Sitting of 19 February 1891

QUESTIONS.

  EX-SULTAN ABDULLAH OF PERAK.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that the ex-Sultan Abdullah, of Perak, has now been exiled for more than 14 years in the Seychelles Islands, and bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances connected with his trial, the Government are prepared to re-consider the answers given on the 5th of May and 1st of August, 1890, and to consent to re-open the case; whether, if they decline to adopt that course, they are prepared to allow him
  1058
  either to be set at liberty, or to visit England; and whether they are aware that Sir Benson Maxwell, formerly Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements, is of opinion that the ex-Sultan is innocent of the charge which resulted in his sentence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,):Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to re-consider the decision formerly conveyed to the hon. Member against re-opening the case of Abdullah, or allowing him to visit England; but the Secretary of State is again in communication with the Governor of the Straits Settlements as to whether any steps can be taken to ameliorate the ex-Sultan's present position. It is known that Sir Benson Maxwell held the opinion attributed to him in the hon. Member's question.

  DISTURBANCE AT CAMBAY.
  MR. BURT:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table of this House all Papers connected with a disturbance which occurred in Cambay, in Bombay, in September last, in the suppression of which British troops were employed and 15 cultivators were killed, 150 wounded, besides hurt occasioned to numerous women and children, and houses and a temple looted and plundered of cash and ornaments; whether the Bombay Government have recently sanctioned the remission of increased land taxation imposed by the ex-Dewan, Mr. Shamrao Narayan Land, the imposition of which was said to be the cause of the disturbances; and whether he will grant a public inquiry into the origin of the disturbances which are alleged to have arisen through misgovernment?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,:Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table all the Papers relating to the disturbance which occurred in Cambay in September last. The hon. Member will find from those Papers that the description of the occurrence which has been given to him, and on which he has founded the question, is inaccurate. In answer to the second paragraph of the question, I have to say that the

  1059
  Bombay Government has given instructions that will have the effect of reducing the land taxation. In reply to the third paragraph of the question, I have to say that a very full public inquiry into the origin of the disturbances has already taken place, and the result will be found in the Papers presented.

  THE FACTORY COMMISSION IN INDIA.
  MR. KING:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the recent Factory Commission in India was composed chiefly of natives, and confined itself almost entirely to examination of native operatives, and did not give the millowners or managers any adequate opportunity of stating their side of the case, the Government proposes to legislate on the basis of this investigation; whether, before interfering seriously with the existing conditions of Indian factory labour, the Government will consent to have a fuller inquiry; whether, on the whole, the Commission reported against any extensive interference with the existing regulations; and whether, before any legislation is undertaken, the Report of the Commission will be issued to Parliament, and an opportunity will be given for a discussion of such proposals in this House?
  SIR J. GORST:The inquiry and Report of the recent Commission were intended to supplement the information already before the Government and Legislature in India; and it is proposed to legislate on the basis of the whole of the information available. It is not proposed to have a further Commission of Inquiry at present. The recent Report of the Factory Commission was presented on the 6th of February, and is now being printed.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH:Can my right hon. Friend say when the Report containing this information is likely to be in the hands of Members?
  SIR J. GORST:I can only inform my hon. Friend that the Papers are in the hands of the printers, and that I am doing everything in my power to push them on.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN INDIA.
  MR. KING:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he
  1060
  is correctly reported in the Times to have said at Chatham on. Thursday, February 12th—
  "He contended that the State might very well limit the hours of labour of their own employés, of railway servants, those engaged in unhealthy occupations, and also of the natives employed in the mills in India;"
  and whether the Government contemplates any further interference with the conditions of labour in Indian mills than is necessary for the protection of women and children, or intends, as appears to be suggested by his remarks, that all labour in Indian mills shall be placed within the category of exceptional legislation?
  SIR J. GORST:The report quoted is an epitome of what I said. It is not intended to legislate for the protection of adult male labourers in India beyond providing for the fencing of machinery in factories and for the general stoppage of all work for half an hour in the middle of the day.

  THE INDIAN FACTORIES ACT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL:I had intended to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Authorities in this country and the Government of India on the subject of the Indian Factories Act? As the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, perhaps the Under Secretary of State for India is in a position to answer the question.
  SIR J. GORST:Yes, Sir. The Correspondence has not yet been laid upon the Table, because it is not yet completed; but there has already been laid upon the Table the Report of the Factory Commission, and if the hon. Member will move for the Correspondence which took place last year that also shall be laid on the Table.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:I think the House ought to be in possession of the documents by which certain views of Her Majesty's Government were pressed upon the Government of India.
  SIR J. GORST:Those are exactly the Papers which I ask the hon. Member to move for. I have said that the hon. Member can have the Papers in which the views of Her Majesty's Government were pressed upon the Government of India.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:Will they be laid upon the Table in the ordinary course?
  SIR J. GORST:Yes, Sir, if moved for.

  THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is in a position to state the number of officers wanting to complete the establishment in the Volunteer Force; and bearing in mind the increased duties and expenses falling upon those serving by a reduced number, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:The vacancies for officers of Volunteers are at present for 46 field officers, 161 captains, and 1,194 subalterns. This deficiency of officers is engaging my serious consideration; but it is very difficult to devise a remedy, and I shall be extremely glad to consider any suggestion my hon. Friend may have to offer.

  THE MILITIA.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what alterations in the scale of Militia camp equipment have been made to provide greater comfort for Militiamen under canvas?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:By recent regulations' tents are issued to Militia when training at the rate of one for every 10 men, instead of, as formerly, one for every 12 men; and a wooden tent-bottom, or waterproof sheeting is issued for every tent, instead of the issue being limited to cases of very inclement weather.

  THE SCOTCH-AMERICAN MAILS.
  SIR T. SUTHERLAND:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in the event of the Scotch-American mails of Wednesday missing connection at Warrington (as they have recently done on more than one occasion), he would think fit to give orders to send these mails to London and despatch them by the German steamer leaving Southampton on Thursday?
  MR. SINCLAIR:May I ask whether the Postmaster General has
  1062
  considered the feasibility of sending the Scotch-American mails to Queenstown by the Stranraer and Larne route, rather than by the Holyhead route as at present; and whether he will take into consideration the not infrequent missing of connection at Warring ton as an additional reason for re-arranging postal facilities between Great Britain and Ireland by improving and further utilising that, the shortest route, between the two Islands?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,:In reply to the last question, I can only say that I will look into the matter and see whether any advantage can be gained by sending the mails from Stranraer. In regard to the question on the Paper, I have to say the course proposed by my hon. Friend for meeting the accidental delays to which he refers had already suggested itself to my Department, and is now under consideration. I will communicate further with him when I have made some necessary inquiries on this subject.
  MR. FLYNN:Has not the service from Queenstown to America given the greatest satisfaction?
  MR. RAIKES:I believe that is so Sir.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has appointed a Committee to inquire into the condition of the Royal Naval Reserve; and whether the scope of the inquiry includes the Coastguard, so that the Committee can consider and report upon the whole question of Naval Reserves of all sorts; and, if not, whether he will enlarge its scope to that extent?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,:In the Memorandum attached to the Naval Estimates of 1891–92 I fully explained the object and scope of the inquiries of the Committee I propose to appoint. Their work must necessarily be confined to questions relating to the Royal Naval Reserve—that is, to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine who compose this force. It would not be advisable to mix up with this inquiry any questions affecting the

  1063
  officers and men who are part of the effective permanent force of the Royal Navy.

  CEMETERY AT HYDE.
  MR. SUMMERS:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Town Council of Hyde, acting under "The Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879," has applied for the sanction of the Local Government Board for a loan to provide a cemetery in the borough, and that such sanction has been refused on the ground that the Town Council has not agreed to the consecration of part of the cemetery; and whether, inasmuch as the Public Health (Interments) Act leaves the question of the provision of consecrated ground to the discretion of the Sanitary Authority, he can state on what legal authority the requirement of the Local Government Board is based?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,:The Town Council of Hyde have applied to the Local Government Board for sanction to a loan in respect of the provision of a cemetery for the borough. A local inquiry was held by an Inspector of the Board, and it was represented that a large proportion of the ratepayers were members of the Church of England, and that it would be an injustice to them to require them to pay for a cemetery which would not be used for burials according to the rites of the Established Church unless a part of the land was consecrated. The Board were desirous that some arrangement should be adopted by which the reasonable objections of those who protested against sanction to the loan might be met, and the Inspector of the Board again visited the district with the view of conferring with representatives of the Town Council and the clergy. After this conference the Bishop and the clergy of the borough, as I am informed, distinctly pledged themselves that, if a portion of the cemetery were consecrated, the control of that portion should remain with the Town Council, and that any expense arising from the consecration should be borne by the Church people of the borough. I regret to say that this arrangement has not yet been accepted by the Town Council. I
  1064
  feel strongly that in the face of such protests as I have received it would be inequitable that the ratepayers who are members of the Church of England should be required to defray the expense of providing a cemetery which, on the ground of conscientious objections, will not be used for burials according to the rites of the Established Church, and the Board have not been prepared to make themselves a party to such an arrangement as would have been the case if they had sanctioned the loan. I cannot but hope that on further consideration the Town Council will come to the conclusion that the compromise which has been proposed is a reasonable one, and that the objection which has been urged on behalf of a large proportion of the ratepayers may thus be removed.
  MR. SUMMERS:Am I to understand, then, that the Local Government Board insist on a condition which is not in the Act of Parliament?
  MR. RITCHIE:No money can be borrowed for these purposes by a Town Council without the sanction of the Local Government Board, who, in considering an application for a loan, have to consider all the circumstances of the case. I do not feel justified in assenting to a course which, in my opinion, is manifestly unjust to a large portion of the population.
  MR. SUMMERS:Do I understand that the Local Government Board insist on foisting into an Act of Parliament a section which is not contained in it?
  MR. RITCHIE:The hon. Member is not to infer anything of the kind.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS READING ROOM.
  MR. HOWORTH:I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the extremely crowded and inconvenient character of the Reading Room, where it is often impossible to secure a seat or even standing room; and whether he can see his way to providing a more suitable apartment where Members can consult the newspapers?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,:I did provide an additional Reading Room on the Terrace a short

  1065
  time ago; I am sorry to say that I have not any space at my disposal for another.

  THE NEW MILITARY PROMOTION BOARD.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as the system of selection for the rank of Colonel and Major General is now gradually coming into operation, he is able to give the House any details as to the constitution of the new promotion Board which is to be established?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I am not surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend has called my attention to this matter, which is of great importance. I am afraid it would not be possible to explain the constitution of the proposed Board within the limits of an answer; but I will deal fully with the subject in the statement I am about to make to the House.

  CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. LEAKE:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the undertaking of the Government, made through the Leader of the House on the 22nd of August, 1889, on the withdrawal of the Superannuation Bill, that it was "their deliberate intention to legislate upon the whole question at the earliest possible moment next Session," was disregarded, and legislation superseded by an Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, dealing with the Upper Division of the Civil Service; why Civil servants who were appointed before the date of the Order in Council, who have been justly exempted from the operation of Section 4, and whose rights have been reserved in Section 7 of the Order, have not also been exempted from the operation of Section 10, which provides for the compulsory retirement of officers at the age of 60; and whether, seeing that the Order in Council practically violates the undertaking of the Government to promote Civil Service reform by legislation, and has prevented the case of the Civil servants being discussed in the House, he will remove the widespread dissatisfaction of the Service by amending Section 10, so as to maintain the rights of all officers
  1066
  engaged before the date of the Order in Council?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,:Some portion of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service could be carried out by Order in Council, and others could only be dealt with by a Bill. The only reason for not proceeding by Bill in 1890 was that there had been insufficient time at our disposal, as every hon. Member will acknowledge; but we were not prepared to let the whole question drag on, and we therefore proceeded to deal, as we were entitled to do, by Order in Council with so many of the recommendations as would not require fresh Parliamentary powers. Civil servants appointed before the date of the Order in Council were exempted from so much of the operation of the Order in Council as would have clashed with the previous practice or their previous claims, but they were not exempted from the possible retirement at the age of 60 (a recommendation of the Royal Commission), because it was, only a formal statement of existing practice. It is now competent for the head of a Department to call upon any officer in the Department to retire at the age of 60. Heads of Departments have for years exercised their power, and in some Departments it is a formally promulgated rule of service. It is, therefore, impossible to amend Section 10 in the sense desired by the hon. Member.

  LICENCES UNDER THE INTOXICATING LIQUORS ACTS.
  MR. ROWNTREE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to a statement made by George Thorp, one of the clerks to the Manchester Justices, in the case of "M'Ewan v. Justices of Manchester," reported in the Manchester Guardian, 11th November, 1890, as follows:—
  "I may say that I see scores of these little bogus documents produced at each Court."
  The documents referred to being those which the police obtain from each person who applies for a licence under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, and which are duly sworn to; and also to a letter from the Chief Constable of Manchester, dated

  1067
  the 11th February, 1891, and published in the local Press, in which he states—
  "These documents contain information regarding the ownership, and various interests which the applicant may have in the premises for which he applies for a licence or transfer, and such information is only contained in the agreements between the applicant and the brewer or owner of the premises. … I have little doubt that in many cases the answers are untrue, but it would be quite impossible for the police to prove them to be so;"
  and if he will inquire into the state of affairs so described, in order, if the statements are true, to provide means to check such abuses?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,:I have had my attention drawn to the statements referred to. It appears that the Manchester Justices are accustomed to require from applicants for licences answers upon oath to a variety of questions which they consider material for their judgment. The clerk to the Justices and the Chief Constable are both of opinion that in many cases untrue answers are given, but that it would be quite impossible to prove them to be so, as no evidence whatever is forthcoming. It is not possible for me, or for the Director of Public Prosecutions, to procure evidence in such cases; and it is for the Justices to insist on the production of further witnesses or to make further inquiries, or to refuse the application in any case in which they think they are being misled.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any protest has been received from the Colonial Government of Newfoundland against the modus vivendi agreed to by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the fishery rights claimed by France on the coast of Newfoundland; whether Her Majesty's Government will seek to enforce that modus vivendi; and if they will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence and other Papers on this subject?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:Papers which are about to be presented will show what has occurred, and the steps which are
  1068
  being taken by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has refused to ratify a Convention entered into between the Colonial Government of Newfoundland and the United States; whether the Colonial Government has protested strongly against this refusal; and if Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers in this matter?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:A colony cannot enter into a Convention with a Foreign State. Her Majesty's Government assented to Mr. Bond, a member of the Colonial Government, visiting Washington for the purpose of communicating the views of his Government and seeing what terms of arrangement could be made. A Convention acceptable to the colony and to the United States was drafted, but Her Majesty's Government have delayed (not definitively refused) to authorise Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to sign it, because it is necessary to consider further the wishes of Canada and the effect on Canadian interests of the provisions of the draft Convention if now concluded independently of Canada. The Government and Legislature of Newfoundland have strongly protested; and the Papers, now in preparation, which will shortly be presented, will show the reasons for which Her Majesty's Government do not think that protest justifiable.
  MR. S. HILL:When may we expect the Papers?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:As soon as possible.
  MR. S. HILL:Within a few days?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:I cannot pledge myself to the exact date.
  MR. BRYCE:Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Colonial Vote will not be taken until hon. Members have had an opportunity of seeing the Papers?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:I think the Papers are sure to be printed before the Vote comes on.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when the sanction of the

  1069
  Imperial Government was given to the mission of the Hon. R. Bond to Washington on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland, it was clearly understood that no arrangement could be come to with the United States on the part of one portion of the Empire which should be directly prejudicial to other portions; whether Papers can be presented to Parliament explaining Mr. Bond's mission; whether he can also present further Papers on the general question of Newfoundland, in continuation of those presented last June; and whether such Papers would give any further information as to the progress of negotiations for the friendly settlement of the French Shore controversy?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:This question does not state correctly the conditions under which the negotiations referred to were conducted. A full explanation of the position of Her Majesty's Government in respect of these matters was given by the Secretary of State on the 17th in another place, and will be found in the Papers about to be given.

  DISCHARGED AND RESERVE SOLDIERS.
  MAJOR RASCH:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider an increase in the grant to the National Association for the Employment of Discharged and Reserve Soldiers, taking into consideration the fact that the Inspector General of Recruiting attributes the falling off in recruits to the want of employment for old soldiers, and that this is the only institution in the country which provides employment for reserve and discharged men?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I should be very glad to help this deserving institution, but, after full consideration, the Government find this difficulty in the way. The total expenditure of the Association of late years has not been much over £500 a year. To increase the Government grant from £200 to £500 a year would practically amount to a transfer of the whole of the current expenditure of the institution to Votes of Parliament. We have also found that, concurrently with the receipt of a Government grant of £200, the outside subscriptions have steadily dwindled from £633 in 1886–7 to £314
  1070
  in 1889–90. The principle we desire to lay down is that the institution must be supported by outside subscriptions supplemented by a Government grant bearing some proportion to the subscriptions. Personally, I shall be glad to co-operate with my hon. and gallant Friend and others interested in gaining increased public support to the institution; and I hope that the prospect of success will be all the greater if it is understood that the Government will be inclined to meet it by an increased contribution.

  PETROLEUM.
  MR. PINKERTON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is prepared to submit to the House a tabular statement of the number of fires which have occurred during the last year traceable to the storage of petroleum lamp oil; also the number of fires which have been traced to petroleum spirit, already safeguarded by stringent legislative control; and fires arising through defective lamps, or through accidents to lamps; and if he is in a position to state how much additional cost per gallon this proposed enactment will entail upon the poorer classes, who are the principal consumers of petroleum lamp oil?
  MR. MATTHEWS:I have not the materials to supply a full and complete tabular statement of the number of fires due to petroleum spirit and defective lamps. None of the classes of fires referred to are required to be reported to the Home Office. I am not prepared to admit that the use of petroleum spirit is already sufficiently safeguarded. I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Explosives that there seems no reason to anticipate that the cost of petroleum lamp oil will be sensibly, if at all, increased by the proposed legislation.

  NATAL
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, inasmuch as the Australian Colonies passed Acts establishing Responsible Government, in pursuance of Acts of the British Parliament enabling them to do so, there has been, or will be, any such enabling Act for Natal; whether Her Majesty's Government are advised that the Colonial Legislature can estab-

  1071
  lish Responsible Government, and Her Majesty's assent can be given without reference to Parliament; whether Her Majesty's Government have led the Colonial Legislature to believe that they are willing to advise assent to Responsible Government, practically confined to a white population of about 37,000, out of a total of upwards of 500,000; what would in that case become of Zululand, and who would pay for it; and whether, looking to the civil and military questions involved, Her Majesty's Government will give Parliament an opportunity of discussing the matter before anything final is done?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:No legislation by this Parliaments necessary for the purpose of conferring Responsible Government upon a colony, unless there has been Imperial legislation with regard to such colony requiring modification in order to enable the political change to be made. The Colonial Legislature has been informed that, subject to the enactment of special provisions for the protection of inhabitants not of European birth or descent, Her Majesty's Government are willing to grant Responsible Government to Natal. Zululand will remain under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government. No military or civil questions present themselves in this case which would afford ground for the unusual course of inviting Parliament to discuss this subject. When Responsible Government was granted to the Cape Colony in 1872 the procedure was the same as is now being followed in Natal, and the Imperial Parliament did not intervene. Papers will be presented, which may satisfy the hon. Member that the points to which he has called attention have not been overlooked.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:In consequence of the statement that the Government intend to deal with this important subject without inviting Parliament to consider it, I shall, on the Estimates, move the reduction of the Under Secretary's salary.

  SWINE FEVER—COMPENSATION FOR SLAUGHTERED CATTLE.
  MR. FELLOWES:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, taking into consideration the great loss which
  1072
  is entailed on farmers, small holders, artizans, and others, through swine fever, he can see his way to advise the payment of increased compensation for animals which have been slaughtered, and especially when the animals slaughtered are free from disease themselves?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,:I think there is much to be said for the view which the hon. Member has embodied in his question, but until I can obtain fuller information on the subject than I have at present I cannot express a definite opinion. It must be borne in mind that the value of the animals varies greatly in different districts. The subject is being inquired into.
  MR. H. GARDNER:Is it the fact that the compensation for the slaughter of swine is not uniform all over the country?
  MR. CHAPLIN:That is a matter which rests entirely with the Local Authorities. The maximum of compensation is uniform all over the country.

  BETHNAL GREEN BANK.
  MR. HOWELL:I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the failure in February, 1889, of the "Bethnal Green Bank," in which the deposits amounted to a total of or about £10,000; whether he has been informed that the effects of the bankrupt, Mr. T. F. Braybrook, and the estate of the "Bank" realised the sum of £4,000; whether any portion of these assets have been distributed to the depositors; if so, how much; and, if not, will he explain for what reason; and whether he can inform the House what the total costs of the bankruptcy proceedings have been, and what amount is left for the depositors? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question until Monday.

