, the very authority relied on for proofs of this, had himself come forward and very fully exposed the misconstructions and misrepresentations on that
  154
  head. Christianity was the better able to deal with the temptations of those races, because it taught the principle of temperance and self-control, which did far more than positive precept to elevate mankind. But these Christians felt that Christianity had not fair play while it was not backed by the Christian Government which represented it and rested on it. The facts had been placed before us by our own agents, and appeared in our own Blue Books. Such a pamphlet as that of Mr. Weller, and the facts observed by Mr. Thomson, placed all in possession of the true state of the case. Mr. Weller had seen hundreds of Native girls lying in a state of deathly intoxication round the waggons of spirit sellers. There were districts in which payment of wages was made only in rum, until at length such a state of degradation was reached that many refused to receive payment in any other form. Ships put into harbour freighted with the goods of civilization, but were obliged to sail away undischarged because the people were so drunken, or so anxious to be drunken, that they had no taste or care for articles of commerce. We knew the agonizing efforts which had been made by the Queen of Amatongaland and by many Chiefs to save their people. By the course we were now pursuing we were not only injuring our commerce, to take a material view, but we were ruining the very tribes and nations who in that climate were absolutely essential to that commerce. Their Lordships must not suppose that the kind of liquor sold in London was sold to those people. There was a "trade rum" and a "trade gin," which were neither more nor less than liquid fire, mere poison, which absolutely destroyed in a very short time the men and women who consumed it. They consumed it and were consumed without stint. This liquor went among the people themselves by the ordinary name of "Death Itself." For his own part, he declined to believe a sentence which had fallen from one of the noble Lords who had spoken on the subject that evening; he declined to believe in the correctness of the information, which, however, was spread very widely, that our Government would in the slightest degree, for the sake of increased revenue, promote or encourage a practice so destructive to humanity. But he must say that we had been waiting for a long time for our

  155
  Government to take firm steps in the right direction. We were proud to hear of the action of our Representatives at the Berlin Conference, and of what the Congo Company itself desired. This nation had been celebrated in past times for the self-sacrifice of its great efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade, efforts which had raised the tone of all nations. But at no time was the Slave Trade so destructive in its effects as this vice, fatal alike to the prospects of Christianity and to the future prosperity of the commerce of England. He would ask why, if nothing could be done elsewhere without the co-operation of other Governments, should not a beginning be made at least in our own Crown Colonies on the West African Coast? We had these entirely in our own hands. If it were not possible at present to effect an International arrangement, we would wait patiently, believing that our Government, with that continuity of action abroad which was so beneficial, would do what could be done in time. But why wait for ourselves? We could prevent the sale of this fire poison. We could put upon wholesome liquor such duties as would make it undesirable to pay or to receive wages in that shape, and check many other evils. He joined the noble Lord, therefore, in asking what progress had been made, and in pressing for Papers which might throw some light upon the subject. The Bishop of London who, as their Lordships knew, had done so much for the cause of temperance in this country, had asked him to explain how deeply he was interested in the question, and to state that nothing but an official engagement would have caused him to leave the House that evening.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said, that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the terrible mischiefs created by the importation and sale to the Natives of spirituous liquors, and he must state that it was only within the last few weeks that he had addressed a Circular to all the Crown Colonies, asking for full information as to any laws or ordinances existing on the subject and for any reports on this important question. He had also sent a Circular to all the responsible-government Colonies, asking them for any information to supplement that which bad already been presented to Parlia-
  156
  ment in 1872, 1882 and 1883. When the answers to those Circulars had been sent in they would be laid upon the Table, and then there would be a full opportunity for discussing the action of the Government in the Crown Colonies and elsewhere. He would, before he sat down, point out very briefly what restrictions had been placed in Crown Colonies upon the sale of spirituous liquors to the Natives, but he must remind their Lordships that though Her Majesty's Government could, as a general rule, secure the passing of the laws or regulations required to prohibit such sale, they were not and could not be held directly responsible for any failure to give effect to those laws and regulations. In the meantime he could assure the House that Her Majesty's Government were bestowing their best attention on the subject. As regards the Western Pacific, there were no Papers at present to be presented other than those presented in September, 1887. Her Majesty's late Government invited the nations interested in the Western Pacific to arrive, if possible, at some International arrangement for prohibiting the liquor traffic in the Islands. That proposition was received favourably by all but one country—namely, the United States. It had been urged that the United States Government had given no reasons for their refusal to join in the arrangement, and had probably formed no decided opinion; but on that point he would read an extract from a letter from Mr. Bayard to Sir L. Sackville West, dated the 11th of April, 1885. Mr. Bayard said—
  "While recognizing and highly approving the moral force and general propriety of the proposed regulations, and the responsibility of conducting such traffic under proper and careful restrictions, the Government of the United States does not feel entirely prepared to join in the International understanding proposed, and will, therefore, for the present restrain its action to the employment in the direction outlined by the suggested arrangement of a sound discretion in permitting traffic between its own citizens in the articles referred to and the Natives of the Western Pacific Islands."