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  MR. STOREY:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the appeal "The Surveyor of Taxes, v. Amelia Hobkirk," which is a case of appeal against the decision of the local Income Tax Commissioners to relieve

  1073
  the said Amelia Hobkirk, who is the owner of a tenemented house, from payment of Inhabited House Duty, under the Act of 1890; whether he is aware that the said house was originally built for two tenants, having a common door in the street, but separate tenants upstairs and down; that the house is now, and has always been, inhabited by two tenants, each paying less than 7s. 6d. per week; whether this is a case expressly provided for by Sub-section (2), Section 26, of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890; and whether he will state why the Government have acted thus towards this house owner, the decision of the local Income Tax Commissioners, who know the facts, and the intentions of the above-named Act?
  MR. GOSCHEN:The Board of Inland Revenue consider that the decision of the local Income Tax Commissioners to relieve the owner of the tenemented house mentioned from House Duty is incorrect, as they do not think that the house is one
  "Originally built or adapted by additions or alterations, and used for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings,"
  so as to bring it within the scope of Section 26 (2) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890, there being internal communication throughout. A case has accordingly been demanded, under the statute, for the opinion of the High Court; and the hon. Member will see that it would not be proper for me to answer his inquiry as to whether this is a case expressly provided for by the Act, inasmuch as that is the precise point on which the opinion of the Court is desired.

  WEST HIGHLAND COMMISSION.
  COLONEL MALCOLM:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any indication of the course the Government intend to pursue with regard to the recommendations of the West Highland Commission?
  MR. GOSCHEN:In the absence of my right hon. Friend I will answer the question. I must refer my gallant Friend to the answer given by the First Lord on this subject on the 29th ult., who then stated that until we came to the House for the necessary funds, we were not in a position to furnish any useful information as to the
  1074
  decision of the Government on the West Highland Commission's Report; but, meanwhile, I can assure him that the subject is under our earnest and immediate attention, and, no later than yesterday, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary for Scotland, and myself were engaged in the final consideration of some of the principal recommendations of the Commission.

  THE FACTORY ACTS.
  SIR HENRY JAMES:I beg to postpone my question—(to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to move the Second Reading of the Bill for the Amendment of the Factory Acts before Easter?)—in consequence of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman.
  REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  MR. BRYCEpostponed until to-morrow the following question:—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Ministers propose to bring in in the present Session the Bill for the reform of the House of Lords which they introduced in 1888, or in any other manner to give effect to the Resolution, to which they then declared that they attached much importance, to introduce some change in the composition of that House?

  DETECTIVE OFFICER FRENCH.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any truth in the statement that Detective Officer James E. French received money to the extent of several thousand pounds from the Constabulary Force Fund; and, if so, how much, and for what reason; whether Mr. J. E. French's costs in the action brought against him by William O'Brien, Esq., M.P., were defrayed from this fund, either wholly or in part; and, if so, what the expenditure under this head was; and what sum was paid Mr. J. E. French for his public services, and whether any of this money came from the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund?
  MR. JOHNSTON:May I ask the Chief Secretary to state at the same time whether the costs in the action brought by Mr. William O'Brien against

  1075
  the Marquess of Salisbury have been defrayed from any fund?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,:The Constabulary authorities report that the statement in the first paragraph of this question is wholly unfounded. The reply to the inquiry in the second paragraph is a negative. Mr. French received only the pay and allowances attached to the positions he held in the Force and voted annually by Parliament. The sole grants received by him from the Constabulary Force Fund were obtained by him when serving in Belfast in 1870 and 1871, being rewards of £20 and £10 respectively given on the recommendation of the Reward Board for good police service.

  GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the slow progress being made with the Greystones Harbour Works; and if he can state how many men, on the average, are employed daily upon them, when may the fishermen expect to see them finished, and what is the cause of the delay in carrying them out?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,:I am informed that there has been no delay in connection with the Greystones Harbour Works, beyond that which is necessarily incurred in carrying out works of this kind. I believe that every progress that can be made with the works will be made. There is no reason or desire for delaying them, and they will be got on with as fast as possible.

  ARRESTS UNDER THE CRIMES ACT.
  MR. O'KELLY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a list of the persons arrested under warrants issued from the Court constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and presided over by Mr. Brady, R.M., at Castlerea, County Roscommon, showing the hours at which the arrests were made, and distinguishing the cases in which summonses were served before the warrants to arrest were issued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I must ask the hon. Member to defer this question until to-morrow

  STREET PREACHING IN ARKLOW.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the continuance of street preaching in Arklow every Sunday, to the serious disturbance of the peace of the town, whether any representations have been made to him with the object of having a stop put to these occurrences; whether he is aware that recently an assistant of the street preachers presented a revolver at a person who objected to the preaching; whether it is true that on Sunday last 130 soldiers and 150 police were drafted into the town to preserve the peace; and whether he will do anything to put a stop to these disgraceful scenes in the otherwise peaceful town of Arklow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Representations have been received in regard to the continuance of street preaching in Arklow. I understand that a man has been returned for trial for presenting a revolver. It is the case that on Sunday last two companies of infantry and 150 police were drafted into the town to preserve the peace. As regards the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that the greatest exertions have been made by the Government to secure the peace of the town. Whether it will be possible to continue indefinitely these extraordinary precautions, and, if not, what steps should be then taken, remains for consideration.

  POLICE BARRACKS AT FORT STEWART
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to make permanent the police barracks at Fort Stewart in Donegal, which was established for a temporary purpose?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The Constabulary report that the barracks have been taken on a yearly agreement, and they see no reason to recommend that they should be discontinued.

  THE 1ST MANCHESTER REGIMENT.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the War Department whether he is aware that the Colonel commanding the 1st Manchester Regiment, stationed in

  1077
  Tipperary, issued orders to the men of the regiment that they were not to partake of any refreshment in the house of John A. Carew, grocer and spirit merchant of that town; that on the 4th instant, two soldiers, having entered the premises of Mr. Carew, they were placed under arrest, stripped of their belts, and put under charge of the picket, but subsequently released because of their ignorance of the Regimental Orders; whether any charge of misconduct has ever been brought against Mr. Carew in the management of his house; and what is the reason for Mr. Carew's house being forbidden by the Military Authorities?
  COLONEL WARING:May I ask whether the Order issued by the Commanding Officer in question is not strictly within his power, and whether it would be conducive to good order and discipline to interfere with his discretion in such matters?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:As I have already stated, the Commanding Officer of the 1st Manchester Regiment did forbid his men to resort to the house of Mr. J. A. Carew in Tipperary; but I am informed that the soldiers were not arrested under the circumstances alleged in the question. In reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Waring), it is within the province of any Commanding Officer to forbid any soldier from visiting any particular house in the locality if their so doing would, in his opinion, be injurious to discipline. The officer in command of the Manchester Regiment has simply exercised this power.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR:Would it not be fair for the right hon. Gentleman to give me and the House some information as to the reason why this house was forbidden to the Manchester Regiment? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it rather a slur upon Mr. Carew as to the management of his house? Mr. Carew desires, through me, to say that he challenges any investigation with regard to his conduct. I want to know also whether the two men in question were not put under arrest by Sergeant O'Brien, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will receive affidavits or statements made by several men who were present, and who witnessed the two men being placed under arrest?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I decline altogether to go beyond the discretion of the commanding officer. That discretion was vested in him. If the hon. Member thinks it worth while to send me affidavits I will look into them. I believe the commanding officer exercised his discretion in the matter.

  ST. MICHAN'S CHURCH, DUBLIN.
  MR. MACNEILL:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a letter of the Rev. Thomas Long, M.A., rector of St. Michan's Church, Dublin, appearing in the Irish Times of 16th January, 1891, stating that the tower of St. Michan's Church is in a dangerous condition and fast going to decay, but that the Ancient Monuments Board will do nothing for its repair unless the Church Body will consent to to give up the use of this tower to them; whether he has seen a letter in the Spectator of the 29th November, from Mr. W. G. S. Bagot, commenting on the defects of the administration of "The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882," and stating that out of a sum of£150 voted by Parliament for the year 1889–90 for the preservation of ancient monuments in Ireland, only £1 7s. 6d. was actually spent on them, the balance going back to the Treasury; and whether he will take some step, either by the amendment of the law or otherwise, so as to prevent the tower of St. Michan's Church, which was built in 1036, and is from its historic associations one of the most interesting structures in Ireland, from falling into ruin from want of funds for its repair, when moneys voted by Parliament for the preservation of ancient buildings are actually paid back to the Treasury?
  MR. JACKSON:The Tower of St. Michan's Church is, I am informed, in a dilapidated condition; but as the church is in the custody of the representative body of the Church of Ireland, and is used as a place of worship, the Commissioners of Public Works have no power to expend Public money on its repair. The works necessary for the preservation of the ancient monuments which have been placed under the guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works, under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, have been

  1079
  carried out under the supervision of Sir Thomas Deane, an architect who has devoted much time and attention to the subject, and to whose professional reputation it is not necessary for me to add my testimony. I am not aware of the qualifications possessed by the correspondent of the Spectator for criticising Sir Thomas Deane. The sum of £150 voted in 1889–90 was not expended, as the owners of the monuments on which it was proposed to expend it declined to permit any work to be carried out in connection with them.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked whether any of the large surplus of the £5,700 placed in the custody of the Board of Works, to be expended by them on ancient monuments in connection with buildings which formerly belonged to the Irish Church, could be devoted to repairing St. Michan's Church?
  MR. JACKSONsaid the difficulty was that this money could only be applied to monuments which were under the care of the Board of Works. The law would have to be amended to enable the money to be applied to a case such as this, but he would be glad to consider the subject.

  THE OLDCASTLE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. MAHONY:I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Old castle Board of Guardians have erected 154 labourers' cottages within the Old castle Union, County Meath, at a cost, including legal expenses, of about £137 10s. per cottage, for which they have to pay to the Treasury an annual sum of £6 2s. 7d., that, in addition, they have to pay various annual charges, including the rent of the land, amounting to£1 10s. 6d. per cottage; and that, although these cottages are let to labourers at a weekly rent of 1s., entailing a loss to the union of £5 1s. 1d. yearly for each cottage, the Income Tax Authorities claim Income Tax on each house; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he will take steps to remit the tax in this and similar cases?
  MR. GOSCHEN:I am informed that the Old castle Board of Guardians have been properly assessed to Income Tax on the Poor Law valuation of the cottages in question. But upon their
  1080
  proving that the cottages had been built with money borrowed from the Board of Works, and that the interest on this money exceeded the net profit on the cottages, instructions were given to charge the tax upon the head rent alone; and the Guardians will, of course, be entitled to deduct the tax in the usual way when paying the head rent to the superior landlord, so that no portion of the tax will really fall on them.
  MR. BARTLEY:Will the same rule be adopted in the case of all labourers' cottages where the taxes and charges are in excess of the rents received?
  MR. GOSCHEN:The hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

  IRISH DAY SCHOOLS.
  MR. CONDON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return relating to Irish Day Schools which stands on the Paper this day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I am afraid that it will not be possible to give the Return asked for, as no record has been kept.

  POSTAL FACILITIES BETWEEN SLIGO AND BALLINA.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a resolution of the Board of Guardians of Dromore West, County Sligo, urging on him to lay a line of wire from Ballina viaâ Enniscrone, Easkey, and Dromore West to Ballysodare, so as to give facilities for telegraphic communication between Sligo and Ballina and the intermediate towns: and whether he has come to a decision thereon?
  MR. RAIKES:In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the Board of Guardians of Dromore West requested that telegraphic communication might be established between that place and Ballina viaâ Easkey and Enniscrone, and that I have had careful inquiry made with a view to ascertain whether it would be possible to meet the wishes of the applicants. I regret to say that, from the Reports I have received, it appears that the revenue likely to be derived from telegraph offices at Dromore West, Easkey, and Enniscrone would fall considerably short of the annual cost

  1081
  of maintaining and working the telegraphs. The applicants may, however, be prepared to furnish a guarantee; and the necessary information shall be furnished to them to enable them to consider the matter.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. MORROGH:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Courcey's district, Kinsale Union, in which, it is stated that—
  "Considerable distress is likely to prevail in this district,"
  and for the purposes of preventing the same, the meeting was of opinion that—
  "No work would be more calculated to meet the requirements than the construction of a pier at the strand near the Old Head of Kin-sale;"
  whether he is aware that this work would be of permanent advantage to the locality; and what attention he is prepared to give the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:A copy of the resolution in question has been received and is engaging attention.
  MR. ROCHE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has instituted any works to relieve the distress in the unions of Loughrea and Portumna; and, if so, will he state the number of persons employed; and whether he has received resolutions, about two months ago, from the people of Woodford, in the Loughrea Union, demanding employment to meet the distress occasioned both by the almost entire failure of the potato crop and the great number of evictions carried out by Lord Clanricarde in the district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No relief works have been opened in the unions mentioned, nor do the Government expect that such will be necessary.
  MR. SEXTON:Will the Government give a table showing the extent and population of the distressed areas and the number of men employed on railways?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:If the Member will put on the Paper the form of the Return he desires, I will consider the matter. I think there will be no difficulty in supplying the particulars asked for, except that the amount of
  1082
  employment varies from week to week, and a Return for one week might be very inaccurate the next.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution recently passed at a meeting held at Cliffony, County Sligo, and presided over by the Very Rev. W. Crofton, P.P., calling attention to the general failure of the potato crop in that district, and to the consequent necessity of providing employment for the people, so as to enable them to purchase other food during the ensuing spring and summer, and further calling for the construction of a light railway from Sligo to Bundoran; and whether he is able to authorise the construction of the proposed railway? I also wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether he has received a Memorial, signed by over 600 ratepayers of the County Sligo, in favour of the construction of a light railway between Arigna and Collooney; and whether he is in a position to authorise the construction of that railway?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:A copy of the resolution referred to has been received, and the district is engaging attention. With regard to the railway suggested in the question, and a railway between Arigna and Collooney mentioned in the second question, I fear I ought not to hold out any hopes that the Government will be able to undertake them.
  MR. MACNEILL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he requested an interview at Letterkenny with the Most Rev. Patrick O'Donnell, Lord Bishop of Raphoe, a favour which was accorded to him by that Prelate; whether his attention has been directed to the Lenten Pastoral of the Bishop of Raphoe, in which his lordship complains that, although an investigation into the wants of the people had been instituted and work and wages promised to them, these promises have not been fulfilled, and asks is employment to come to the people when they have been broken in health and spirits; and whether the Government intend to take any steps in the near future towards developing the resources of Donegal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have not seen the Pastoral referred to. Some 700 or 800 men are given employment on relief works. The Government are engaged on two railways in the county, the length of which will be about 43 miles, the cost of which will be about £220,000 or £230,000. Donegal will also share in the advantages which will, I hope, be conferred on the poorer parts of Ireland by the congested districts portion of the Land Bill. If the hon. Member will point to any Government which has done one-tenth part as much to developing the resources of Donegal I shall be grateful to him.
  MR. MAC NEILL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the severe distress in the parish of Ardara, in the County of Donegal, there being no fuel and no potatoes, and no credit being given to the people to buy meal; whether this parish was one of the districts through which he passed last November, and to whose inhabitants he gave promise of relief works; and when he will fulfil his promise to institute relief works in this district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Relief works are already in progress in the district adjoining the parish of Ardara, and if further works are necessary they will be undertaken.
  MR. MAC NEILL:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his recent visit to the district he gave a distinct promise to the parish priest of Ardara that he would repair the roads?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have already given the hon. Gentleman a clear answer to his question.

  BELFAST GAOL.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Corporation of Belfast have protested against the proposed alterations of Her Majesty's Prison in that city, upon the ground that they
  "Will not only have the effect of injuring the appearance of the prison itself, but affect the uniformity of the frontage line of the buildings in the neighbourhood, deteriorating their value, and causing a public eyesore;"
  whether, nevertheless, the Prisons Board have refused to alter the plans; and whether the Government have made up
  1084
  their minds to use the power of the Crown in this case to override the rule of municipal law and the decision of the Local Authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The Irish Government are in communication with the Prisons Board on the subject.

  THE OLPHERT ESTATE EVICTIONS.
  MR. MAC NEILL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the report of the prosecution at Bunbeg, County Donegal, on 13th January, of District Inspector Hill, and Sergeants Reynolds and Clarke, and other constables and emergency men, on a charge of riot and assault, on the occasion of the evictions on the Olphert Estate on 15th November last, in which the Magistrates, Messrs. Hamilton, R.M., and Beresford, R.M., held that Sergeant Reynolds and Clarke, and three constables, and three bailiffs, had been proved to have thrown stones continuously at the house from which Mr. M'Ginley was being evicted, but that the stone-throwing was, under the circumstances, justifiable: and whether he still adheres to the following statement, made by his authority, in a letter to an anonymous correspondent, directed from 4, Carlton Gardens, dated 25th November, and published in the Morning Post of 4th December, with reference to this occurrence—
  "Mr. Holliday makes certain serious allegations against the police. As reported by you they are somewhat vague, but if he intended to state that the police threw stones at the people, or acted as emergency men, or went beyond their duty in protecting those who were carrying out the evictions, Mr. Balfour desires me to say that Mr. Holliday is stating what is not the fact."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have caused inquiries to be made into the matter, and I find that the letter referred to was written by my authority on the date mentioned. Unfortunately, no researches have enabled me to recover the letter to which it was a reply; but though I am thus prevented from speaking with certainty on the point, I have no ground for supposing that my statement was in any way either inaccurate or calculated to convey a false impression to my correspondent. It appeared, not by my direction and without his letter, in a newspaper some

  1085
  time after it was originally written. In that shape the correspondence is unquestionably ambiguous and possibly misleading, and if it has caused any misunderstanding I regret that misunderstanding.

  MR. PERCY MAGAN, J.P.
  MR. HAYDEN:I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what steps were taken to recover from Mr. Percy Magan, J.P. for the Counties of Roscommon, Westmeath, and Wexford, the amount he was alleged to have obtained under the Arrears Act of 1882 by false representations; what amount, if any, has been recovered, arid in the case of what tenants; what amount of rent was sworn by Mr. Magan to be due by these tenants up to 1st November, 1881; what is the actual amount which has been found to be due; whether any inquiries have been made as to whether money may have been similarly obtained in the case of other tenants on the same estate; has Mr. Magan's conduct in this matter been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; does he still hold the Commission of the Peace and act as a Magistrate; have any steps been taken to prosecute Mr. Magan and recover the penalties provided under the Arrears Act; and in how many cases have prosecutions under the Arrears Act been instituted; what were the charges, and what was the result?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,said an action was brought by his directions against Mr. Magan at the suit of the Crown under the provisions of the 7th section of the Arrears Act of 1882 to recover two sums of £31 and £15 respectively, paid to him by the Land Commission in respect of two tenancies. Mr. Magan did not defend the action, and the amount was paid over to the Land Commission. The application under the Arrears Act was a joint one by the landlord and the two tenants, and the amount sworn by both landlord and tenants to be due up to 1st November, 1881, was given as £62 in the one case and £31 in the other. The result of an investigation showed that in the former case £15 10s., and in the latter one nothing, was legally recoverable by the landlord from the tenants at the date of the claim. The residue was
  1086
  made up of a penal rent which was certainly reserved by lease, and might, as contended by the landlord, have been due, but it was not recoverable as between landlord and tenant at the time of making the claim. It appeared the applications were verified by the tenants as well as the landlord, and the Commission had now no reason to make any further inquiries. The answers to paragraphs six and seven were in the affirmative, and the answer to paragraph eight in the negative. He had come to the conclusion that the case was clearly not one for a criminal prosecution, but for a proceeding, the nature and result of which he had stated. He was informed that there had been three prosecutions for misrepresentations under the Arrears Act. In two of these cases there had been convictions and sentences of one and two months respectively, whilst the third case was dismissed.
  MR. SEXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had found that Mr. Magan had defrauded the State, that he had made no defence to the action brought against him, and he desired to know did, the right hon. Gentleman approve of a person who had so acted continuing in the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. MADDENsaid the hon. Member was not to draw the inference from his statement that there had been any defrauding of the State. There were complicated transactions in regard to a penal rent between Mr. Magan and the tenant, and he (Mr. Madden) came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord was in law unsustainable, and the amounts he claimed were not recoverable. He did not come to the conclusion that Mr. Magan and his tenants had entered into a conspiracy to defraud the State. If he had come to that conclusion he should have directed a criminal prosecution against the landlord and the tenants. He did not, however, come to that conclusion.
  MR. HAYDEN:Is there any foundation for the statement that a penal or any other rent was due?
  MR. MADDENrepeated the terms of his answer. He said the transaction was a complicated one, but it did not follow that there was anything in the nature of a fraud on behalf of the landlord or of the tenants.
  MR. SEXTON:We shall claim on the Vote for the Civil Service the discharge of this gentleman from the Commission of the Pence.
  MR. M. KENNY:Why did the right hon. Gentleman reserve the investigation of a complicated case of this description to himself, and not give Mr. Magan the opportunity of clearing his Character before a Bench of Magistrates?
  MR. MADDENsaid the matter was brought before him, and very properly as the result showed. He came to the conclusion that, under the Act, the amount paid to Mr. Magan was recoverable from him. He accordingly brought an action against him, which Mr. Magan did not defend, but paid the money. He also came to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy to defraud the State, and the matter ended.
  MR. HAYDEN:On my furnishing the right hon. Gentleman with documents showing that no rent was due whatever, will he further inquire into the matter?
  [No answer.]

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
  MR. HOWORTH:I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to certain paragraphs published in the public Press purporting to be a statement from the wife of the man Sadler, now on his trial for murder, and if such statement has not a tendency seriously to prejudice the case; whether, also, it is not contempt of Court, and if the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to interfere to prevent the publication of such statements, which are calculated to bring about a failure in the administration of justice?
  MR. MATTHEWS:I am sorry to say I have not been able to see any papers to-day, and, therefore, have not seen the paragraph in question. I think it is very much to be regretted that the newspapers should seek to gratify public curiosity by publishing any statement not made upon oath with regard to a case pending before a tribunal of the country, especially when those statements are prejudicial to the accused. I will not take upon myself to assert more than this, not having read the paragraph; but I do not hesitate to say such a pub-
  1088
  lication does seriously interfere with the proper administration of justice.