  It was perfectly clear, therefore, that the United States Government were not inclined to modify their decision. He was, however, authorized to state that Her Majesty's Government, being fully alive to the importance of the question, would not allow any favourable opportunity to pass of bringing this matter

  157
  again under the consideration of foreign nations, including the United States. Beyond that it was impossible for him to give any undertaking. As regards South Africa, there were strong restrictions in force in the Cape against the supply of liquor to the Natives. He was quite aware that there was a large importation of a very harmful liquor called "Cape smoke" into the parts of the country beyond the English Protectorate, but Her Majesty's Government could in no way check that, though they had pointed out to the Native Chiefs the necessity of exercising all the power they had to prevent that importation; and they hoped that their advice might effect some good. There was no question that there was legislation in Natal by which very stringent restrictions against the supply of spirituous liquors to the Natives could be enforced, especially in the case of repeated offences. In 1886 some correspondence, originating in suggestions by the London Chamber of Commerce, took place as to the desirability of regulating the importation of alcohol into South Africa by means of a uniform and high duty, but on consideration the late Government thought it better to wait until the result of the Western Pacific negotiations was known. In April, 1887, the attention of Her Majesty's present Government was again directed to this question, and Circulars were sent to all the Colonies in South and West Africa. Unfortunately, the replies received from the Cape and Natal were not very favourable; and it should be remembered that the Imperial Government had no power to interfere with the acts of the Cape Legislature. The Cape Ministers pointed out that an Excise duty being placed on corn-made brandy, and not on spirits produced from grapes, a higher import duty would only increase local manufacture. They were of opinion "that the traffic should be regulated rather by internal regulations than by import duties," and they finally "declined to take part in the proposed International agreement." As regards the words "local manufacture," it was only fair to state that we were not responsible for all the drinking that went on among the Natives, for they had extraordinary and carefully composed drinks of their own, which were very intoxicating. The Natal Government stated that if the
  158
  Cape and Portuguese Governments discontinued the facilities they now gave for passing spirits beyond their frontiers, they would impose higher transit duties and raise the import duties to the rate agreed upon by the others. But they pointed to the stringency of the law in Natal for preventing the sale of liquor to the Natives, and they considered that the question would best be solved by adopting similar arrangements elsewhere. So much for the Cape and Natal. He would now turn to those territories immediately under British rule—namely, Zululand, Bechuanaland, and Basutoland. In all these territories there were very stringent regulations against supplying any kind of spirituous liquors to the Natives; and, as far as he knew, those regulations were bonâ fide observed. As far as the Imperial officers in those territories could do so, they had enforced those regulations, and in the case of Basutoland he was gratified to note that in the report ending the 30th of June, 1887, there was the following statement—"Drink traffic has ceased to exist." He thought, therefore, that it might fairly be pointed out that in those territories great efforts had certainly been made to restrict this traffic. Turning then to West Africa; in 1887 the Royal Niger Company pressed on the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government the importance of checking the supply in West and Central Africa, and suggested an arrangement with France and Germany to levy a uniform rate of duty from Senegal to Cameroons. The noble Marquess at once expressed his willingness to negotiate, but suggested, he thought with good reason, that the views of the Colonies interested should first be ascertained. A circular was accordingly sent round, but only one Colony, Lagos, had replied, and the Government would press for answers from the other Colonies. The proposal was thought impracticable by the Governor of Lagos, as the coast line was not at present completely under the control of civilized Governments, especially at the mouths of rivers. And both with reference to this case of West Africa, and the case of the West Pacific, he must point out that very partial, if any, good could be expected by the agreement of two or even three countries to prohibit the importation and sale of spirituous liqueurs to Natives, so long as

  159
  other countries could supply them, and he was afraid that as long as there was a demand the supply would come from those countries which declined or did not care to be parties to such agreement. He regretted that he was unable to give more information to their Lordships on this subject, but he would conclude by assuring noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the importance of the subject, and were most anxious to deal with it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to move the following further Standing Order, namely—
  "That in the event of two or more Peers rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees may call on one of them to speak, and the Peer called upon shall then proceed to do so,"
  said: My Lords, these Standing Orders are a part of Resolutions which were submitted to the House in 1884, and of which one was disposed of in that year, on the 4th of December. The urgent reason for going back at least to some of them at present is to be found in the two Notices of two noble Earls, for a Committee, to aim, as I understand them—as indeed they have avowed—at fundamental changes in the Upper Chamber. One of their Notices, having been fixed for to-morrow, bound, me to this day as the only day on which such Standing Orders could be properly considered. It is true that Notice has been since withdrawn, and I am not under the same necessity of going on this evening. But as the hour, although advanced, is not yet very late, your Lordships may, perhaps, approve debate upon the first with the adjournment of the others. Let me assure the two noble Earls that I have no wish to anticipate in another shape the general discussion they have meditated. Such a course would be unjust to them; it would be repugnant to myself, and I entirely repudiate it. I stand on the position which I did in 1884, and which your Lordships will admit to be a strong one. It is that, when organic change is likely to be mooted, it is desirable to rectify anomalies which depend upon the House itself and not upon the Legis-
  160
  lature, which require a Standing Order but not an Act of Parliament to alter them. If that position was correct in 1884, after the agitation in that year as to the House of Lords, which quickly passed away, it is more correct just now, when two distinguished Members of our Body are prepared, in some degree, to reconstruct it. Now, as to the point itself I need not long detain your Lordships. It was explained in 1884, and previously in 1870. It is familiar to all who have attended our proceedings. In 1870 it was insisted on by the noble Marquess, now Prime Minister, in a speech I shall not try to emulate. To sum it briefly, the practice which exists is calculated to prevent many in the House—above all the right rev. Bench—from rising to address us; it places men who rise in an undignified position; but, what is graver—since it affects not only individuals—it exposes the House itself at any moment to the chance of a Division in the midst of a remarkable and critical debate for which the time already is inadequate. It is, besides, a practice which exists in no political Assembly you can mention. The only question is as to the remedy. In 1884 it was proposed to attach the duty of calling on noble Lords when two or more rose together to the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever was presiding. On much consideration and conference with other men, I am inclined to something rather different. Some of the objections to increasing the power of the Lord Chancellor for this end are thoroughly untenable. It could not be abused in any Party sense, as no one could be excluded by its action, and there would only be a question of priority. But it is true that, as one Session—in the vicissitudes of history—may give us many Governments and so many Lord Chancellors, the Lord Chancellor might not have the personal and local knowledge necessary for the function. I venture to suggest, therefore, that either the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees should close the difficulty when it happens. If the Lord Chancellor was conscious of being equal to the task, he would perform it. If not, he would devolve it on the Chairman of Committees, who is appointed by the House, who represents the House, and knows it well from daily intercourse with many in it. No conflict would

  161