  ELECTORS REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) BILL.
  MR. COBB:May I ask whether it is intended to proceed in Committee to-night with the Electors Registration (Acceleration) Bill, which is the Second Order on the Paper? The Government have undertaken to give ample notice of their Amendments before the Committee stage shall be taken, and I would urge that sufficient notice has not yet been given.
  MR. RITCHIE:There is no intention of proceeding with the Bill to-night. In fact, having regard to some of the Amendments which have been put upon the Paper, it is extremely doubtful whether the Government will be able to proceed with it at any time.

  LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL [LORDS].
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Lichfield Cathedral Bill [Lords] with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Talbot.)

  ARMY GUNS (RIFLED IRON, AND STEEL).
  Address for—
  "Return, showing the number, description, name of designer, place of manufacture, and actual cost of the various Rifled Iron, and Steel Guns supplied by the War Department to the Naval and Land Service during the year 1889–90, showing whether each Gun is Land or Naval (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, of Session 1890)."—(Mr. Duff.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they do communicate Statement of the total fees of the House of Lords on each unopposed Scotch Private Bill since the year 1885, as desired by The Commons.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  ARMY RECRUITING.
  MR. HANBURY:I desire to call attention to the pay and position of the non commissioned officers and privates of the Regular Forces. I have had once or twice, perhaps more than once or twice, placed on the Paper notices hostile to the administration of the War Office, or, at all events, to particular departments of it; but this Motion is not offered with any intention of that kind, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not deal with it in a controversial spirit. The Motion deals with the facts admitted by all who take an interest in the Army—facts which will have to be faced sooner or later, and the sooner the better. We have had, within the last two or three years, serious intimations that the supply of recruits has been falling off. We find that in 1885 we were able to recruit 39,500 men; in 1886, 39,000; in 1887 the number dropped to 30,700; in 1888 it fell still further to 24,700; but in 1889, under the extreme pressure of lowering the standard, it rose to 29,000. Last year it was 31,400, or nearly 8,000 a year less than it was five years ago, and we have 34,000 to be recruited during the present year. I think this decrease in the number of recruits available constitutes a very serious fact, and it becomes the more serious when we take it in connection with the fact that there is an increase in our land frontiers, which therefore require a larger Army to defend, and that our wealth also is enormously increasing, so that what has to be guarded by the troops becomes more valuable as time progresses. We have, too, an increasing population, yet we cannot get a larger number of recruits. It is rather difficult at the present time to ascertain the exact increase in the number of men of military age, because the Census Reports only give the ages in periods of five years. We know that between 1871 and 1881, the population of men between 15 and 25 years of age, grew at the rate of 43,000 a year, and I think it is only a fair and reasonable estimate to state that at the present moment the population of the military age—that is between the ages of 18 and 25—is increasing at the rate of 30,000 a year. With such an increase in the number of men from whom we naturally expect to
  1090
  draw our recruits, the fact remains that, not with standing the inducements of every kind offered by the War Office, we are unable to enlist the number of men we require yearly. Undoubtedly, men now have a fuller knowledge of the conditions of service, and can tell whether a military life is, or is not likely to suit them. During the last year we have had almost despairing appeals sent out from the War Office to the officers at recruiting districts praying them to use every means to attract men into the Army. The Inspector General of Recruiting himself gives a most remarkable instance of it. He tells us that there is immense difficulty in getting 1,000 men a year for so popular a force as the Foot Guards, although 15 noncommissioned officers are stationed on recruiting duty at the most favourable spots throughout the Kingdom, and although special terms are offered to the recruiting officers at regimental districts, seeing that 5s. is given for a recruit for the Guards, while only 2s. 6d. is given for a recruit for the Line. In addition to all this, we have what is a much more serious matter, and that is the almost ridiculously reduced standard both of height and chest measurement. I find that in 1870, the last year of long service, the standard for Infantry stood at 5ft. 8in. What is it now? The Foot Guards themselves last year reduced their standard from 5ft. 8in. to 5ft. 7in., an inch below what was the regular standard of the whole of the Infantry during the last year of long service. But putting the Foot Guards on one side, how about the other branches of the Service? I find that Artillery gunners have reduced their standard from 5ft. 6in. to 5ft. 5½ in.; the standard for Drivers has been reduced from 5ft. 4in. to 5ft. 3in., and the chest measurement of 34in. is put down to 33in. I do not know what sort of a soldier you can get with a chest measurement of that kind. Your present Infantry standard is 5ft. 4in., with a chest measurement of only 33in., and a weight of 1151bs. One would think that that is as far as the authorities would have ventured to go. But will the House believe that this is merely a nominal standard, and by no means the real standard. I was surprised to see in the Report of the Inspector General

  1091
  of Recruiting last year that over 6,000 men—or rather boys—between the ages of 18 and 19, who were below this standard were actually passed into the Army, below a height of 5ft. 4in., and having less than a chest measurement of 33in. I am sorry to see that exactly the same thing has been going on during the last year, although, unfortunately, the Inspector General of Recruiting does not give us the figures. I do not think the War Office Reports should gloss over matters of this kind. We should have the figures put plainly before us, so that we might know the exact number of these utterly worthless recruits. I hope that in the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War will give us this information. It must be recollected, too, that these men whom we do not get in sufficient numbers, do not represent the total number of recruits. They are really the cream of the recruits, for they are those who pass into the Army after two selections have taken place. A certain number are first rejected by the recruiting sergeant, and then we find that no fewer than 47 per cent. Were rejected by the medical officer. Yet I repeat that with all this you do not get a sufficient number of recruits. In 1890 the Establishment was short of a little over 4,000 men, and I am sorry to say that in January, 1891, it was short of 4,692men. That, of course, is the Establishment of the Regular Forces. It is a startling fact that even with this ridiculously low standard we cannot keep up our Establishments. Then what about the other branches of the Service? If the Regular Army is short of men how about the Auxiliary Forces, to which we have to look to support them? I find the Militia are 1,865 less than last year, and 22,559 below the Establishment. My right hon. Friend says the Yeomanry are stationary; but the expression, with regard to that force means a very bad state of affairs, because although the Yeomanry Establishment should only be 14,000 strong yet its present strength is 3,500 below that number. The Volunteers, too, have fallen off in number by 3,000. I believe that, to some extent, is due to the weeding out of inefficient men, possibly a step in the right direction. And with regard to the Militia, it is necessary to bear in mind that even
  1092
  with their reduced numbers no fewer than 28 per cent. of the men were absent from training altogether. Again, I find another source of difficulty in the facts dealing both with men entering the Service and men who are at the end of their service. These facts bear upon recruiting, as it were, at both ends of the scale. I find that 1,313 purchased their discharge within three months, against 1,042 in the same period in the, preceding year, so that it does not look as if the Service is becoming most popular. Again, the number invalided was at the rate of 9·7 against 6·5 per cent. in the previous year, and it does not appear, therefore, as if we were getting stronger men into the Army. I am sorry to say that that is the conclusion at which the Inspector General of Recruiting has himself arrived, for he says that even the reduction of the standard has made no appreciable difference to the number of recruits. Then, again, take the men leaving the Service. Only 20 per cent, of the men leaving the reserve join again for the supplemental reserve, and thus in five years we have lost 38,000 men, a most invaluable body on whom we might have relied for fighting our battles. The Inspector General of Recruiting, while admitting these facts, suggests the possibility that we shall have to pay our soldiers more money in the future. If we are obliged to do so I believe there is nothing within the scope of the Army Estimates upon which the people would most willingly expend money than the pay of the private soldier. Undoubtedly, a great deal of money is spent in our Army Estimates, and a great deal of it is wasted; but I think that an increase of pay is our last resource. Let us see whether there is not some other inducement which can be offered to men of good physique and character to join the Army. The other day I came across an article in a magazine by an officer who knows more about private soldiers and takes more interest in them than any other man living. I refer to General Sir Frederick Roberts. He wrote an article in one of the magazines so long ago as 1884, and I am sorry to say that hardy one of the recommendations therein made has been attended to. He laid great stress upon the uncertainty of a soldier's position, and especially a non-

  1093
  commissioned officer's position. He laid stress, too, upon the fact that a soldier is more or less deceived when he enlists in the Army. That is a very strong statement for a man in his position. He says that under the present system there is no esprit de corps in the Army. If that is true, it is an alarming state of things He says the Army does not offer now, as it used to do, a career to good soldiers. That, too, is a lamentable state of things. Then, again, he says the social status of a soldier is not what it should be. There are a good many bad characters in the Army, and they are not driven out as rapidly as they ought to be. Then he mentions a whole series of petty annoyances, such as an unnecessary amount of "sentry-go," an almost ridiculous amount of drill, and a mania for mere parade movement. If all this be true it appears to me that a good deal might be done before we are reduced to the necessity of raising the soldier's pay. What is it Sir Frederick Roberts has to say upon this question? He lays great stress upon the uncertainty of a soldier's pay. I believe this is a grievance which is felt by officers as well as by men. They say that by the constant issue of royal warrants it is utterly impossible for a man to know what his position is from day to day.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:Will the hon. Member give an instance?
  MR. HANBURY:I believe my hon. Friend the Member for one of the London divisions has a Motion on the Paper with regard to the position of officers, which raises this very question.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:But will the hon. Gentleman give me an instance with regard to private soldiers?
  MR. HANBURY:No, I cannot do that, but I can quote the words of Sir Frederick Roberts. He says that he has time after time wanted men to take stripes, or desired a sergeant who has completed his term to remain in the Army, and the reply has been, "No, Sir, we do not wish to stop in the Army any longer; it is the uncertainty that is driving us out of it." I shall be willing to show that quotation to my right hon. Friend if it will have any effect upon him. But what is far more serious than the uncertainty of pay is the fact that you do not keep good
  1094
  faith with the soldier after you enlist him. The soldier after all is not a keen lawyer. He is not a highly educated man, and as Sir Frederick Roberts says, "he is misled by the pamphlets which invite him to join." He takes the language of the posters, and these posters tell him that on his joining the Army the soldier is supplied with clothes and free kit, and whilst in the performance of his duty he receives a daily free ration, of meat and bread. But although the soldier is led to believe he will get a free kit and free rations, we know very well that that it is not what is meant. We are told that he ought not to be satisfied with reading the posters, but should go to the post office and get a pamphet that describes the advantages of the Army. But if he were to read the pamphlet I do not know that he would be any the wiser. What does the pamphlet say? It says that in addition to money wages, the soldier receives a ration of bread and meat, lodging, fuel, light, medical attendance for himself, and, if married, for his family. That on joining the Army he is supplied with a complete outfit of clothing and a free kit, and afterwards he is supplied periodically with the principal article of clothing without charge, but that he is required to supply his own under-clothing and other necessaries and to pay for repairs as well as for groceries, vegetables and washing, but not for his bedding. Now, let us take the question of food. The ration is valued at sixpence, but I should think it only represents one-half or two-thirds of soldiers' food in the course of the day.
  COLONEL NOLAN:One half.
  MR. HANBURY:My hon. and gallant Friend says it only represents one-half Then I think it ought to be made very distinct in the posters and pamphlets that a free ration only means one-half of the food a man requires. I have no doubt a man gets an adequate supply of bread. It is in the matter of meat that he falls short, for certainly the three-quarters of a pound (including bones) which is provided cannot be considered sufficient for youthful and growing recruits. Then it is questionable whether a soldier gets all he is entitled to. The contracts are not always given to the most respectable or responsible men.

  1095
  They are given to the men who will supply at the cheapest rate; and the year before last I find that the average contracts for the whole Army was only 4d. per pound. That is a very low rate. I believe there are documents in the War Office which would convince my right hon. Friend that before the meat reaches the soldier a good deal of pilfering goes on. Then, again, some of it is spoiled by bad and inefficient cooking. Would it not be possible, in order for the soldier not to be misled in any way, for the Government to supply him with the whole of his rations? That would reduce the uncertainty of his position. Now, I will go a step further, and take the case of his lodgings. The soldier is told by the pamphlet that he is going to have free lodgings, but he would not assume from the words of the pamphlet that he practically takes the barracks upon a repairing lease.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:No, no.
  MR. HANBURY:It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to call "No, no," but in the first place a soldier has to pay a considerable sum for barrack damages, and what galls him more than anything else is the belief that the money he pays does not go to repair the damages. Either the Government is unfairly treating the soldier, or somebody is dealing unfairly with the Government. Again, take the case of fuel. Has not a soldier to buy it in the winter?
  MR. STANHOPE:No.
  MR. HANBURY:My right hon. Friend says he does not, but the evidence is that a soldier has to buy a considerable amount of fuel in the winter time. Then, again, take the question of medical attendance. He is told he is to have medical attendance free. I am not quite sure, but that if he had his full pay and free medical attendance it might not lead to a great deal of shamming and malignering, but that might be carefully guarded against, and I do say that the deductions from a soldier's pay ought not to take place when he is in hospital from no fault of his own. The regulations already provide that if he is in hospital suffering from wounds or from illness contracted during service in the field, he is not to be subjected to these stoppages; and I say that that provision should be extended to
  1096
  every soldier who goes into hospital through no fault of his own—suffering, perhaps, from inflammation of the lungs caught while on sentry-go. Again, the man is promised a complete outfit of clothing. together with periodical renewals of the principal articles of clothing. But what interpretation do the War Office put upon that regulation? They say that a shirt is not a principal article of clothing. Will my right hon. Friend deny, therefore, that a soldier's shirt has to last for seven years? Then my right hon. Friend will not deny that a soldier has to pay for his sea-kit when he embarks on board a vessel, and also for a great part of his Indian uniform when he goes to India. Is that in accordance with the promise of the War Office? I was present at a lecture at the United Service Institution a little while since, when an officer from Woolwich gave some very interesting statistics on this point. He took the case of a driver in the Horse Artillery who was sent to India. By the time the voyage was completed and he had been in India two months, his pay would have amounted to £5 7s. 6d., but out of that he would have been called upon to pay £3 8s. 10d. for clothing. Surely that is distinctly contrary to the promise made to the soldier that he shall have a free kit. Again, the soldier is promised the use of the library free. But he does not get it free; he has to pay so much a month. I know the War Office contribute a certain amount—I think it is £2 10s. 0d. per Company per year—towards the support of the library. But why is it not stated to the recruit that he will have to pay for the use of it? Then, again, he is told that he will have an opportunity of learning a trade. But we know that, with the exception of mounted branches, in which trades are taught useful to the War Office itself, and with the exception of some few regiments, there are no workshops for the men, and no inducements are held out to them to learn a trade. The teaching of a trade to a soldier is, perhaps, the most important thing in connection with his recruiting, and one of the things that is more likely to act as an inducement to him to enlist than anything else. I hope, therefore, fuller opportunities will be offered men to learn a trade when they get into the

  1097
  Army. Then comes the question of clothing. Soldiers feel a very great grievance in regard to the return into store of their old clothing. Knowing, as I do, what becomes of the clothing, what a miserable sum is paid into the Exchequer every year for the old clothing of the Army—a sum of, say, £40,000 or £50,000. Knowing the way in which the clothing is disposed of to a ring of Jew contractors, and the way in which the Army is disgraced by the use of worn-out uniforms by sandwich men and others, I do say it would be wise to grant to the soldier the small boon of letting him use his old clothes for the more dirty work he has to perform, and thus save him many a 6d. or 1s., to the extent of which he is now out of pocket. There are many other complaints in connection with clothing. It is utterly impossible to drive into the mind of the soldier that it is fair and wise that he should pay for non-expired clothing. He often thinks a coat is a great deal more worn than the War Office think it is, and that he has to pay a great deal more for the non-expired portion of its use than he ought to pay. He does not understand either why, when he has supplied himself with clothing at his own cost and it is lost, he has to refund the War Office for the unexpired portion of its use. Could not a great many of these grievances be swept away? Why not find a soldier a full and sufficient kit at starting, and give him enough money to keep him in clothes during his time of service? Such a system would teach men carefulness, cleanliness, and thrift. Another point on which Sir Frederick Roberts lays great stress is the want of esprit de corps in the Army. Sir Frederick Roberts says—
  "Instead of being able to settle down in some corps and make it his home, he must be prepared to join a strange battalion in the East and West Indies, as if he had no more feeling than a bale of goods. He finds himself suddenly separated from his friends and acquaintances, and being thrown amongst an entirely new set of men has, so to speak, to begin the world again."
  Sir Frederick Roberts adds, that even the smartest man in the battalion has to go, and all the thanks he gets is to hear himself spoken of as "one of that wretched draft we got the other day from the home battalion." It is perfectly clear that if comradeship and love
  1098
  of regiment is to have any influence in the Army, this system is about the worst you can adopt. Again, I do think that if you are going to make the Army popular, you must get fewer bad characters in it. I believe that if you got more men of good character in the Service, even if yon paid them more, you would save in the end, as you would have fewer desertions and less imprisonment. Sufficient care is not taken to keep up the social status of the soldier. We are too ready to recruit anybody we can get. I have already said we are too ready to recruit men who are physically unfit for service, and it is a still greater evil, to my mind, to recruit men who are morally unfit. I would much sooner see the Army short of a few thousand men if, as a result, we got a better class of men than we do now. No doubt a large proportion of those who enter the Army now are men of good character; but a few bad men, a few fraudulent enlisters will carry mischief, evil, and insubordination from one battalion to another, and these are the men we must take every possible means of keeping out of the Army. I do not know how we are to accomplish this. We have done away with branding, and I would not advocate returning to it, but if some mark—even if it were only a vaccination mark—were placed on all men in the Army, from the officers downwards, you would know that you were not recruiting men who had fraudulently enlisted. If you cannot do this you might send Army recruits to one or two large stations where they would be likely to be recognised if they had been there before. You will have to deal also with the question of drunkenness in the Army a great deal more thoroughly than you have done up to the present. Drink is the cause of 19–20ths of the crime in the Army. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken any steps with regard to the sergeants' mess. From all I can hear the sergeants' mess which originally was intended to add to the position and dignity of the sergeant, has been for a great many years used as a mere dram shop. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the recent work of Colonel Buckstone he will find that one of the greatest curses in the Army is the sergeants' mess. Although they are forbidden to do so the sergeants serve

  1099
  men with drink during the forenoon, and make a profit because they sell at enhanced prices. How the evil of drunkenness is to be grappled with I do not quite know, but I think a check would be put upon the amount of liquor consumed in the sergeants' messes—it is out of all proportion to what the sergeants require for themselves—if the drink was bought through the Canteen Fund, and the bills paid as they ought to be by some commissioned officer. I also believe you would prevent a great deal of the drunkenness if you were to feed the soldier a little better. I have a keen suspicion that drink after all is the cheapest form of food the unfortunate soldier can find. It is not that he has any inclination to drink when he enters the Army, but he finds he is not properly fed. Having to buy his food he buys the cheapest, which he finds to be drink. I think this is a great argument why you should take the whole of the provisioning and rationing of your soldiers into your own hands. Again, if you are to raise the moral standard of the Army you will have to give the soldier more privacy. At present the soldier can hardly be by himself for a single hour in 24. He dines and sleeps in the same room. I find that 45 years ago a most important Commission set to inquire into the proper way of re-arranging our barracks, and the first recommendation they made—the one they laid most stress upon—was that soldiers should have a dining room distinct from their sleeping room. That is the case in some barracks, and I hope that in the new barracks he is building the right hon. Gentleman will see that the private soldier has separate dining and sleeping rooms. Whether you can grant him that or not there is at any rate one thing you ought to grant him: it is what is granted to every soldier in the German Army and in the English Army in India. At present the private soldier has no means of putting his things under lock and key. He has only a shelf and bag, and if you have bad characters in the regiments there is a good deal of stealing and pilfering. The recruit's kit especially is liable to plunder, and the recruit is not the man to dare to make his grievance known. Moreover, what career does the Army offer to a man? Sir Frederick Roberts says you have deliberately chosen the worst system,
  1100
  both for the convenience of the soldier and the interest of the country. He points out that seven years with the colours is not a short enough period to give you an adequate Reserve and it offers no career to the soldier. He takes the case of the artisan who joins the Army just at the time that he would be about finishing his apprenticeship. When he has spent seven years in the Army it is too late for him to begin work again. The same with the labourer. When he leaves the Army he cannot find employment, and is dissatisfied with his lot. Then there is the loafer. You might make something of him; but you treat him in the same way as the artisan and labourer, and he goes back to be a waif and stray. And you actually give £21 when a man, after seven years' service, leaves the barracks. You induce men by every means in your power not to make the Army a career. The bulk of the men, 'who have not learnt habits of thrift, spend the £21 in drinking and debauchery, and possibly in two or three days it is all gone, and when it is gone they cannot re-enlist because they cannot pay back their Reserve money. These men form the army of scarecrows who go through the country under the name of Reserve men, doing more than anything else to deter decent men from enlisting in the Army. And what is your Reserve? It has now been in existence 20 years. In 1870 you had 20,000 Reserves, and now you have 58,000. 6,000 or 7,000 have joined by means which are not usual; that is to say, they have been allowed to leave the colours before the seven years had expired, in order to enable you to form a large Reserve. You have only obtained the increase of 38,000 during 20 years. How many of the 38,000 are trained? None of them are trained. How many will turn up if necessity arises? To begin with, how many are in the Militia? That is a fact about which we ought to have some information. I think if we had all our Militia and Reserves called out at the same time, we should find that men belong both to the Militia and Reserves. I also wish to say a word upon the question of pay. I believe that deferred pay is to a great extent wasted. At any rate, if you are going in the last resort to increase the pay of the soldier, I do

  1101
  not believe the Army Estimates need be one penny bigger. There are many ways in which you might retrench. Deferred pay is one way. The great clerical staff is another. Some of the honorary colonelships are another. The great expense incurred in moving troops from one place to another is another. It is right that regiments should have the best quarters in town, but I hope that the building of new barracks will obviate the necessity of a frequent moving of troops. There is one set of men to whom you must pay more than you do now, and they are the non-commissioned officers. The noncommissioned officers are the very backbone of the army. Their responsibility now is very great; under the old system, when the non-commissioned officers were very old soldiers, I am afraid the subalterns threw a great deal of work on them, which ought properly to have been performed by others. If such a system worked with old seasoned soldiers, I doubt whether it will work with young soldiers under the territorial system; especially, you should do every thing you can to enhance the condition of the noncommissioned officer. He often comes from the same neighbourhood as the privates, he may meet the privates when he goes home on furlough, and it is essentially necessary he should be able to enforce discipline. Then, again, there are certain payments with regard to the non-commissioned officers which ought to be attended to. A lancecorporal, for instance, ought under the regulations to receive 3d. a day extra during the whole time he is lancecorporal, but I understand that as a matter of fact he only receives the same pay as a private soldier. How can he exercise discipline under such cases? Take the case of a man who has gained good conduct pay. If the man becomes a sergeant, I am told his good conduct pay is stopped. That surely ought not to be done. I am actually informed that the total pay of the married sergeant, whose wife is unable to do any washing for the company, is less than the pay of the married private, whose wife can do washing. The importance of the non-commissioned officer in the Army is so great that everything ought to be done, even by increased pay, to get them to remain longer in the Service.
  1102
  It may even be necessary to increase the pay of the private soldier. What is the pay of the private soldier? I have heard different statements: I have heard different commanding officers draw up different scales. The War Office make it out that a man is able to put by 4s. 3d. at the end of the week. I think the sum is more like half that amount. People compare soldiers to porters and others, putting aside altogether the fact that a soldier may sacrifice his life and sacrifices his liberty to an extent which hardly any other person does except, perhaps, the private servant, who has his wages and all found. Taking figures of the War Office, the soldier only gets between £12 and £13 a year and all found. Would you get a manservant for £12 or£13 and all found? Although I do not advocate it, I believe you would do the right thing for the Army and a popular thing in the country, if you were to offer greater inducements, such as those I have mentioned, and even by raising the pay of the soldier get better men to join the Army. The private soldier cannot strike like the average labourer; he cannot make his grievances heard like the average labourer, and yet he gives his life to the service of his country as the average labourer does not. The English soldier takes a part in war that no other private soldier does. Most of our great battles have been soldiers' battles, and the private soldier in the English Army runs a greater risk of losing his life than the private soldier in any other Army in the world. This is especially the case with picked men. This country is almost perpetually engaged in small wars, and therefore picked men run greater risk than men in other Armies do. Under such circumstances, we have a right to demand that the Government shall make the soldier's position as comfortable as they can. I do not only deal with the question of pay; I go further, and say you are bound to raise the social status of the soldier, to drive the bad out and get the good men into the Army. The honourable nature of the service counts for something, and there are no soldiers in the world called upon to fight more honourable battles than the soldiers of the British Army; they fight for defence of their country, for the commercial position of this country, upon which the trade and

  1103
  welfare of their fellow-subjects depend. Proper means, therefore, should be taken to remove this slur from the Army. Let the Army occupy as proud and honourable a position as the Navy, and there is no profession in the world to which a man should be more proud to belong.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the increasing competition of civil employment, the present conditions of Military service urgently require to be so far modified as to provide a more regular and adequate supply of suitable recruits,"—(Mr. Hanbury,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MAJOR RASCH:In seconding the Motion I propose to do so with extreme brevity, and without any technicalities and details that can be avoided. The stereotyped War Office reply to these complaints is that though the conditions of life for the soldier leave much to be desired, yet he is better off than when the present Secretary for War took office, or much better off than in the Anti-Crimean War period. That may be so; but what we say and what General Rock, the Inspector General of Recruiting, says is, we cannot get good men for recruits while the rate of pay compares so unfavourably with the rate of wages in the labour market. The soldier does now serve under better sanitary conditions—except, perhaps, in the Royal Barracks, Dublin—he is better looked after. We know that in the Anti-Crimean period, he received a bounty of £4, and then his kit cost him £6, and stoppages were levied at the rate of 1d. a day for three or four years. Things are different now, and though the stoppages are sufficiently heavy, they are not so bad as they were. We know that 40 years back the old soldier had 2d. a day to live upon, and he now gets 5d.; that he has better quarters, recreation rooms, and his rations, though deficient in quantity, are better in quality than in former times. Yet the soldier is not happy, and I appeal to the recruiting test as indicating a grave dissatisfaction with the present state of things. Forty years ago we could get as many men as we required of the height of 5ft. 10in., with a chest measurement
  1104
  of 35in., and now we have to reduce the height to 5ft. 4in., and the weight to 8st. 2lb.; the class of men we get are extremely indifferent, and even then we cannot get enough, for there were 5,000 short on January 1, 1890, and this year I believe we are 2,500 short. I propose, if the House will permit me, to call attention to the grievances which the soldier has to submit to during the three periods of his existence; that is to say, when he enlists and does his soldier's duty, when he passes into the Reserve, and after he has been discharged. The first grievance he suffers, when he becomes a recruit, is that whereas he expected free rations he finds he does not get them, and so he feels he has been done, as he has been. He begins his service with a grievance, and he does not forget it all the time he is under the colours. There are several other minor grievances with the details of which I will not trouble the House, but which spring from the red tape and hide-bound way in which the Army has been managed for years past. Some of these hide-bound regulations have been relaxed by the influence of the present Secretary for War, especially in reference to passes and furlough, but several grievances remain. One is that when sent on foreign service a soldier is charged 13s. for a sea kit and the dress he wears on ship board on a voyage to India, the Cape, China, or elsewhere. Now, the soldier does not go to please himself; he goes in obedience to orders; and, therefore, it is rather hard that he should be mulcted in the sum of 13s. for the clothes to wear on duty. Then there is another point in reference to time-expired clothing. It does not sound like a very big thing, but it gives rise to much complaint, and gives considerable trouble to officers commanding regiments. I fail to understand why a soldier should not keep his old time-expired clothes. He might use them on shipboard, instead of having to pay 13s. But he is forced to give them up, and the only object I can see is to put a certain amount of money into the pockets of Jew contractors who buy them, and pay an infinitesimal sum into the War Office. The clothes go on to the backs of sandwich men in the streets, or they are sent to the East End, put under a "devil," as it is called, worked up into shoddy, and

  1105
  exported to South America. Very little out of the whole transaction goes to the Government. Another and more serious grievance is that the men are only half-fed. This is a matter which has frequently been brought before the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire; but the House cannot be too often reminded that, although some £17,000,000 sterling are annually voted to the Army, yet the men are kept in a state of almost semi-starvation. The daily rations given to the soldier are 1 lb. of bread and ¾ lb. of meat. I do not advocate an increase of the meat rations, for probably that would be too expensive, and the right hon. Gentleman would not entertain it; but the pound of bread is certainly insufficient, and the result is that the young soldier of 18 years of age, whether he is big or little it does not matter, eats all his bread for breakfast and dinner, and gets nothing else from 1 o'clock one day until 7 o'clock the next morning. It is absolutely useless providing the soldier with moral books, recreation rooms, bagatelle boards, and all the rest of it, while he has a vacuum under his belt which he cannot fill with bread and cheese, for the stoppages in his pay will not allow of it. Then there is the last grievance the soldier suffers when he enters the Reserve, or when he is discharged. All the other questions I have mentioned, or that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has alluded to, are but "leather and prunelli," are as nothing compared with the grievance there is in want of employment for Reserve men and discharged soldiers. There is an institution called "The National Association for the Employment of Discharged and Reserve Soldiers," the Chairman of which is Sir Donald Stewart, and the secretary Lieutenant Colonel Boyes. This Association has spent some £400,000 in the course of five years in assisting Reserve and discharged soldiers to obtain employment, and the Government aid the Society with a grant of £200. To-day I ventured to ask the Secretary for War if this grant could be increased, and I confess I fail to understand the argument in his reply that, because the public do not come in with their subscriptions, and the funds of the Society are at low water, therefore, it is impossible
  1106
  for the Government to increase this miserable grant of £200. Last year, with a stroke of the pen, the right hon. Gentleman gave the Volunteers £190,000. I have no objection whatever to that, but surely it is the duty of the Government to find employment for Reserve men. There are about 450,000 men who have passed through the Army. Of these some 59,000 are in the Reserve. 100,000 have emigrated or have died, and some 300,000, roughly speaking, are scattered over the country seeking work, haunting the docks, crowding the casual wards of our workhouses, tramping the streets, and generally bringing the Army into discredit and disgrace, because the Government will not assist in finding employment for these men. "General" Booth says—and I suppose it is possible to believe some of his statements—that, taking a sample of 2,000 men at the East End, he found that fully two-fifths of them were discharged soldiers. To the Reserve men the Government say, "Here is your 6d. a day; we do not want to be troubled with you unless you are called out; you must not leave the country." So the Reservist, unable to find employment, wanders over the country and becomes a scarecrow and terror to recruiting wherever he goes. The result of all this is that the standard of recruits has to be lowered, with the alternative of not getting any at all. It has been reduced to such an extent that absolutely we cannot get men big enough to work the guns of the Garrison Artillery, and the height for drivers in the Engineers has been reduced to 5ft. 3in. Indeed, special men are taken at a height below that, and men are enlisted not much bigger than the African pigmies of whom Stanley has written. The worst of it is that in the last 10 years the standard has been gradually going back, and the fact is that in this country there is every component requisite for an Army except the men. An Army which relies upon voluntary enlistment depends upon its popularity, and that popularity it will never have until the men are better fed, better treated, until their general status is raised, and they are not, at the end of service, cast off like an old shoe. There is hardly a respectable man now to be found entering the ranks. ["No, no!"]

  1107
  I take my stand on the Report of the recruiting officer. Notwithstanding a redundant population, the ranks are being filled with men of 5ft. 3in. and 5ft. 4in., and unless the Government increase the inducements to enlist by providing for the employment of discharged soldiers the Army will not get a better class of recruits than it get to-day.
  MAJOR RASCH:May I be permitted to explain that when I said just now that respectable men were not enlisting, I meant men of respectable physique? I was making no reference to moral character.
  COLONEL NOLAN:I support the Motion though I do not agree with the hon. Member who moved it in all the details of his speech. I hope the time has arrived when something may be done. I do not attach much importance to certain points of administration raised by the hon. Member. Taking the case of rations, I have always found less complaints in the Artillery and Cavalry than in the Infantry. When the hon. Member said the extra messing cost 1s. 3d. of the value of the rations, I thought this might be true for the Infantry, but one-half would be nearer for the Artillery. The proposal I would make is an extremely simple one: that the pay should be increased by 4d. a day and the deferred pay at once, so that each man should have a clear 6d. a day extra. This would cost about £750,000 a year, but it would very greatly increase the efficiency of the Army. There would be a set-off also Tinder reductions of charges arising out of desertions, cost of escorting and removing deserters, and expenses of recruiting. Foreign critics say that our Army is not what is was; that the men are too young; that they are not to be compared to the long service men; and I do not want the statistics of the Inspector General of Recruiting to confirm my own experience, when I see regiments at Aldershot or elsewhere and observe that the men are below the average height of the race inhabiting these Islands. This is due to the inadequate pay, which does not attract a better class of men. After making full allowance for the soldier's rations and housing, what he is being paid is practically 13s. a week. It is possible, I know,
  1108
  so to manipulate the figures and include the pay of Non-commissioned Officers, the payment for good shooting, and good conduct pay, and so to raise the apparent average; but, as a fact, more than three-fourths of the men receive value at 13s. a week. For this they submit to restrictions and loss of liberty, to which men in civil life are not subjected, and at Aldershot or at times of active service, the mendoa fair day's work, though, of course, I do not mean to say that in a quiet country town the life of a soldier is an arduous one. Now, take the working classes all over the country, are they satisfied with wages of 13s. a week? We know they are not, and that they combine and strike for 4s. or 5s. a day, and they are quite right to get as much as they can by fair means. But the soldier is obliged to be content with his 13s., though he is dissatisfied, and the effect is shown by your recruiting statistics. The men have a fair claim to an improvement in their pay, and they are right in doing what they can to get it. Certainly, I would not advise soldiers to strike; the partition between a strike and a mutiny is a very thin one. But this they may do: they may make every effort to get their pay raised by representations among their civilian friends, and especially among Members of this House. They may stop recruiting as much as possible, and insist that Members shall take up their cause, and soldiers have many friends among the electors of this country. They may bring pressure to bear on Members of Parliament through their civilian friends, and if intending recruits hold aloof I do not doubt that their claims would soon be recognised. This latter was the course pursued a few years ago in the medical branch of the Service, with the result that the pay and status of the medical officers were improved. Similar pressure the private soldier might bring to bear, and it would be foolish for the War Office to lay themselves open to such pressure. How can you expect to get good men when the pay is so small? The men you get are young and immature; how do you think they could successfully defend, for instance, the North-West Frontier of India against the race of men who might attack it. Your only method of getting the men you want to effectually use your new and expensive rifle is to

  1109
  raise the pay and convert the deferred pay into ordinary pay. You give the deferred pay to the men at the worst possible time. No doubt it would be difficult to abolish the system, inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to its being converted into ordinary pay, and to the charge being unexpectedly thrown on this year's Estimates. Any conversion which takes place should be spread over three or four years. You are gradually getting a worse and worse class of men in the Army, and it is fortunate that the officer superintending recruiting has especially drawn attention to it this year. The reason is that you are only paying 13s. a week—at least, that is my allegation, and if my calculation is not accurate, I should like to hear it specifically contradicted on figures. In the West of Ireland the United States Army competes with the British Army. The young men know that the pay in the United States Army is better than in oar own Army, and the bulk of them see the advisability of going to America to enlist in preference to enlisting at home. England and the United States are the only two countries which have well paid Armies, but the United States pay better than we do. They give something like the market rate of wages, whereas we do not.
  GENERAL SIR E. B. HAMLEY:The hon. Member who moved the Resolution has set himself a very difficult task—that of exciting public interest in the condition of the Army. That it should be a difficult task is very unfortunate, and I despair of seeing the Army put on a sound and satisfactory footing so long as that difficulty prevails. Let us hope that the startling nature of the present emergency may be promptly and widely recognised. It is nothing less than this: that the sources from which the Army is recruited have for some time been failing us, and that at a rate which must cause extreme anxiety, and for which a remedy cannot be too promptly devised. Let me put this question: If you cannot keep an Army by voluntary enlistment what is the alternative? Is there any kind of effort which should be spared if we can thereby avert it? First, let us look to the failure in mere numbers.
  1110
  The body of recruits obtained for the year was, taking it in thousands, 39,000 for 1885, and had declined to 25,000 in 1888. I will mention the subsequent years presently. Now there is a circumstance which always renders it easier to obtain recruits, and that is a depression in trade. Accordingly, the years in which trade is worst are those in which most recruits are forthcoming. This fact is most unsatisfactory as showing that only in a dearth of other employment can we get a sufficiency of recruits. But there is another fact which renders the prospects of recruiting peculiarly gloomy. It is that while recruiting is declining the population is steadily increasing. Every year the numbers of young men suitable for the Army increase. Almost every year the numbers qualified for enlistment diminish. There is one way in which this decline has from time to time been met. There is always, of course, a standard fixed of what should be required physically from recruits, but this standard may be lowered. A new stratum of material is thus reached, composed of what would have before been rejected. This lowering process has been found necessary even in the years when trade is most depressed. The numbers of 1885 were only procured by lowering the standard in 1884. Let me remind the House that the Infantry soldier carries a rifle which cannot be called light, together with ammunition, knapsack, and great coat; that he ought to be fitted to bear these on a march of from 15 to 20 miles, or rather on a succession of such marches, without being unduly fatigued, certainly not exhausted; and it will be seen that the minimum of physical competency has been reached—nay, that we have got below it. In fact, we have long since touched bottom. It is hardly possible, therefore, to tap a yet inferior class for our Infantry. But there are two branches of the Service which require men of greater strength and stature—the Artillery and Foot Guards. In 1889 the recruits were brought up to the number we then obtained by lowering the physical requirements of these branches, and that lower standard still prevails. The consequence is that many men are in the Artillery who are unequal to their work. Now, it is true

  1111
  that there was an increase of enlistments last year, when 31,000 men were procured. But how? By admitting immature youths below the standard—admitting them in thousands—in the expectation that they might grow up to the mark. But for this the supply would have been at its lowest ebb. It is, therefore, the bare truth to say that the supply continues to fail. All this time, besides the general waste of the Army, there is the constant loss to regiments of men who complete their term of service and pass into the Reserve, including all of seven years' service and a few of five and of three. And how are these trained soldiers replaced? By recruits, most of whom are not fit for service for two years. We have a fixed establishment for the Army of men fit for service, and that is not maintained even in numbers by counting as efficient all those who will be inefficient for two years. Judged by efficiency the Army is always really short of its establishment by a great part of the recruits of two years. It is now short by a great part of the recruits of 1889 and 1890, and it must be remembered that our estimate of what is required for the Military Service of the Empire is habitually the lowest possible. Yet, even counting the actual numbers, we are short of the establishment by some thousands, which of itself constitutes a real peril; while what we lose in strength by the inferiority of the troops is not to be calculated. I do not object to the enlistment of immature youths; I only insist that the establishment ought to be kept complete without counting these or other inefficient men. Now, what is the working of the system under these conditions? Each battalion abroad must be kept prepared to take the field and must be maintained in its number of men—say 900—all efficient for service. Each is linked to a battalion at home of 700 men, which is to keep the other supplied with trained soldiers. Therefore, these home battalions are mainly composed of the residuum—that is, of insufficiently trained men—and are always in a state of transition. They are the nurseries of the others. Now, I would ask the House to consider how important it is that commanders of regiments should feel an interest and pride in them. These are the strongest incentives to the
  1112
  exercise of the zeal and energy and constant vigilance which have produced the famous battalions of the past. But what commander can be expected to feel an active interest and pride in training men who are to be taken from him and sent to do credit to others? This is the situation of the Colonels of our home regiments. I hope the Reserve is better than my hon. Friend has depicted it; but I would here note respecting it a strange piece of improvidence. We have a Supplementary Reserve, in which men can enter after completing their service in the Ordinary Reserve. But only 20 per cent. of them join it. And why? Because the pay in the Reserve is 6d. a day; in the Supplementary Reserve only 4d. Thus, for the saving of the 2d. per diem, we lose the chance of getting the other 80 per cent. of these men, none more than 32 years old, and thus thousands of trained soldiers in the prime of life disappear every year in the general population. It would seem impossible to save our pence more ruinously. It would be unjust to throw altogether on the Secretary for War the responsibility for the unfortunate condition of the Army. It is a matter which presents many formidable difficulties. But then we must also remember that it is for a Secretary for War not to evade or gloss over such difficulties, but to meet and overcome them; else, why a Secretary for War? And what more pressing duty can he have than to maintain the Army in essential and indispensable strength? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say he does his best. But what if, while he is doing his best, the Army is crumbling around him? What if he should wake up some day to find that the failure of our military strength has placed us in imminent danger, and that the country knows it? Then he will hear the terrible question, "What have you done with my legions, Varus?" I doubt not Varus will be able to give a reply which will be highly satisfactory to himself; but, for all that, I fear that in that day things may go very hard with Varus. It is in the hope that a calamity of this kind may be averted by prompt and wise measures, and that the attention of the public may be aroused, that I now offer these few and brief remarks to the House.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER:The hon. and gallant Gentleman has described the present state of affairs as amounting to no less than a grave emergency, and I believe that in so describing them he has done great and real service to the country. It is not, in my opinion, possible better to summarise the situation than it was summarised by him, when he said the Army was habitually short of the recruits of two years. He also stated—and the Inspector General's Report shows the accuracy of his statement—that the Army would not at the present moment be only 2,700 men short if it had not been tilled by children, who can in no sense be regarded as physically capable of bearing arms. I confess I think the House of Commons ought to feel very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) for all he has done for the Army during his tenure of office. He has completed the armaments of the coaling stations and put guns in them; he has re-armed the Artillery with the best field gun in Europe; he has, at any rate, endeavoured to provide the Infantry with the best magazine rifle, and he has for the first time grappled with the question of the better housing of the troops. All these are national services, and I hope he will add to them by grappling in the same spirit with this question of recruiting. I wish to enter my protest against what seems to me to be the excessive and absurd amount of "sentry-go" the soldier has to go through. In the Guards halt the men's time in the Service is occupied in pacing up arid down opposite St. James's Palace or some other building. In the name of common sense what is the use of surrounding St. James's Palace, the Home Office, the Horse Guards, and the Foreign Office with sentries? If they are placed outside these offices, why are they not placed outside the Charity Commission or the Education Office? The system is excessively foolish. It wastes the health of the soldier, wastes the money expended on the training of the soldier, and makes the Army unpopular. Every Member of the House will feel that wherever Her Majesty or the Prince of Wales is there should be a guard of sentinels.
  An hon. MEMBER:Why?
  VISCOUNT WOLMER:Because in a great nation like this you require to keep up the state of the monarchy; but it seems to me absurd to surround St. James's Palace all day and night with sentinels. There is no doubt the Brigade of Guards is unpopular, and I believe that statistics show that many men are invalided from colds and weak chests which are brought about by sentry duty. Sir Frederick Roberts, in an article in the Nineteenth Century, entirely confirms the view which I have put forward. The hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Sir E. Hamley) made a great point when he asked why we should wilfully deprive ourselves of the services of men of the Army Reserve, who refused to go into the Supplementary Reserve. Here you have the highest possible class of trained soldier who, for want of adequate remuneration, refuses to enter the Supplementary Reserve. You are losing every year thousands of the best soldiers in the world, who, probably, for a small, additional reward might be retained in the Service of the country. With regard to the general system of recruiting, the country has been covered at great expense with regimental depâts, each of which has a staff of officers and noncommissioned officers. In theory you could not possibly have a better system through which to get at every hamlet and village in the country, and exhaust all the resources of the country for supplying the needs of the Army. But does the country get the full benefit of the money spent every year on this system? Do the officers go to the depâts meaning to work, or because they, think they will have two years of easy time? It is perfectly notorious that many officers only go to them because they believe they will have little or no work to do. Is not this quite natural when the War Office and Horse Guards make no difference in the career of the soldier who has been very successful at his depât, and that of the man who has been very unsuccessful? I know a very extraordinary case in point, which I can vouch for from my own experience. In one depât an Adjutant worked as I should think no Adjutant at a recruiting depât ever worked before. The consequence was the results were so good that the Inspector General of