  arise between them. On any given night it would be previously arranged which had to exercise the function. To devolve it wholly on the Lord Chancellor was the course in 1884 rejected by your Lordships. To devolve it wholly on the Chairman of Committees might be thought to give too much a secondary aspect to the Lord Chancellor, who is the Speaker of the House, although debarred from nearly all the power of that Office. As we have been frequently reminded by the illustrious Duke who often sits on the Cross Benches, everything is tentative. We should soon see how the Standing Order worked, whether it was wise to keep or proper to amend it. But nearly all depends on Her Majesty's Government. If they wish to bring in the words "whichever presiding," and thus leave the power to the Lord Chancellor in the House, the Chairman in Committees, I willingly accept them. If they would restrict the power to the Chairman in both cases, I see no practical objection to it. If they desire the House to have a final veto, as the noble Marquess did in 1870, they may recall his own expression—" unless the House do order otherwise." The only thing essential is that a remedy should be adopted before the merit and demerit of the Upper Chamber is examined. One point ought to be mentioned. In 1881 it was remarked as an objection that the Woolsack is sometimes occupied by the noble Lords who manage the Divisions, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees. By this Standing Order no new power is bestowed upon them, and no new power is wanted. It is only when the House is nearly empty and there is little competition for its ear or chance of two Peers rising that such a circumstance can happen. Moreover, if that recent system leads to inconvenience, there is no occasion to preserve it. Once more I ask the House to guard itself upon a vulnerable point against the hour of arraignment.
  Moved, as a new Standing Order,
  "That in the event of two or more Peers rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees may call on one of them to speak, and the Peer called upon shall then proceed to do so."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said,
  162
  he rose to speak on this subject with some diffidence in the presence of much older Members of the House than himself. From his experience, however, there did not seem to him to be so great a rush of Members to speak in this House as to require any stringent legislation on the subject. The Standing Order suggested by the noble Lord would in its working prove very inconvenient. For instance, it was customary for the Lord Chancellor in that House, unlike the Speaker in the other Assembly, to take part in the debates; but it would put him in a very difficult position, for he would not like to call on himself when other noble Lords rose. The Lord Chancellor was imposed on the House, and was not elected by their Lordships. It ought also to be borne in mind that the Lord Chancellor was not necessarily a Peer, and it would be a strange anomaly if the Order of the House was entrusted to one who might not be even a Member of the House. If the grievance sought to be remedied were a great one, or part of a scheme of reform which was to render the House of Lords better adapted to the exigencies of the present time and its debates of greater weight and influence in the country, the case would be very different. Under the circumstances he thought the House would hesitate somewhat before they surrendered the power of keeping order in their own Assembly; and, in his opinion, it would be far better to adhere to the present Rule without introducing the complications that would flow from the noble Lord's suggestion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the observations of the noble Viscount. His objection to placing this power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor was that, although the Lord Chancellor from his high Office was entitled to the greatest respect, yet he was a Member of the Cabinet and a politician, and was not in a position of impartiality. No doubt any Lord Chancellor would, as an English gentleman, act as he conceived impartially; but he would not, as he ought to, be free from the suspicion of acting partially. The question was not one of much importances; it was comparatively seldom that there was any difficulty about the matter, and no reform on this point would do anything to increase the weight of public interest in the debates of that House.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he would point out that the noble Viscount who had just spoken wholly misapprehended the nature of the Standing Order he objected to. It was not to give the Lord Chancellor a general authority on Order, like the Speaker in the House of Commons, but simply the power to name the Peer who would continue the debate. The two functions had no species of identity. The noble Viscount who represented Her Majesty's Government had also quite forgotten the proposal now before them. It did not give the House a final voice, but left the whole decision to the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees. However, it was useless to divide the House if the Government determined—as he thought most unfortunately—to oppose all alteration. According to his previous statement, he would not go on that evening with the further Standing Orders.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.