  1115
  Recruiting, in his Annual Report, was obliged to take notice of them. Did he give credit to the officer who had brought about these results? No; he did not. He gave credit to his successor who had held the post for a few weeks. Here was an officer who for five years had worked in this way and then had to leave the Army because he saw no possibility of getting on in it, and take to another career in which I believe he has done well. Why, I ask, does not the War Office treat the work of successful and hard-working recruiting as a subject worthy of promotion and reward? It is my firm conviction that if they did this they would find a great and satisfactory difference in the Returns from many of the depâts. It is a notorious fact that at many of the depâts the officers are more frequently out on leave than at work in the depâts; and I cannot help saying that if it were known that a hard-working and successful depât officer might look for promotion, recruiting would considerably increase. The best test of this that could be adopted would, I think, be to take a well-known successful officer and put him in charge of the recruiting at the worst of the depâts. In that casa I should be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman£the Secretary for War did not find that in a very short time the Returns from that depât would be altogether different and far more satisfactory than they have been hitherto. With regard to what has been said as to the pay of the soldier, it is impossible that any terms which this country could offer him would at all compete with the wages he can get as a miner or as a skilled artisan The Army can, in reality, only compete with the respectable but unskilled labour of that class of men who are employed in agriculture or in the lower branches of our great industries. Regarding the matter from this particular standpoint I would put it to the House: Are the present wages of the soldier too small? For my part, I am not quite clear that they are; but, at any rate, the subject is one that requires a good deal more investigation than it has as yet had. And there is also the question of the great mass of deferred pay, which the universal testimony of all soldiers of experience absolutely condemns in its present form. I think I am
  1116
  right in saying that hardly a case can be given in which the deferred pay is of any real value to the soldier. Yet there is an enormous sum at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War derived from the detention of 2d. per day for 12 years, because the deferred pay is continued during the Reserve service as well as during the service with the colours. The chief reason for doubting whether the terms are really too low for the class of labour performed by the soldier is one which I derive from my own experience as to what occurs in my own constituency. I do not think there is a constituency in the whole Kingdom in which more is known about the Army than in mine, nor is there one in which the Army is more popular. We have Aldershot at one end and Portsmouth at the other, while on one side we have the Winchester depât, and on the other the depât at Guildford. The recruiting sergeant has little or nothing to do there, for the Army recruits itself. In the parish in which I live there is hardly a single family which has not one or more of its members in the Army; and when the hon. Member opposite talked about only the scum of the population going into the Army—although he afterwards stated that he meant the scum, physically—I would reply that in my constituency it is a most respectable class of young labourers who enlist in the Army. Not only do such men go into the Army of their own free will but they do so because they prefer the Service, knowing, as they do, all about it, and when they have left the Army they go back to their old avocations. I do not know of a single case in the whole of my parish, which is a large one, where a Reserve man is not in employment. The great bulk of them in my constituency, and they are not to be numbered by dozens only, but by scores, are in good and permanent agricultural employment and do not meet with any special difficulty in obtaining it as soon as they return from the Army. I speak from experience when I say that if the nature of the Army Service were properly known in the agricultural constituencies where the higher rates of wages paid to the miners and artisans do not compete with the Army pay, the terms now offered to the soldier would be found to be good enough. If the

  1117
  officers commanding the depâts and those under them would exercise more vigilance and display a little more keenness and resource, I believe the results would in many cases be very different to what they now are, and that in different parts of the country we should find that, as is the case in my own constituency, the Army would recruit itself. I do not propose to trespass any longer on the attention of the House; but I may be allowed in conclusion to point out that that branch of the Service with which I am associated—the Militia—in respect of its recruiting occupies a similar position to that of the Regular Army., It is, I believe, some 23,000 men short. This is not wholly, but it is to some extent, due to the want of enterprise exhibited by the recruiting officer; and my last words to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War on this occasion will be to commend very earnestly to his attention the desirability of making successful recruiting and zeal at the recruiting depâts a real step to advancement in the Service, at the same time taking care to provide against successful officers being treated as my friend was, when his successor was named as the man to whom all the credit for what he had done was due, while my friend himself had to leave the Service.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I think that if every hon. Member who has taken part in this Debate had approached the subject under discussion in a similar spirit to that which has pervaded the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, great advantage would have been gained; because, I hope that every hon. Member, who rises to speak on such a topic, does so with a full sense of responsibility. There certainly is a considerable amount of responsibility devolving on those who bring before the House what are alleged to be the grievances of the private soldier. Every one who does this, does it with the responsibility derived from the knowledge that the words he uses in this House may go forth to the world, and that unless his statements are founded on fact and are uttered in something like the spirit of moderation, which has characterized the speech of the noble Lord, there is great danger that they may lead some ignorant men to expect things they are never likely to get. I must confess that, I was very sorry to
  1118
  hear the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). The hon. and gallant Gentleman, speaks in this House with great authority on Military subjects, and the occasions are rare on which I differ from him, in the main, in the views he expresses on such matters. It was, therefore, with exceeding regret that I heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that, unless an increase of pay was granted to the men of the Army he would recommend all our soldiers—not to strike— but to do their best to bring the business of the Military Service of the country to a standstill by preventing recruiting to the utmost possible extent. I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend was carried away by that sort of spirit of insubordination, which sometimes takes possession even of an old officer, and I must repeat that I was very sorry to hear one who is so high an authority on Army matters speak in that way. My hon. Friend who introduced this Debate (Mr. Hanbury) made one of those characteristic speeches to which we are getting pretty well accustomed in this House, but about which I will utter no words of complaint. There were, however, two things in his speech this evening which struck me as matters to which I ought to allude. In the first place he spoke of a Return which has been issued by the War Office, as one of those peculiar Returns which the War Office was accustomed to issue. That Return was issued on the Motion of Lord Dundonald in the House of Lords, and had reference to the ages of the non-commissioned officers. How it is that my hon. Friend could suggest that there could have been any intention on the part of the War Office not to present the exact facts I am really at a loss to imagine.
  MR. HANBURY:The War Office itself does not know the ages of those men.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:The hon. Member is wrong in that statement. We do know the ages of these men. The hon. Gentleman may say it is not so, but we say that it is so. We have given, to the best of our power and with absolute accuracy, the ages of the non-commissioned officers of the Army. The second point contained in the speech of my hon. Friend, on which I wish to say a few

  1119
  words, is this: It is suggested that the position of the private soldier is altered from time to time, just as the hon. Member has said the position of the officers is altered by Royal Warrants. I challenged my hon. Friend to mention a single instance in which the pay of the private soldier has undergone any change in its conditions from the action of the War Office.
  MR. HANBURY:I said it had been so stated by General Sir Frederick Roberts.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I know that my hon. Friend said so; but I say that Sir Frederick Roberts has never said any thing of the kind, and when I challenged my hon. Friend to give a specific instance he was unable to do so. But I do not care to argue this matter in the same spirit as animated the speech of my hon. Friend or as generally animates the speeches he delivers on these subjects. I prefer to meet the points that have been raised, and to consider what those points are and how far they may be consistent with the facts. First of all it is said that the soldier is deceived; that in the attractions which are held out to the soldier to enter the Army we offer him certain things which, as a matter of fact, we do not give him. Now, Sir, let me examine this statement. I fully admit that the poster mentioned by my hon. Friend—the large poster which is put up in many parts of the country—is imperfect, and by no means a full statement of what the soldier has to expect. Of course it could not contain a full statement; it could not include every condition affecting the soldier's life. It may be that the poster is not full enough and does not contain a sufficiently complete statement of what the soldier has to expect—indeed, I think that this is so, and I have lately taken steps to alter the terms of the poster with the view of explaining somewhat more fully to the soldier the terms he has to expect on entering the Army. But I do not admit for a moment, even now, that the man who enters the Army has not the fullest opportunity of knowing what he has to expect. Reference has been made to the small pamphlet that is available to any man in the country at any post-office. It is perfectly well known—it is clear in its terms, and I do not think there can be any possible misunderstanding, as to what we offer to any
  1120
  recruit. I will venture to read to the House two or three passages from it. Hon. Members will find the information in that portion of the pamphlet that relates to the general advantages of the Army. The soldier is told this in paragraph 58—
  "A soldier may be said, on joining the Army, to receive in pay, rations, clothing, lodging, &c., the equivalent of not less than 15s a week."
  And paragraph 57 explains exactly what it is the soldier does receive. He is warned and expected—
  "To keep up his underclothing and necessaries at his own cost, and to pay for repairs to his clothing while in wear, and for his groceries, vegetables, and washing;"
  and, as a result, in paragraph 59, it is explained—
  "After deducting all stoppages, a well-conducted soldier has at his own disposal about 4s 6d a week."
  That is the statement made in the pamphlet issued throughout the country, and I say in the main the statements are absolutely true. There may be cases in which a man has not the whole amount of 4s 6d; but it is utterly impossible to account for the particular circumstances of every regiment in every part of the country. In the main, however, that statement is absolutely true, and is borne out by every possible information that is at my disposal.
  MR. HANBURY:Does it say anything about the sea kit?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:lam coming to that by-and-bye. According to this estimate the English soldier receives 15s a week, or £37 10s. a year. I was reading the other day an interesting pamphlet issued some years ago by Major Ardagh. In that pamphlet he put side by side the following results as to the value of the advantages gained by the soldier in this, country as compared with foreign countries. He showed that in England an Infantry soldier costs £37 10s. a year. In France the Infantry soldier costs £21; in Germany, £18; and in Russia, a country which is sometimes held up to us as a country we ought to imitate in economy, the Infantry soldier costs only £7 4s. a year.
  COLONEL NOLAN:How much in the United States?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I am sorry I have not the figures. I now pass from, that general statement. It has often been

  1121
  said, and it has been said to-night, that the pay of the soldier has not improved. I venture to say, Sir, that in the course of the last 25 years it has very largely improved, and I will give figures of undoubted authority, because they were worked out by the Committee which sat two years ago—figures which, I should think, may be taken as conclusive upon the subject. The Report of that Committee showed that whereas in 1886, after all deductions, the soldier never had more than 3½d. a day, he now makes, under favourable circumstances, very nearly 7d. a day. Therefore the soldier has undoubtedly gained between 1886 and the present time something like 4d. a day. Now, Sir, what are the deductions that are made? The question of hospital deduction has been mentioned, though I think my hon. Friend raised a very moderate amount of objection to the hospital deduction. As a matter of fact, I think it is a very dangerous thing if you treat a soldier in exactly the same manner when he is in hospital as when he is out of hospital. If you are to give him exactly the same advantages in hospital, I am afraid there would be likely to be a very considerable amount of malignering. The soldier while he is in hospital is practically getting himself into a better financial position. Then, Sir, the library subscription has been mentioned as a hardship. First of all that subscription is optional. No soldier is bound to subscribe to the library fund unless he chooses to do so. If he does subscribe, his subscription only amounts to about the tenth of a penny per week, and, considering the enormous advantage he gets by joining the library, I do not think that is a very great amount for him to be called upon to pay. My hon. and gallant Friend also mentioned the sea-kit. Well, Sir, I am bound to say that among all the points which I have investigated in connection with the condition of the soldier, this question of the sea-kit is one which seemed to me to be the most doubtful. It is a point which I have only recently been able to investigate personally, and I think it does require some remedy on our part. Although I cannot say in what direction we shall look for a remedy, I will undertake that it shall by no means be overlooked. Another grievance that has been re-
  1122
  ferred to is that the soldier does not learn a trade. Well, Sir, in that respect we are holding out no undue prospect to soldiers. We tell him plainly, in the posters we circulate, that on some stations he will have the opportunity of learning a trade, but that is all, unfortunately, that we are able to do. There are many stations where we can teach the men a trade, and where we are very glad to do so, and in recent years the opportunity has been very largely extended. But there are other stations where the barrack accommodation is such that we cannot offer the soldier that advantage. Then it has been objected that the soldier has to pay a sum for repairs to barrack furniture, but I think, Sir, on that no grievance can be sustained. All that the soldier has to pay for is wilful damage, and when it is said that he has to pay for the repair of barrack furniture generally, I can only say that that is entirely contrary to the fact. It is always desirable that there should be every possible motive on the part of the soldier to assist in keeping the barracks in good order. When you come to the ordinary repair of the barracks, that is the duty of the State—a duty from which the State has never shrunk. The State has always paid for it, and ought always to pay for it. Now, Sir, I come to the question of rations. A Committee has reported on this subject—a very influential Committee presided over by Sir Redvers Bailer, then Quartermaster General, who was himself specially responsible at the time for these matters. In their Report they say—
  "The soldier's pay is of ft composite character. It consists of pay proper, and an allowance, in the nature of partial board wages, estimated at 5d. a day, which is supposed to be, and which, according to regulation, may be expended on his diet. The question to be determined, therefore, is not whether ¾lb. of meat and 1lb. of bread are in themselves sufficient, but whether these supplies, supplemented by other articles provided out of the messing stoppage, afford a sufficient diet for the soldier."
  Now, Sir, the Committee proceeded to make a most careful inquiry into the whole question of the sufficiency of the soldier's food. They took evidence from different parts of the country and issued questions, in answer to which they received information which enabled them to present the Report they afterwards.

  1123
  presented, and the upshot of their Report was this:—
  "That the soldier's ration at home-stations, supplemented by a smaller sum than the authorised regimental messing contribution of 5d. a day, affords, under proper regimental arrangements, a sufficient diet."
  That is a very strong statement, and at the same time a very satisfactory statement, made by a very responsible and careful Committee. They add—
  "We are of opinion that the chief defects in the soldier's diet are due to the fact that it has been too much left to the custom, and that too little attention has been paid to it by those in authority."
  They followed this up by specific recommendations. The first related to the bread, and it was a very important and a very useful recommendation. To that recommendation full effect has been given, and we hope and believe that in that way many of the complaints that have arisen with regard to the bread have been got rid of. Then they recommended a course of instruction for officers in connection with the supervision of the food of the soldiers. Upon this point again we have taken advantage of the recommendation. First of all, with regard to the supply of food for the soldiers, we have appointed Inspectors, who have gone about the country to see whether the meat supplied is as good as it ought to be. We have had very good reports from these Inspectors. They have in several cases, I am afraid much more often than I should like, detected deficiencies, but the result of their inquiries has been that the quality of the supplies, with regard to meat especially, has improved to a remarkable extent, and I am sure there is every possibility of that improvement continuing. The officers, too, are giving themselves to the work of supervision with an energy that satisfies me that we may look for greater improvement in the future. My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of the meat, and he says that the prices at which we are able to obtain it prove at once that the meat cannot be of good quality. Now, Sir, I asked one of the first butchers in London whether he would be prepared to supply the Army at the rate we are now paying, and he said that, assuming that we did not want the prime joints of beef and mutton pro-
  1124
  vided, he was perfectly prepared to supply the whole Army at the current contract rate then being paid.
  MR. HANBURY:How much was that?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:About 4d. Then reference has also been made to various changes in barracks for the comfort of the soldiers. I may say at once I am very glad to consider any suggestions for changes in this direction. Everybody is aware of the wide scheme by means of which great improvement is now being made in the general condition of our barrack accommodation, the progress of which I will explain presently. But probably hardly any one knows all the minor improvements. Some of them, not outwardly noticeable, which have recently been and are being carried out, are unquestionably adding much to the comfort of the soldier. In the new barracks we are proposing to introduce "mess requisite cupboards," which afford to each group of soldiers places for their bread, their butter, and other small articles appertaining to their meals, the pattern being the invention of a private soldier as being specially suitable to their wants. A proposal is also coming forward to introduce experimentally boxes for each man to keep his clothes in. If successful this scheme will be extended, it being, of course, not intended to allow these boxes to be moved from the barrack when the soldier leaves it. We are introducing into the new barracks waterproof floors, which will get rid of that very great evil in existing barracks of dirt under the floor. There are also minor sanitary details connected with each barrack-room which have long been, and still are, a source of controversy, but to which we are giving special attention in all barracks. I now come to the issue of fuel, and I will at once admit that the old regulations as to fuel certainly seem to have had the effect of making the amount of fuel at certain times of the year insufficient and at other times unnecessarily large. By the new regulations the greatest elasticity has been established, so that all coal allotted may be burnt at the time and in the manner most convenient to the men. I noticed the other day, when a lecture was being delivered by a quartermaster-sergeant at the United Service Institution, he explained that the new regu-

  1125
  lations were of a most beneficial character. He found that with the free hand the regiment now possessed much more could be done with the fuel than under the old regulations, and I was glad to see he expressed himself thoroughly satisfied with the change that had taken place. Great attention has been given to the cookhouses, formerly very defective, and even now in some cases unsatisfactory. A few years ago an effort was made to substitute new patterns of ranges and apparatus suitable for all the minor purposes of a soldier's cooking, as well as for cooking his dinner. But no greater or more important improvement has been suggested than that which in the form of regimental institutes has gradually provided the soldier with a warm and comfortable club. This work is more advanced in India than in this country, though, here too, the new Barracks Act affords scope for its rapid development. The recreation room, the coffee room, the reading room, and the canteen afford comforts formerly unknown to the soldier. And so with the non-commissioned officers much has been done to elevate their character and increase their efficiency. Sergeants' messes are already nearly universal, and we are following now with messes also for corporals. And in many barracks, where there is space, regimental workshops for carpenters, or for training in other work, are in existence. My hon. Friend asked a question as to separate dining rooms. Many of our barracks do not admit of providing a separate room, for dining. We are, however, glad to be able to do so, and in a good many cases it has already been accomplished. Then there are the quarters for married soldiers. Within the lifetime of men of my own age the accommodation given to married soldiers was only separated by a curtain from that of the unmarried men. Now quarters, insufficient, indeed, but still decent and separate, have been largely provided, and will be in many places improved under the Barracks Act. We are, for the first time, asserting the principle that the great improvement in accommodation, which has most happily for the country been so generally provided for the agricultural labourer, ought to be extended to the soldier, and the new quarters, while thoroughly economical, will show that much
  1126
  better provision has been made. And, lastly, the system of granting furloughs to soldiers, out of the regular drill season, has been largely extended and brought within the reach of much greater numbers by the introduction by the Railway Companies of cheap fares for their conveyance to their homes. I think we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the Railway Companies for the readiness with which they have met our wishes. I have several times been urged to introduce legislation, on this subject, and I am glad that the voluntary action of the Railway Companies themselves has rendered such legislation unnecessary. They have met us in a manner which reflects credit upon them, and which, I believe, will eventually turn out to be to their advantage. I hope that this very brief summary, which by no means exhausts all the points which I might have mentioned, will serve to show the great attention which has been paid to every detail of the soldier's life. There remains the question of clothing. It is surrounded by very considerable difficulties, but it undoubtedly offers a field for improvement, of which I hope to take full advantage. Of the main articles of clothing supplied to the soldier, hardly any serious complaint is now made; occasionally, of course, the greatest difficulty is found in reconciling the practical requirements of field-work with that amount of smartness in pattern which tends, undoubtedly, to the popularity of the Army. We have made very considerable improvements in favour of the soldier in respect of his dress. Twenty years ago we gave the soldier a smart tunic every year; now we give him one in every two years, and we give him every year a Service frock, which is more useful for orderly and similar purposes. In the year 1890 we introduced another thing in respect of clothing, which inquiry has shown to be absolutely necessary in this climate—we gave him a jersey, to wear under his tunic, and this, I know, has largely added to his comfort. As regards the mode of issue of clothing, I do not want to enter into much detail, because we have lately made a very careful inquiry into all its aspects, which is likely to result in considerable simplification. I fully admit that the present mode of keeping accounts

  1127
  in detail in respect of every soldier is troublesome, and open to considerable objection. There is a great deal to be said again in favour of making the clothing, in part at least, the property of the soldier. The Military Authorities were afraid that if any change were made in this respect, and the soldier got his clothing, he would parade about the country in old and worn-out clothing. There is still more to be said for introducing a system more elastic than the present one, which may have the effect of giving to the careful soldier some greater encouragement than at present. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not now state any definite opinion on this subject, because all the facts are not before me, and on these matters I desire to reserve any final opinion until the facts are fully brought before me. My hon. Friend has spoken about the sergeants' mess, and I have already told the House that sergeants' messes are almost universal. My hon. Friend has called attention to the alleged abuse of the regulations controlling these messes and to the suggestion that liquor is sold to outsiders. The regulations which permitted the sergeants' messes to sell liquor to outsiders have been made the subject of very careful inquiry, and I especially asked the attention of Sir E. Wood to those regulations. The result of the inquiry is that, although there have been at times some abuses, the regulations now laid down will, in Sir E. Wood's opinion, absolutely prevent any such abuses in that respect in future, and I am in hopes that the improved supervision now in force will enable those regulations to be effectively carried out. And now the question comes—Is there anything in the present position of recruiting which necessitates the offer of further inducements to enlist, or which is especially alarming? I have seen so many alarmist articles in the Press that the House will not think I am unduly detaining it if I ask leave to state quite plainly the best opinion which I have been able to form on the subject, and I do so with extreme diffidence, knowing too well the great difficulties which surround it, and the tremendous difference of opinion which prevails amongst the highest authorities about it. Anyone who looks at the Report of the Inspector General
  1128
  of Recruiting will see that, as regards mere numbers, so far from having had a slack year, we have had, upon the whole, a substantial increase to our numbers. Hon. Members point to the fact that the number of recruits went down two or three years ago; but they should bear in mind the fact that the number of recruits required depends on the number of men whose time expires in a given year or are passing into the Reserve, and at the present time that number is very large. Recruiting has been brisk; and the Inspector General is able to say that, in his opinion, "evidence exists on all sides to show that the popularity of Military Service is not on the wane." This is the satisfactory side of the matter; but the unsatisfactory side is—and I state it with perfect frankness—the youth of the men enlisted and the difficulty of completely filling the ranks of certain corps requiring men of superior physique. When we hear of the standard being lowered, we must remember that we maintain a higher standard than is maintained in any foreign country. I do not know whether, as a matter of fact, the height of the population of these islands is any less than it was; there are some people who say that men are shorter than they were a certain number of years ago. Whether that is so I do not know; but I think that everybody will agree that in the Report of the Inspector General, though there is a good deal that may cause alarm, there is a good deal that tends to prove that that alarm ought not to be exaggerated. From various districts we have the Returns of the generals commanding in those districts, and in many of them we find that even now they are perfectly satisfied with the physique of the soldiers they have obtained. Aldershot is an exception. Sir E. Wood expresses himself as not altogether satisfied; but the Inspector General, in his Return, points to one reason for that—namely, that Sir E. Wood has this special difficulty to encounter—that the battalions, under his command have to be recruited under high pressure, because they are first to go on foreign service. That is a difficulty for which a remedy may be found, and we propose to begin the improved recruiting for regiments which are likely to go on foreign service a little

  1129
  sooner, so that before the men are called upon to go abroad they may have been longer in the ranks and become more seasoned. Passing from that, I say that if we were able to look upon our Army as solely intended for home defence, and without reference to its obligations to serve in India and the colonies, the present supply of men could not be described as generally unsatisfactory. But, of course, we cannot limit our views to that. The large drafts annually required for foreign service, which must necessarily be composed of men of at least 20 years of age, do create a most formidable difficulty. It is very easy to say at once that it can be effectively met by an increase to the pay of the soldier, but that is a matter which requires the most careful examination from several points of view, and all the more because, while in the case of ordinary trades your wages may fall as well as rise, it is pretty certain that, once you increase the pay of the soldier, you cannot in any circumstances retrace your steps. If it be true that the present scale of remuneration fails to attract the right class of recruits—it cannot be said that it fails to attract recruits—then we must look a little further into the matter and examine why it does so. The value of the immediate and direct advantages of a private soldier may be taken, as I have already said, at 15s. a week. That does not include various prospective advantages, and does not include deferred pay. This sum, with the prospective advantages, compares not unfavourably with the earnings of agricultural labourers, from which class the recruit is still so largely drawn, even though the actual enlistment may take place in a town. Moreover, the effect of our system of short service is to attract to the colours young men who have not yet entered any trade, and who are ready to serve for a period not too long to exclude them afterwards from entering one. A moderate increase in the pay of the Army would not have the effect, as it seems to me, of attracting those who have joined a trade. In other words, if you want skilled labour in the Army you must pay the price of skilled labour, as, indeed, the "Royal Engineers do for skilled work done by many of the men that they require. But for the work of the ordinary soldier a skilled labourer is not
  1130
  required, and the addition to the total cost of the Army, which would be involved in the offer of any such terms generally, would be enormous, and I doubt if it would be justified by anything short of absolute necessity. Indeed, I am confident the House would not entertain it unless we proved the absolute necessity. I was struck with the fact that when the hon. and gallant Member for Galway advocated an increase of £750,000 a year only 35 Members were ready to listen to the grievance. But may it not be true that, if you do not necessarily improve the pay of the soldier, you may improve his position, or, at any rate, meet the difficulty in some other direction? I allude, of course, to the difficulty of foreign service. I refer first to the length of time for which men are enlisted. I am not going to discuss the merits and demerits of short service generally. It has, at any rate, done this. It has given us recruits in numbers which, without it, we could scarcely have hoped to obtain, and it would be madness now to abandon it. But it involves no departure from the general principle of short service if I say that the mode of its application to the special need and requirements of foreign service has always created considerable difference of opinion. It would not be difficult to show that upon the details of the best mode of applying it, the opinions of the highest authorities are most divergent and almost irreconcilable. I do not know that I ever read a better statement of the difficulties we have to encounter, or, in my opinion, a more impartial one, than what appeared in a letter from a military correspondent published in the Times newspaper in August. It stated the problem which we have to solve in a fair and reasonable manner, and showed in a conclusive manner that the real problem was whether the average service with the colours was too short or not, and whether any changes could be made without drawing unfairly on the Reserves which would meet the difficulty. I thought that the article stated the matter in a very reasonable and fair manner, and certainly on the whole, on the best consideration I have been able to give to it, I have come to the conclusion that facts show that if the time has not come for action, at any rate the time has come for

  1131
  some further inquiry as to whether a change ought not to be made. Now I come to another much controverted question which closely bears upon the same difficulty—I mean deferred pay—and I will venture to state to the House very briefly the present state of the case. Before 1876 a soldier discharged or transferred to the Reserve received 5s., and 5s. only, to start him in civil life, and to enable him to travel home—a most ridiculously inadequate sum according to our present notions, and a relic of the time when every effort was made to keep a soldier with the colours as long as possible. But in 1876 different ideas began to prevail: 12 years' service came to be looked upon as the limit of real efficiency, and the development of an adequate Reserve became the prime necessity. Deferred pay was the outcome of this change of policy. It was to enable the State, with a clear conscience, to send the man back to civil life, at the expiration of six or 12 years, with a substantial sum in his pocket to make a fresh start in life. These objects, it is fair to say, have been mainly secured by deferred pay, and we have now obtained a Reserve, not free from obvious defects, but affording a real and substantial addition to our military strength. And it is further maintained that deferred pay is in some form an inevitable condition of short service, that it has a direct influence on recruiting and rendering a military career more popular, and that the ultimate prospect of deferred pay has a good influence on the character of the soldiers and tends to prevent desertion. On the other hand, it is also true that the bulk of military authority is absolutely opposed to deferred pay, at any rate in its present form. That must be admitted. They contend that the half million of money now spent on it is to a large extent wasted, because many a soldier, instead of using it for his advancement in life or his maintenance while unemployed, is immediately tempted by the possession of what is to him a large sum of money to waste it without any permanent advantage to himself. And it is added that it is a mistake to suppose that the reckless soldier will be kept from misconduct or desertion by the prospect of ultimately forfeiting it. These arguments, which I have most imperfectly summarised on
  1132
  each side, and upon which I purposely refrain from expressing any opinion of my own, seem to me to establish a case for inquiring into the facts now in dispute. And accordingly I propose to assemble a Committee, some what on the lines of the well-known Committee presided over by Lord Airey—composed mainly of soldiers—to consider the question of deferred pay, and also to refer to it certain questions as to the present terms of service with the colours and with the Reserve respectively, which I have already, perhaps somewhat vaguely, indicated. I feel sure that an inquiry of this description, and the conclusion arrived at by a strong Committee, would serve the invaluable purpose of collecting the experience of the past few years, upon which the foundations of any changes in our system ought to be laid. It has been suggested that a Royal Commission might be preferable; but, upon the whole, I think that a Committee will be more effectual, and will be able to report more quickly. I have already alluded to the opinion of the Inspector General that military service is not losing its popularity. I am in great hopes, on the contrary, that the increasing attention which is being paid to the daily comfort of the private soldier—to some points of which I have alluded—will render it more attractive. The one or two instances to the contrary, of which so much has been made during the past year, only serve to bring out more clearly that, in spite of the avowed attempts of certain agitators to spread disaffection in the Army, its discipline remains satisfactory. Much has been most justly said about the necessity of seeing that your non-commissioned officers should not be too young or too inexperienced. But probably some hon. Members will have seen a Return which was presented to the House of Lords, on the Motion of Lord Dundonald. It is a most valuable and interesting Return, and it shows that the average age of corporals in the Line is 25 years and 8 months, with nearly 6½ years' service; while the sergeants average 28 years and 10 months, with 9½ years' service. These figures speak for themselves, and prove that the youth of our non-commissioned officers has been much exaggerated. Reference has been made to the pay of non-commissioned officers. I must say frankly that it has

  1133
  not been proved that the pay of noncommissioned officers is insufficient to draw into the Service and keep in the Service thoroughly efficient non-commissioned officers. Their pay is considerably higher than that of the private soldier, and they are also in a position to earn pensions. I am not satisfied that any case has been made out for increasing the pay of non-commissioned officers. It may be that the lance corporal does not always get the full advantage of his position, but it is only temporary, and is due to more lance corporals being appointed than are provided for. I am also able to add that crime in the Army has rapidly diminished of late years. The number of men in possession of good-conduct badges has increased in the last four years by 19 per cent. Our military prisons are seldom more than half full, and have been diminished in number, while the number of Courts-martial, of minor punishments, and of fines for drunkenness show a most satisfactory decrease. I attribute much of this improvement to the great attention which has been paid to the subject of temperance in the Army, a work which will be enormously facilitated by the system adopted in the new barracks now being constructed. Much also may be due to the excellent work being done by the ministers of religion, the vast importance of which may be judged, not only from its effect within the Army itself, but from the fact that its influence must be felt in the localities to which our time-expired soldiers return. I have endeavoured to deal as comprehensively as I could with almost all the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. No doubt there are some points of great importance which I have not touched upon, but which I shall be prepared to deal with in Committee. As we are substantially agreed that some changes and improvements in the terms of the soldier's employment are desirable, and that they should be carried out so soon as they have, upon inquiry, been clearly established, I hope it may not be thought necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division. We wish to deal with perfect fairness with this matter, while recognising that, as trustees of the public, we should not make any increases in
  1134
  the pay or allowances without adequate proof that it is required by the condition of the labour market, and being agreed on the substantial point, that we must do justice to the claims of the soldier. I trust the House may not be put to a, Division, but that, after hearing what I hope may be regarded as a frank statement from me, the Resolution of my hon. Friend may be withdrawn and we may be allowed to go into Committee.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN:I presume that after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman this Debate will not be long continued, but I wish to express my opinion that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman will, I think, not only be regarded as eminently satisfactory by the House, but by the public outside. It may, perhaps, be said that the right hon. Gentleman takes the usual official optimistic view of the whole matter. A little optimism is not unwholesome as an antidote to the pessimism which prevails on Army matters in quarters where military questions are largely discussed—in clubs and in military and other newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is not deaf to many of the complaints that have been brought forward, and that he is anxious to do what is possible to meet such of them as are well-founded. Now, there are only three ways practically in which we can hope to improve the quality of the men attracted to the Army and offer greater inducements to men of a more suitable character and qualification. We may alter the terms of enlistment, we may increase the pay, or we may improve the conditions and comfort of the Service. Now, the terms of enlistment, so far as they affect the Service of the country, cannot, I believe, be very much altered. My idea is, and I believe the opinion of most authorities on the subject, at all events of the more moderate school, is that as we have a voluntary Army, no man should have the idea while he is serving in the Army that he is a prisoner, and has to look forward to a long period of service against his will. There ought to be, and there are at different stages, opportunities afforded for a soldier either to leave the colours and go into the Reserve, or remain with the colours, according as

  1135
  his inclination prompts him. That I believe to be the principle which ought to be maintained. In his Report the Inspector of Recruiting points out that men were occasionally lost to the Foot Guards owing to the terms of the original enlistment being restricted to three years with the colours, and that His Royal Highness with the concurrence of the Secretary of State had decided that recruits for the Foot Guards should have the option of enlisting for three or seven years colour service. The Commanding Officers were directed to ascertain from the recruit, before final approval, that the period for which he had contracted was what he really desired; if not the attestation was to be altered. Since the date of that order there have been 621 enlistments in the brigade, of which 193, or 31 per cent., have elected to take seven years' service with the colours. I quote this as an instance of the kind of arrangement which appears to me to suit best our voluntary system. When only 31 per cent, of the Guards elect to serve for the longer period, and the rest prefer to begin with the shorter period, it is obvious that short service has certain attractions of its own. With regard to the common assertion of the extreme youth of our soldiers, I should like to call attention to certain figures in the Annual Returns which show that whilst in 1871, the year following the introduction of short service, and, therefore, not yet affected materially by it, there were in every 1,000 men 190 under the age of 20 and 320 over 30, in 1890 there were only 147 under 20 and 101 over 30. Military experience shows that from 20 to 30 is the best period of a soldier's life, and that it is not desirable to have in the ranks too many over 30. The returns therefore show that the proportion of men at the best ages is better than it was 20 years ago. As to the expediency of increasing the pay of the Army, the right hon. gentleman has pointed out the objection to an inconsiderate adoption of that proposal. Wages throughout the country may rise and fall, but you can never go back when you have once increased the pay of the men in the Army. It may be that a case could be made out for increasing that pay, but it is a thing to be done only in the last resort. The
  1136
  right hon. Gentleman is taking a judicious course in instituting an inquiry as to deferred pay. It is certainly desirable that when a man retires from the colours he should have something in his pocket, so that he may not be launched into civil life without resources. If there were no deferred pay men would be tempted to remain in the Service on account of the dismal prospect immediately before them on leaving the colours; but as it is there are no fewer than 71,000 men in the First Class Army Reserve. That shows what a very serious addition is now made to the fighting strength of the Army, and we ought not to do anything which would artificially stop the tendency of the Reserve to increase. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) suggested that we should abolish deferred pay at once and increase the pay of the Army, but the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) said one of the grievances of the Army is the constant change to which they are subjected, and how much would a man's position be altered if he found his deferred pay suddenly taken away from him? It is quite obvious that with regard to the men now serving you must hold to the bargain of deferred pay, and you cannot deprive them of the advantages you covenanted to give them when they joined the Service. If, therefore, you forthwith increase the pay you will unfortunately, as has happened in so many cases, have the expense of the two systems overlapping each other. It is, however, possible to do much, and I am glad so much has been done, to improve the treatment of the soldiers in respect of food, clothing, and barrack accommodation. The Army might also be made more popular by mitigating the excessively irritating discipline which has prevailed. We must remember that nowadays we are not taking into the Army, thank goodness, men of the same sort as formerly filled it, but men of a better class. They are men. of better education than formerly, because everybody is more or less educated now; they have a better idea of themselves and of their own dignity than their predecessors had; and they will not willingly submit to the petty and unreasonable restraints of old times, which are extremely irritating and do

  1137
  no good to any one. A great deal has been done in the way of reducing the number of petty offences visited with punishments, which caused much discontent; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will proceed further in the same direction, and will as much as possible mitigate the discipline of the Army, remembering that the soldier is nowadays a reasonable, educated, self-respecting man. There is not much to be said after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure the House may anticipate the best results from the inquiries he has instituted.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT:I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has brought the subject of recruiting before the House. I give my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War credit for all he has done in the interest of the Army, especially in connection with the new barracks he is building all over the country, and I was glad to hear from him what he proposes to do with regard to the fitting up of those barracks. But I think I may say that my right hon. Friend has hardly gone into the one great difficulty under which we labour at present. The most important question of all is not pay or barrack accommodation, but the class of men we get, and the danger we are exposed to on account of their rawness, youth, and inexperience. I should like to know whether the Return respecting the ages of non-commissioned officers included those who have gone from the Army into the Militia. We have heard from all quarters how young the modern non-commissioned officers are, and how much less respected they are than was the case in former days. I think my right hon. Friend will not deny that if there had been more experienced non-commissioned officers in the second battalion of the Grenadier Guards we should have been spared the unfortunate events of a few months ago. In our First Army Corps I wonder how many recruits there are at this moment who would be unfit to be put in line of battle.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I have here the Return from Lord Dundonald as regards non-commissioned officers, and I see it refers to non-commissioned officers of each rack "at present serving with the colours."
  SIR W. BARTTELOT:Well, that is, if correct, a very satisfactory Return. The 2nd battalion of the Rifle Brigade some year and a half or two years ago passed over 1,000 men through its ranks in two years to supply the wants of the three other battalions of the brigade then serving abroad. This is a very serious state of things. How, under such circumstances, is my right hon. Friend to keep up the Army at home in an efficient state and be able to put his 1st and 2nd Army Corps into the field without sending out young and inefficient men? I venture to hope that when my right hon. Friend makes his statement we shall hear something very satisfactory on this point. That is the point to which the country is looking. War may come upon us at any moment, and we should have our army ever ready and fit to undertake any duty it may be called upon to perform. (8.0.)
  DR. FARQUHARSON:I do not in any way wish to minimise the importance of the questions brought before the House this evening, nor do I fail to recognise the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman who has laid his views before us in a speech of such force and importance, but I cannot but carry my mind back a little way and remember how Army Debates were carried on a few years ago. I remember that we used to come down to the House and, on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, we were allowed to have an open night, so to speak. Everyone was allowed to talk at large, and as much as he pleased about military matters. But now, Amendments are put down on the Paper, and if a Member does not happen to be sharp enough to get one down, he is tied down to a specific Motion, and until that is disposed of with other Amendments after it, he is unable to bring on that particular matter in which he is specially interested. I am bound to say I think the old plan was a good one, as it enabled us—to use a familiar expression—to blow off a certain amount of steam, which, if confined for too long a period during the Session, is wont to lead to a violent explosion when we get into Committee. Those

  1139
  who have had considerable experience in the House know that the uncertainties of these occasions are disconcerting to private Members, and that Members are inclined some what to accentuate their views when they have the opportunity of dealing with the Votes in Supply. The particular Votes on which they wish to speak they find put down for inconvenient times, and very often they are away—sometimes in bed—when the items in which they are interested are reached. I recognise to the full the ability of the hon. Member who brought this Motion before the House. I think this Amendment most important and most opportune, because reading between the lines I think we cannot but regard General Roche's Report as to recruiting with alarm. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a little too much has been made of the question of recruiting at the present moment. I do not think things just now are as bad as they are painted. General Roche says that the number of recruits for this year is not unsatisfactory, because there are 2,000 more than there were last year. My right hon. Friend opposite read from General Roche's Report the statement that "evidence exits on all sides that the popularity of the Military Service is not on the wane." My right hon. Friend stopped there. He should have gone on a little further, for General Roche proceeds: —"And that eligible recruits would be forthcoming in ample numbers if they could see their way to them," that is so say, if the inducements in the Service were sufficient to enable recruits to come forward, they would come forward as they used to, in the matter not only of numbers, but also of quality. Though things are not so bad as they are painted, General Roche has indicated that there may be dangers in the future, and he thinks the quantity of the recruits and their quality will not be so good in years to come as they have been in the past. The Secretary for War told us that there is great difference in the numbers of recruits engaged in successive years, and no doubt that is the case; but General Roche tells us that the number of recruits wanted next year to complete the regimental strength of the Army
  1140
  will be 34,000 or 35,000. That is a very large number, and that statement should be remembered in considering this question. My right hon. Friend was, I think, somewhat Utopian in his views when he came to consider the present condition of things, and no doubt it is well to be so, taking a full official standpoint; but I am bound to say he was successful in attempting to show that the condition of the private soldier is really better than that of the agricultural labourer. However, notwithstanding these Utopian ideas, there have been some practical points brought before us by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the question which are worthy of consideration, and I agree that we should regard the matter from three points of view—as affecting the recruit, as affecting the soldier, and as affecting the retired Reserve man. I have always taken an interest in the question of rations, and I would go into it now mainly from the point of view of the recruit. I think the Secretary for War a little minimised the importance of the point brought before us by the hon. Member for Preston, and the quotation he made from so eminent a soldier as Sir Frederick Roberts, when he said that the recruit was, to a certain extent, deceived when he entered the Army as to this question of rations. It is all very well to argue in a metaphysical way that a free ration means a free ration up to a certain point; but from the way it is put by the recruiting sergeant to the man who is thinking of entering the Army there can be no doubt that the idea the recruit has is that he is to get his food absolutely free. The Secretary for War tells us that the recruit has the means at hand of informing himself on the subject; but how can a comparatively uneducated agricultural youth gather the necessary information from a pamphlet of the very existence of which he is unaware? The information a recruit gets on entering the Army is that which is conveyed to him by the recruiting sergeant, and I am speaking from authentic information when I say that the recruiting sergeant gives the information, I will not say in a dishonest manner, but in a manner best suited to his own interest, and the recruit receives the impression that he is to have his food free. If any-

  1141
  one in this House doubts that statement let him do what the enterprising journalists do nowadays; let him put on an old suit of clothes and go to a recruiting station and let him be recruited there or get into conversation with a recruiting sergeant. He will then find what the inducements held out to the recruits to enter the Service are, and I will undertake to say that he will be of opinion that the representations made to him are such as would lead an uncultivated agricultural labourer to believe that lie was about to receive free food. Of course, when the recruit joins the Service the illusion vanishes, and the result is great disappointment and dissatisfaction when the man finds that the food he expected to get free of cost has to be largely paid for by himself. This is a fruitful source of desertion, the men feeling that they have been "done." The recruiting sergeant has a direct incentive to securing a recruit, for he gets for a militiaman, 2s. 6d., for a linesman, 5s., for a foot guardsman, 10s., and, if he is fortunate enough to bag a brace of "blues," £5—or £2 10s. in each case—slip gently into his pocket. Therefore, the object of the recruiting sergeant is to bring down his man; and I dare say, although he puts the matter to the recruit textually and literally accurately, the recruit receives a false impression as to the terms on which he is entering the Army. Another point which has been noticed by one or two Members s the food of the soldier generally; and here I am glad to be able to offer my meed of praise and approval to the Secretary for War for what he has done, especially in the direction of improving the meat and the bread rations. I think it was a good thing to appoint a Committee, and I think that up to a certain point the recommendations of that body were thoroughly practical. They do not, however, go far enough, and if we could only get something to bridge that terrible gap between the dinner one day and the breakfast next morning the state of things would be much more satisfactory. And, I think, in this matter, the question is much more important as affecting the recruit than as affecting the grown-up soldier. The latter, no doubt, has enough food, but the recruit has not enough,
  1142
  seeing that he is growing in all his tissues, and in his case it is hard to give difficult and anxious work to do and not allow him enough food. I do not like the principle of giving the recruit money in place of food. He is mostly surrounded by persons who like to meet with a lad with money in his pocket, and the result is that he is more apt to spend his money in drink and amusement than in food, and to suffer in health and ruin his constitution. I think it would be an advantageous thing if arrangements could be made by which, at any rate, the recruits could be supplied with more food of a nourishing kind. Many other questions have been raised in the course of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs has pointed out that it would be desirable to relax many of the irritating restrictions of discipline which press hardly on the soldier. You must remember that the working classes have different ideas of labour and independence to those they used to have, and they do not like being bullied as school boys. I think, therefore, it would be found in the long run that a relaxation of the restrictions would lead to economy. Formerly a soldier had a career before him, but that is no longer the case. He is turned out into the world when he has perhaps got into rather idle habits, and he finds it difficult to secure employment. I think, therefore, that the Government should endeavour to confine certain occupations to ex-soldiers such as work in the Post Office and in small Departments of other Government offices. Employers make some difficulty in giving work to Reserve men. We cannot, in the matter of pay, compete with the labour market; but, although we have increased the soldier's pay by 4d. a day, the improvement in the labour market has been greater. A shilling a day is very poor terms for a man going to be killed or to be sent to a bad climate. I think we must make our terms somewhat better; but I admit that if we propose to make any substantial addition to the Estimates—say to the extent of an increase of 6d. per day—we shall be met with an uncompromising opposition. I have no doubt the Committee that has been promised may do something to suggest a remedy although I do not know that it can do much to improve

  1143
  the position of the soldier. A broad the status of the soldier is much better than it is in Great Britain, where he is frequently snubbed and treated as if the Army were composed of nothing but ne'er-do-wells. I hope that the feeling against the soldier will pass away, and, with the many improvements the right hon. Gentleman has made, and those he will make in the future, I have no doubt recruiting will much improve and the condition of the Army will become much better. I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the very bad accommodation there is at St. George's Barracks for the examination of recruits. The room in which the examination has to be made is much too small and the premises altogether are very unsuitable for the purpose. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said to night, and what he proposes to do, and I have no doubt, after the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the hon. Member for Preston will withdraw his Motion.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY:I think my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has done good service in calling attention to this subject. I am one of those who consider that the soldier at the present moment is altogether underpaid. This is proved by the fact that we do not get all the recruits we want, and that those we do get are not of the stamp we require. I shall not be satisfied until the position of the private soldier in this country is that it is the envy of everybody who is not a soldier. You are supposed to be very particular with the physique of your men, and the fact that 47 per cent, of those who enlist are rejected shows a very lamentable prevalence in this country of people who are not fit to be soldiers. Soon after I entered this House I drew attention to the fact that a soldier had been prevented riding in an omnibus because he was in uniform. I want to see that feeling pass away and to see the uniform respected by everybody. The best way to get the uniform respected is to induce the best class of men to enter the Service. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that recruits are better educated now than they were formerly, but of course the
  1144
  whole population is better educated. There must be something wrong, however, when there is a falling off in the number of recruits. What is wrong very likely the Committee about to be appointed will ascertain; and I have no doubt that some little hitches in the administration will be amended in consequence of the Report which the Committee will present. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there are some irritating regulations which had better be done away with. The question of the soldiers' old clothing ought to be considered and dealt with. The original reason why the soldier was not allowed to keep his old clothing was that he was very likely upon his discharge to wander about the country wearing his old uniform, and being practically in the condition of a pauper. That reason does not apply, however, to the time when a man is serving with the colours.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,:I may point out that every commanding officer may keep the uniform as long as he likes.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY:I am glad to hear that statement, and I think the permission thus accorded to commanding officers ought to be acted upon in all cases. With regard to the rations it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that the soldier had enough to eat if the proper regulations were carried out; but of course the carrying out of proper regulations is the difficulty, and it needs constant vigilance on the part of everybody to see that they are satisfactorily acted upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) spoke of esprit de corps. Of course, under the present system you cannot have the same esprit de corps as was possible in old days, when the trumpeters in a regiment were the sons and perhaps the grandsons of men who had been in the same regiment before them. You must, however, do your best to encourage esprit de corps. With regard to drink being supplied to the men from the sergeants' mess, I may say I have known instances of it myself, and I am glad the question has not escaped attention. I must compliment the Secretary for War upon all he has done

  1145
  for the Army. He has improved the position of the private soldier very materially, although all his improvements have not yet come into operation. To my mind, with the object of making the Service more popular in the country, both the Army and the Navy should be made the stepping stones to civil appointments. Why cannot you get the telegraph boys to enter into the Army by refusing to allow anyone to act as a telegraph boy unless he promises to enter the Army, and then, when he has served his time in the Army, why should not he pass on to the position of a letter carrier. Having said so much, I have only to express a hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion.
  MR. COGHILL:In expressing my agreement with the Motion of the hon. Member for Preston, I desire to call attention to one matter which I think deserves the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the head of the War Department. I refer to the billeting system which is adopted in this country, and in regard to which I think our soldiers deserve more generous treatment. I am told by an innkeeper who sometimes has soldiers billeted upon him that when he has found them their beds he has also to find them their breakfasts, but that he has to find the breakfasts out of his own pockets, otherwise the soldiers would go away without any breakfast at all. I think the House will agree with me that this is a very bad system, as it is very undesirable that our soldiers should have to start upon a long march without any food in their stomachs. It is the want of proper food which is the fruitful cause of intemperance in the Army, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War does not wish to see intemperance encouraged among our soldiers. The War Office ought at least to make some arrangement by which the men who are billeted in this way should have at least a cup of tea or coffee and some bread and butter. Another point on which I wish to say a word is with reference to the difficulty experienced by the soldier with regard to
  1146
  promotion. Under the present system promotion from the ranks, is practically barred. The men are allowed to rise to a certain point in their stripes; and although it is now allowable for them to receive commissions, it is very seldom that promotion from the ranks is carried as far as that. From a Return for which I moved in this House of the number of promotions that have been made from the ranks, I find that during the last five years in one case six commissions were given in a particular regiment, and that in other regiments only one commission had been conferred. I say that this is not enough, and that greater inducements ought to be held out to men who join the Army. There are many good men who would not mind roughing it for a few years in the ranks if they felt that they were almost certain to reach the higher grades of the Service in the long run. The hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith, who has just spoken, has suggested that both the Army and Navy might be made the means of advancement to posts in the Civil Service, but for my part I am opposed to the taking away of men from the Army and putting them in Civil Service employment. If they are to be promoted they ought to find that promotion in the Service to which they belong, and I think the hon. and gallant Members who are best acquainted with that Service will hear me out in saying that we have no better officers in our Army than those who have had their early training in the ranks. I think that if these two grievances were removed—if the men were better fed and were offered better prospect of promotion the difficulties we now experience in obtaining recruits will at once disappear. We are all under an obligation to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War for the steps he has already taken in the direction of ameliorating the position of a soldier, and I trust he will also take into consideration the suggestions I have just ventured to make.
  GENERAL C. FRASER:In my opinion it is very desirable that the present momentous condition of the recruiting question should lead to longer service. At the present time, just as a man has become

  1147
  a capable soldier, he is turned out into the world with no choice. I think that this is a mistake, and that a longer period of service would prove a useful remedy. I am very glad to hear that the War Office is about to institute an inquiry into the state of the Reserve, and I trust that it may lead to beneficial results.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL:We seem now to have arrived at a very critical period in recruiting for the Army. We approach within a few hundreds the total Reserve anticipated by Mr. Cardwell, namely, 60,000 men, and I am glad to hear that there is to be an inquiry into the recruiting system. We have had opportunities of testing, among other things, the effect of our present system upon troops on foreign service. The number of men on that service is very large, there being about 70,000 men in India, and I think the system is one which requires alteration. At present a man enlists in the Line for seven years with the colours and five with the Reserve. A man who remains in the Army for seven years has been divorced so long from his habit of labour that when he returns to civil employment he is not able to earn his living at his own employment, as he would have done had he remained in civil life. I was one who advocated short service before it was adopted—and if our Service was a Home Service, like that of Germany, a short service Army would suffice; but I think we must meet the double obligation here. I think that a man should enlist, for instance, for two or three years. After having been in the Service for six months, he should have the opportunity of adopting the Service. After serving with the colours 12 years, instead of serving the remaining nine years, he should be allowed to serve double that period in the Reserve, in order to obtain a pension. Any man in the Reserve should be allowed to reenlist for general service and go to India. I have found men in the Reserve perfectly capable and of the age desirable in India, and yet they are men who cannot be enlisted for Indian service. I strongly urge that these questions should be considered by the Committee. I
  1148
  think it is probable that some recruits fire deluded by the advertisement which is issued; but hon. Members have also to consider the recruiting sergeant, who is sometimes a man of resource, and puts a gloss upon the poster. Sometimes recruiting is stopped at many stations; and I have heard it said that this is very objectionable. As to the standard height for recruits, the standard of the Grenadier Guards over many years, though often above it, has been 5ft. 8in. as a rule. The standard of the Line must have been in early times 5ft. 6in.; but 5ft. 3in. for the Line is not a proper height for a soldier of the British race. He is too small, and is not really a well-developed man. That is a point which I think ought to be looked into in considering this recruiting question. We not only want numbers, but we want men of good average physique.
  MR. JEFFREYS:I have many soldiers amongst my constituents, and I approve the Motion brought forward by my hon. Friend. I have often heard that recruits say they have been mistaken in the terms of their engagement, which was 1s. a day and free rations, as they believed. But when they entered the Army they found that the rations consisted of 1 lb. of bread and ¾ lb. of meat, including bone. Although the bread may be sufficient, healthy men do not think ¾ lb. of meat weighed with the bone is enough except for one meal. No doubt the men get a good dinner in the middle of the day. I have been at their messes and seen the dinners cooked, and I think that where the officers do their duty and see that the men have what is allowed under the Regulations, this meal is sufficient. Having had their dinner, they reserve a small portion of their bread for their tea, which they have to pay for themselves. Out of the 1s. a day at least 3d. a day goes for their groceries and vegetables. They are left with 9d. But there are various stoppages, such as, for instance, if they damage their clothes; so that the soldier is left with, a very small amount per diem. After the men have had their tea, they have to go from 4 o'clock to 8 o'clock the next

  1149
  morning without food, and then they are provided with a scanty breakfast. That is far too long to go without food. We have a number of very young men in the Army, and they require more food than the older soldiers, who have become accustomed to the régime, though, I am sorry to say that a good many of them do not feel hunger so much because they drink more than the young soldiers. The young soldiers make great complaints, and they hope that the Government will give them something in the way of a free tea in the afternoon. I do not pretend to say that this would not cost the country a considerable amount; still, it should be recollected that in all other walks of life, including that of the agricultural labourer, wages have gone up, while for years the soldier has been kept at his 1s. a day and the same quantity of rations. If there has been a falling off in the number of recruits, it must be because the Service is not sufficiently attractive. I do think it would be useful to increase the amount of food given to the men.
  MAJOR RASCH:May I ask the Secretary for War whether he will include in the inquiry to be made the case of Reserve and discharged soldiers?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:It would be inconvenient to discuss that point before we get into Committee. I have no right to answer that question now; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer it in Committee.
  MR. HANBURY:The right hon. Gentleman has not only done so much for the soldier, but he promises to do so much more, that I do not think it would be fair to him to press this Amendment. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.

  RANGE ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT:I rise to call attention to the immense difficulty Her Majesty's regiments of the Standing Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers stationed in the large towns of Great Britain have in finding adequate range accommodation to fulfil the requirements
  1150
  of the authorities in rifle shooting; and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the compulsory acquisition of land for this purpose, either by the Govern meat or Local Authorities, is not essential to adequate preparation for the National Defence."
  This Motion is, I am afraid, of a very much less interesting character than that which we have just been discussing, still, it is one of vary considerable importance to the training of the Army, the Militia, and Volunteers of England. No troops can be considered properly trained to their duties unless they are trained every year in the use of the rifle. In the case of the Standing Army, there is usually ground available in the neigh bourhood of the quarters of the troops. For the Volunteers the case is different. The shooting time of the Volunteers is usually restricted to a chance half-holiday, which very often falls upon a wet day, or at a time when our foggy climate makes shooting impossible. Then the Volunteer has often to travel long distances to the ranges, which makes the matter still more difficult, besides adding to the difficulty of earning the Capitation Grant. Take the case of the Metropolis. I have here a return of the number of ranges in and about London. I find that of the 22, no less than eight have been recently closed as dangerous, others are subject to floods, while many of them are closed for a month, at the very time the Volunteers can use them, for the purpose of haymaking The rents of all ranges in and about London are enormous, and the tenure is most insecure. And what applies to London I believe holds good of all the large towns of the country. It is true that there are ranges at from 19 to 30 miles from London, but it takes a long time to reach them. I ought also to mention that efforts are being made to acquire a range at Staines, 15 miles from London. Whether those efforts will be successful is doubtful, but the Volunteers are none the less grateful to those who are making them. The regiment which I have the honour to command has five ranges, and the rent they have to pay is far more than they can properly afford, for one day a

  1151
  week. I have had correspondence on this matter with commanding officers in every part of the country, and every one of them dwells on the great difficulties experienced with regard to ranges. Colonel Methuen, of Bristol, states that the Volunteer range there has just been destroyed by a Railway Company, and he says there is no possibility of obtaining another in the vicinity. The new magazine rifle is to be issued, and before the Committee on this subject last year, Sir Redvers Buller, the present Adjutant General of the Forces, said quite half of our present ranges would be useless for the new rifle, and that evidence is strongly corroborated by Major Waller of the Royal Engineers. He was asked this question—"The volunteers have great difficulties with the ranges, have they not?" "So great," was the answer, "that for class firing men have sometimes 40 or 50 miles to go to fire ten rounds of cartridges." It is quite unnecessary for me to press the point. I would only ask the Secretary for War, who has done so much for soldiers and Volunteers, to give his serious and anxious attention to this matter, and appoint either a Select or Departmental Committee. So rapidly does building and population increase that the longer this matter is delayed the greater will be the cost; and so long as this House recognises the maintenance of a Volunteer Force the means must be provided for giving it proper training. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the compulsory acquisition of land for range accommodation, either by the Government or Local Authorities, is not essential to adequate preparation for the National Defence,"—(Mr. Howard Vincent,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL LAURIE:Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the Amendment; and I would remind the House that one of the conditions imposed upon Volunteers is that they shall
  1152
  undergo target practice. Three years ago, when the new regulations were issued, the Volunteers were severley affected, especially in the Metropolis; and I find, according to the Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman, that the number of Volunteers has decreased by 3,000. That decrease is attributed, in some degree to the retirement of the older and less energetic men. But that is a course which has operated all along, and the number has been filled up by the recruits always to hand. I attribute the diminution to the difficulty of getting ranges, more especially in London. The time of the Militia, when they are out, is entirely at the disposal of the Military Authorities. Volunteers are only able to utilise an occasional half-holiday to go to some range, often having to cover a distance of 20 or 30 miles. It is extremely hard on the officers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider this appeal of my hon. Friend, and will be able to see his way to obtain ranges, especially in the neigh bourhood of London. With respect to the financial part of the matter, I think the amount which the Volunteers already pay for ranges should be taken into consideration. Surely the very heavy expense might be taken into consideration of the Government assisting in finding the necessary money. I believe I am right in saying that the diminution in the strength of the Force, especially in urban districts, is due to the want of ranges. I am sorry we have not the Volunteer Returns before us, and I do appeal to the Secretary for War to arrange that in future years the Annual Returns of the Volunteers shall be issued to Members of the House before the Army Estimates are taken.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:With regard to the point just mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath that this year the Army Estimates have been brought forward earlier than usual, he will remember that in the public convenience we are taking the Estimates earlier, and it has been impossible to get all the Returns in. Otherwise I quite agree that the Annual Returns of the Volunteers should be presented, if possible, in

  1153
  time for discussion with the Estimates. No doubt they will be ready before we reach the Vote for the Auxiliary Forces. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield has brought this Motion before the House, for I fully appreciate the importance of the question. It is of enormous importance both to the Regular Army and the Volunteers. Difficulties exist in many places in finding suitable ranges, and therefore any suggestions which can be made to overcome those difficulties will be welcomed. At the same time, I am not prepared to admit that there is any difficulty in the law in reference to the acquisition of land for ranges; it may be obscure, but I believe the law does provide means by which sites may be obtained compulsorily by the War Office, both for the Regular Army and the Volunteers. Nor am I prepared to admit that it is the duty of the War Office to provide the necessary funds for ranges for all the Auxiliary Forces in all parts of the country. At the same time, I fully recognise that the subject requires investigation, and that it would undoubtedly be a great advantage if the various difficulties connected with it could be inquired into by a Select Committee, who might make suggestions of great value, and thus assist Parliament to deal with the whole matter in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances, although I am not prepared to accept the Motion on the Paper, I shall be very glad to consult with the hon. Member for Sheffield at a later period as to the terms of a Motion to be placed on the Notice Paper asking the House to appoint a Select Committee, and with that understanding I hope the discussion will not be continued.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON:I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield put this Motion down, for the matter is one of urgent importance and it is satisfactory that the Secretary for War should receive it in so favourable a spirit. The difficulty of securing ranges is by no means confined to the Metropolis; it exists all over the country, and seriously affects the efficiency of the Auxiliary Forces. I have three rifle ranges on my own property and I am glad to give
  1154
  what facilities I can; but, at the same time, any arrangements I may make are liable to be upset by any old woman who is going along the road and is afraid she may be hit by a bullet. I think, of course, it is necessary the Military Authorities should take the necessary precautions for the safety of the public, but too much weight should not be given to alarmist views by local people. At present, moreover, a very heavy tax in connection with ranges is imposed on Volunteer officers, and I think they should be relieved of it, to some extent at least, by the State, as ranges are necessary to enable the men to make themselves efficient.
  MR. TOMLINSON:As a Volunteer officer who has suffered from this difficulty I should like in a very few words to thank my right hon. Friend for the reception he has given to this Resolution. The force was greatly inconvenienced last year by the closing of our local range. The result is that much inconvenience and expense are caused to Volunteers who are obliged to go to ranges at a long distance. It should be remembered that ranges become dangerous, not only from not being of sufficient length, but from the lateral deviation of bullets which strike the ground before reaching the target. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the Committee to be appointed on the subject should inquire also into the possibility of providing short ranges for recruits, who might be able to fire at short distances with small charges, and thus learn the elements of shooting before going to the long ranges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter favourable consideration.
  SIR H. FLETCHER:As Vice Chairman of the National Rifle Association, I feel deep interest in this question, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is well advised in consenting to full inquiry into it. With the permission of the House, I will point out the facilities which the Association are prepared to offer to the

  1155
  Volunteers. The Association are prepared to receive applications from Metropolitan and Home County Volunteer Corps for the use of certain targets at Bisley throughout the year 1891, excepting during the time when preparation is being made for the annual meeting and when the ground is being cleared after the meeting. They propose, also, to provide targets available for both class firing and match shooting, with 20 third-class targets and 24 first-or second-class targets. Those ranges have lately been extended to 300 and 800 yards respectively. The Council of the Association propose to allow class firing up to 300 yards at the 90–target butt, and field firing will be allowed on the long-range ground. Sleeping accommodation will be provided in the huts and barracks at nominal charges. Shelter contiguous to the ranges will be provided in the event of bad weather. It has been arranged that railway third-class return fares from Waterloo or Vauxhall to Brook-wood shall be 1s. 6d., and the London and South-Western Railway Company have agreed to endeavour to give a more satisfactory service. The Council have also decided on the following rates of charges, which, however, will be re-considered if they prove either insufficient or excessive:—One ordinary target (class match or volley firing), for a whole day, 9s. with markers and 6s. without; for a half-day (forenoon or afternoon), 5s. with markers, 3s. without. Any pattern target will be supplied on due notice being given. The National Rifle Association is doing everything to encourage the Metropolitan Volunteer Corps to go down to Bisley. Barrack accommodation will be afforded at the rate of 9d. a night, and furnished rooms can be obtained at 2s. 6d. a night. Ordinary food and refreshments will be obtainable at reasonable rates, and arrangements have been made for the provision of ammunition on the ground. Regiments intending to fire any portion of their allowance at Bisley can have such portion delivered to the National Rifle Association at Bisley on intimating the same on their annual indent. Ammunition so received at Bisley will be stored in a suitable magazine, and will be ready for issue on the ground as required. As one who
  1156
  has been a Volunteer for over 30 years, and Vice Chairman of the National Rifle Association for a great part of that time, I can say that the Association have endeavoured to carry out not only the suggestions of the hon. Member for Sheffield, but also the suggestions of the Secretary of State for War, in endeavouring to provide suitable ranges from 300 to 800 yards for those who wish to go down to Bisley, which, after all, is not very far from London.
  MR. BRODRICK:The discussion has been extremely valuable, if only on account of the announcement which the hon. and gallant Member for Sussex has been able to make. Yet it must be remembered that these facilities offered to Metropolitan Volunteers have only been rendered possible by an Act of Parliament, allowing the roads to be stopped where necessary. I desire to emphasise that fact, as it bears directly on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and shows how the needs of other localities may be met. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston, although it is most important that ranges of full distance should be made available where possible, the Secretary for War will be ready to consider, in cases where this is not possible, the practicability of some such arrangements for short ranges as has been suggested.
  GENERAL SIR F. FITZWYGRAM:I have always been of opinion that, after men have been through their musketry training, all shooting should be at unknown ranges, and before shooting the men should run at least 100 yards at full speed. In war everything is bustle and haste, and those who have learned to shoot in the tranquil atmosphere of Wimbledon would not, I think, fare so well on active service. The proposal that rifle practice should be carried on with a small-bore rifle in a room simply reduces rifle practice to a perfect absurdity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed.

  THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS:I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will grumble if I ask leave to refer for a few moments to the subject which the House discussed at some length a few days ago. There are very few subjects in which the House of Commons should take a more keen interest than the question of a complete re-armament of the Forces of the country with an entirely new weapon. The House of Commons is in duty bound to do all that it can to insure to the soldiers and sailors not only as good an arm as can possibly be obtained, but an arm which is unequalled by that of any other country. This is not too much to ask, seeing that England is the first country in the world in regard to the manufacture of small arms, and if we cannot turn out a better weapon than any other country we have no right to the position we now hold in regard to gun-making among the nations of the world. The House is specially interested in this question also, because it is the guardian of the public purse; and when such a change of weapon is effected, at a cost of many millions to the country, the House is bound to secure that the weapon selected shall be one that is, while really effective, of not too expensive a character. Since the last Debate on the subject I have had the opportunity of examining many rifles, and within the last two or three days I have had placed in my hands the rifle which has been just adopted by the Belgian Government. It is the latest form of the Mauser rifle. As the hon. and gallant Member for Galway will admit, the rifle is a very taking weapon in appearance. It is of very ingenious construction, quick-loading, and simple. The Secretary for War has again and again stated that the contract price for the British rifle as supplied by private firms in the country is £5 10s. I am in a position to give the exact contract into which the Belgian Government has entered for a supply of 150,000 of the new pattern Mauser from a private company in Belgium. The price is 81½f., including bayonet and sheath. The bare allowance for these accessories is 5½f.,
  1158
  thus reducing the actual cost of the rifle to 76f., or practically £3. This price covers all the patent rights, and, further, out of this contract the company expect to recoup themselves for £112,000 expended in fitting up the new machinery for the manufacture of the rifle. The weapon is very much less complicated than the Lee rifle. The number of processes necessary for its manufacture is about 700, as against 1,600 in the British rifle. I do not wish to raise again the question that has been debated by the House, and I intend loyally to accept the decision which the House came to on that occasion. But I think the House has some right to feel that the Committee who selected the Lee-Enfield rifle were very much enamoured of the offspring of their own brain. Really a service is being rendered to the right hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues in stiffening them a little against accepting as absolutely correct all the conclusions arrived at by the Small Arms Committee. I will recapitulate some of the principal objections against the Lee rifle. In the first place, the bore is too small, especially because it necessitates the adoption of a bullet with a metal case instead of a simple leaden bullet. The system of rifling, again, though admirably suited to a plain leaden bullet, is not suited for a hard metal-cased bullet. The right hon. Gentleman the other night stated to the House, and very rightly stated, that the bore adopted is approximate to that which has been approved by all foreign Governments. That is true enough, but no foreign nation has adopted the system of rifling selected by this country. The system we have adopted is one in which the bullet is taken by the sharp edges of the grooves, and so is given the necessary spin; but the system adopted by foreign nations is one in which the bullet itself is moulded into the shape of the grooves, and is taken by the flat sides of the grooves. Objections are taken to many of the details of the rifle—to the magazine itself, to the system of the breech action, its complexity and method of working, to the necessity of having two methods of loading, and to many other details. I only refer to them roughly and briefly, but if even a few of the objections urged

  1159
  against the rifle are well founded, it is certain that the decision of the Committee ought to be reviewed. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have admitted that, though they have issued and are issuing every week large numbers of Mark I, and have already sent out some 50,000 or 60,000 of them, yet they have decided it is necessary to manufacture a hundred rifles of Mark II., in which changes of a very material character are to be introduced for the purpose of experiment. I do not find fault with that decision. On the contrary, I think it extremely wise and proper; but what I want is that the Government will, at the same time as they make these trials, also make trials of other patterns of magazine rifles. I have been enabled to see many patterns of magazine rifles, but I am not an advocate of any one of them, and no inventor has got hold of me. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is an immense number of patterns which in many points resemble the pattern adopted by this country, and from those rifles I think the Government should endeavour to glean improvements for their own rifle. The Mannlicher, the Kruka, and the new pattern of Mauser, adopted by the Belgian Government, for example, in many ways run on the same lines as those of our new magazine rifle. In every one of those rifles there are faults. But they all have good points in which they excel ours. I admit the Government, having adopted a particular pattern, cannot go hack upon it, but they can and should make improvements on it. My own view is that to bring these outside weapons into the experiments would be useful from another point of view, as they would supply a standard of comparison with the Government weapon. To take only one point of detail, I believe there can be no doubt the Government rifle can be improved in its method of closing. It requires no great mechanical knowledge to see that if a bolt locks in the breech where the explosion takes place, that form of locking will be stronger than a locking which takes place four or five inches back, as it does in the Government rifle. I think an improvement might be obtained in that respect easily, and without at all changing the
  1160
  system, or necessitating any change in the machinery for making the rifle. I make these suggestions as a well wisher to the War Office, and with the sole desire that the Army and Navy shall have the best possible weapon.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:There was one point at least in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which I can entirely agree—indeed, we are all agreed, in desiring to obtain the best rifle we can. I cannot, however, go so far as to agree with the argument the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House with regard to the Belgian rifle based on its price. I do not mean to deny it is an advantage that a rifle should be cheap, but I do not admit that it is possible to make a real comparison between the cost of the Belgian rifle as made in Belgium, and the same rifle if made in England, especially having regard to our requirements as to interchangeability of parts.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS:I ought to have said the parts of the Belgian rifle are interchangeable.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:At any rate, it is very difficult to compare the price of a rifle as made in Belgium with the price of one as made in this country. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee which chose the magazine rifle for the British Army did examine every rifle then in existence. It had every single form of magazine rifle before it, with the result that the principles contained in the present rifle were adopted as on the whole best suited for a military weapon. We have gone on improving. We have adopted all sorts of improvements up to the time of manufacture, and we shall not stop. I have no doubt that in a year or two other suggestions will be made tending to a simplification and cheapening of the cost of manufacture, but I cannot undertake to do what the right hon. Gentleman asks. We are going to try Mark II., but to try all other weapons against it would be as much as to say we propose to abandon the rifle and adopt a totally different principle. That is not contended for by the right hon. Gentleman, who is now prepared, partly perhaps

  1161
  because he cannot help himself, to adopt the rifle and adopt improvements to it from foreign weapons. The only effect of adopting the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be to throw back the manufacture now being carried on. Before we chose a new rifle we tried the Mauser rifle against it, and we were always trying other weapons. I hope these experiments will lead to improvements which will be to the advantage of the weapon as a whole. I have consulted the Adjutant General of the Army on the point, and he has stated with very great force that of course we cannot aim at finality in these early days of magazine rifles, and if we were to adopt another pattern it would be at least three or four years before the rifle could be issued to the troops. The Adjutant General concluded his Minute with these words—
  "This is the satisfactory position we now are in—we confidently believe that in Mark I. we have a good useful military weapon, and that Mark II. will be a thoroughly satisfactory arm in every way."
  The Government are willing to submit the weapon to any fair test, but we cannot re-open the question by any fresh experiments, and so delay the general issue of magazine rifles to the Army. While I am willing to make every use of the suggestion made, I cannot consent to reopen the general principle of the weapon which has been adopted.

  COAST DEFENCE AND SUBMARINE MINES.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE:I give notice that I intend on the Vote to call attention to the question of fortifications and submarine mines. I find I am unable to do that in the Navy Vote because if my views were carried out there would be an augmentation of that Vote. If, however, these are carried out on this Vote the Vote will be decreased, and therefore I am at liberty to move my Motion. The position I take up is justified by the fact that not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer lumped the two Services together, but one of the Admiralty officers has said that although we are not building ships we are building forts, as if the one in every way takes the place
  1162
  of the other. I hold that nothing that we can do in the way of fortifications and nothing that the Army can do enables us to reduce the Navy, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is expending money on the Army and cannot expend it on the Navy, then we must look to some reduction in the Army Vote to augment that for the Navy. In 1801 the Army Vote was £17,750,000, and that for the Navy £17,250,000; that is to say, there was only a difference of £500,000. In the Waterloo year £22,000,000 was voted for the Navy, our population was 16,000,000, and our sea trade £4 per head of the population; now the population is 37,000,000, our sea trade £17 per head, and we have 1½ tons of shipping for every person in the United Kingdom. The value of our sea trade in 1800 was £70,000,000 and now it is £100,000,000,000. In 1890–91, when the area to be protected by the Navy is enormously increased, the gross Army Estimate is £21,000,000, and the gross Navy Vote is only £14,500,000. Attention has been called to this disproportion, not only by naval men, but also by military men; quite recently by no less an authority than Sir D. Jervis, at one time the Inspector General of Fortifications. He was also curiously enough the Secretary of the Commission in 1859 which came to the conclusion that, should the Fleet be unable to keep command of the Channel, our insular position would be at a disadvantage as it would enable a superior Naval Power or Powers to concentrate a large body of troops on another part of our coast more rapidly and secretly than would be done in the case of any neighbouring country having only a land frontier. And they then go on to report hat it is necessary either to augment greatly the regular Army or to justify what has taken place. That Commission voted £11,000,000 for fortifications, and by a Return granted last Session, I find that the sum of £17,639,000 has been spent on fortifications, the greater part of which, if not all, are now utterly useless, being more obsolete than the ironclad ships which were built about that time. If the Vote for the Navy is adequate for the defence of the Kingdom no amount of alternative measures can

  1163
  make good the deficiency. Who is going to land an invading army on our shores? It is known, I suppose, to those who have studied the question that to land 75,000 men on our coast would require 120 transports at least, varying up to 4,000 tons, and having 50 men-of-war to protect them. If such an invasion were to take place, say in the Thames, where there are sands and shoals, and various other impediments, the Fleet would have to be far larger. I ask any gentleman who talks about the invasion of England, is it possible that such a fleet could congregate in any port within reach of England, get up steam and move the troops necessary without our knowing the circumstances well in advance? Such an invasion would require long and careful preparation. Transports would have to come from differents ports, and after the commencement of war, it would be our fault if any nation had transports. It is assumed you must either increase the Army or fortify. I have shown that a vast sum has been spent in fortifications. The fortifications at Portsdown have never been finished, and would be useless, and at Devonport and Dover things are equally bad, while at Malta some of the defences are as useless as those which I have seen at Gibraltar, where there is a spot which the engineers say requires a gun, in which no gun has been placed, because it would cost £500 more to place it there than in the place where it has been put. Guns are so placed that vessels with long-range guns could shell Gibraltar without themselves being within shot from the land. With regard to submarine mines, at present naval men dread a zealous engineer. If engineers did nothing, it is quite possible we might get our ships with safety in or out of our ports, but at the present time the whole aim and object of engineers seems to be to block our harbours when rapid egress and ingress would be needed. There are many places here where defences are not needed in the least. At Malta a few ground mines would be sufficient, and at Jamaica the system at present adopted is of little or no use. The latest and most ridiculous, perhaps, of all these submarine entertainments is the attempt to mine across the Severn Mouth where there is a considerable rise and fall of
  1164
  the tide, and where mining operations are dangerous principally to our own vessels. There should be some fixed policy on which these submarine mining operations should be carried out; and I maintain that if there is any mining at all, the scale of defence should be fixed by the Admiralty. If this were done there would be great saving. The Brennan torpedo has been worked on the principle that as a large sum was paid for it, it is necessary to spend more. The ridiculous system of defences for London never should have been undertaken. We are now going to starve the Navy, but the strength of the Navy cannot be reduced by one vessel though all our harbours are sown with torpedoes. I hope the Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty will take into consideration the transfer of the control of both forts and submarine mines and that being done that some definite system will be adopted for the protection of our coasts, and the defence of our ports by sailors.
  MR. BRODRICK:My hon. and gallant friend has taken the opportunity of making his speech after my right hon. Friend has exhausted his right of reply, and when the time is very far advanced for making the statement which is desired and expected upon the Army Estimates. If it had not been for the extremely ingenious piecing of the hon. and gallant Gentleman nobody would have connected the speech he has just delivered with the Army Estimates. It was in reality a speech in favour of the extension of the Navy. I will only say that, although my hon. and gallant Friend takes such a very low view of the advantages of fortifications, he stands in that opinion, if not in an absolute minority of one, at all events in a position very radically opposed to the vast majority of those who advise the War Office and the Admiralty in these matters. My hon. and gallant Friend says that any amount of fortifications will not enable us to reduce the Navy by a single ship, and I may add to that that with any addition to the Navy there still remains the necessity for fortifying our ports and the access to our dockyards, coaling stations, and arsenals. No naval strength can prevent the danger

  1165
  of bombardment of these places. There never has been the smallest thought of starving the Navy in order to improve the military defences. On the contrary, I think the Army might, if anything, have reason to complain of the enormous amount of attention that has been paid to naval affairs during the present Parliament. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said and what has been the tendency of our policy has been to devote to each Service the expenditure required.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE:What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was that £38,000,000 were spent on the two Services and the Government could spend no more.
  MR. BRODRICK:Just so. Upon each the expenditure has been to meet requirements, and if anything the Army might complain of undue expenditure upon the Navy, though I do not put in any such complaint. But I make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend. My right hon. Friend is anxious to make his statement. We have to-night had a general discussion on a variety of military topics; and surely if the special discussion which my hon. and gallant Friend has initiated is to be carried on, it should be begun at an early hour of the night, and upon a concrete Motion, upon which we could come to a decision. Surely it is not convenient at a time when no formulated Motion can be put, and it can be but a haphazard, half-hearted discussion. I therefore appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend and to my hon. and gallant Friend who was about to follow him not to continue the discussion at full length, but rather, if they still wish to discuss the matter, to bring it forward on another occasion, when my right hon. Friend can reply to them.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB:I do not intend to occupy more than a few minutes, but after the speech of the hon. Gentleman I think it is incumbent upon me to point out the real question at issue. The drift and object of my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks went to show that there is included in the Charges coming before us a considerable sum for fortifications, garrisons, and stores
  1166
  for sea coast defences, which should fall within the Navy, and not the Army, Estimates. I think the subject initiated by my hon. and gallant Friend is very germane indeed to the general discussion on the Army Estimates, and I contend that the attitude taken up by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is not a proper attitude, though I appreciate his desire to terminate this discussion. The object of my hon. and gallant Friend is to point out that these charges as to sea defences ought to go into the Navy Estimates and not into the Army Estimates. First of all these charges are in some sense for the maintenance of a fleet, and all questions connected with the fleets are naval questions. Secondly, upon the distribution of British commerce depends the distribution of the coal depots of the fleet and that is another detail of a purely naval character. Again, in the matter of the coaling stations, the coal-carrying capacity of the ships on each station has to be considered as a determining influence on the number and nature of depâts necessary, and that cannot be said to be a question for the War Office. Then the provision for the works and maintenance of a sea base depends upon the probable nature of the attack, and, inasmuch as all these ports can only be attacked by sea, that becomes a question for the Admiralty, not for the War Office. Under the Admiralty we have a body of specially trained officers for work which the War Office insist upon appointing military officers to do. For garrison purposes the War Office control entails the employment of an expensive staff; the Marine Forces under the Admiralty can and does do such duty, at a limited expense, so that, on economical grounds, there is an advantage. Again, the coaling stations abroad are a part of the organisation of naval stations, and under the present system there is a dual control. The Admiral on the station should have control, as he has knowledge of the requirements of the station With mixed arrangements under the direction of the War Office you get duplication of stores. There is no reason why stores for the defence of coaling stations should not be under naval administration, and instead of the War Office sending special

  1167
  transports you would have unification of stores, economy, and the prevention of confusion. I think that the hon. Gentleman who has rather harshly criticised my hon. and gallant Friend will see that there is a very serious matter involved in this question. In my opinion, my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely justified in bringing the matter before the House on this occasion.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE:There are certain points in the Memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War upon which I should be glad to have information.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I rise to order. My Memorandum relates to the Army Estimates, and I am perfectly unable, by the rule of Debate, to answer questions now upon the Memorandum. I respectfully submit that questions upon it should be raised in Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER:No doubt it will be more convenient if the observations are made in Committee.

  ARMY EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:I have a little matter to bring before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the Debate this evening, but I did hear considerable complaint from hon. Gentlemen opposite of the difficulty of obtaining officers. Now, in connection with those complaints, I want to understand why it is that the right hon. Gentleman has decided that Latin shall be a compulsory subject for all students entering Woolwich and Sandhurst. Knowledge of Latin may be valuable, but I think it is infinitely more important that a military officer should know French or German, or, in fact, any modern language rather than Latin. In times gone by this was never a compulsory subject, and, in fact, my hon. and gallant Friend tells me that, though he passed creditably in Latin, it was not a compulsory subject. But the right hon. Gentleman has issued his ukase declaring that Latin shall be a compulsory subject, and why? On account of the Report presented to Parlia-
  1168
  ment last year by the Director General of Military Education, and the demand is based upon the opinion expressed by the Civil Service Commissioners. This change has apparently been made at the suggestion of the Civil Service Commissioners, who say it is "unfair to the public schools" not to make Latin obligatory, because Latin is taught in those schools. Now, I am not one of those who desire to see the Army restricted to the upper classes, and those who receive what is called a classical education and a Latinist is not necessarily a better officer. A thorough knowledge of mathematics, French, German, Italian, and Russian, if you like, is of more value, and a man should not be refused entrance to Woolwich or Sandhurst on the assumption that, not having knowledge of Latin, he is not qualified for the specific training to fit him for an officer. I passed some ten years of my life in learning Greek, but I could not now pronounce a single Greek word, and certainly I could not translate a passage from any Greek author. I have found, if I may venture to say so, that I have increased in wisdom and sense since I devoted myself to other things than Greek. But, seriously, it is a cause of great complaint that Latin is made a compulsory subject, because it shuts out so many young men of the middle classes. We are told that the new regulation is to put public schools upon an equal position with others, but it really gives the boys from public schools a superior position. But the consequence is you have not officers enough. But do away with the absurd regulation, do not yield yourselves bound hand and foot to the masters of the great public schools. In these schools the education of a lad costs at least £100 a year, and generally more, and there is no doubt there are large numbers of young men perfectly eligible for being officers in the Army whose parents cannot afford such an outlay on their sons' education. Take the case of sons of officers. They are brought up in the traditions of the Army, and in all probability would make very good officers. But their parents are on half pay, and cannot afford the heavy outlay for a classical education. They give their sons a good practical education, but then they are told they cannot compete for

  1169
  entrance into the Army. Would it not be infinitely better for an officer to speak French or German than to talk Latin? I have been in various parts of the world, but I have never been addressed in Latin in my life. The only advantage is being able to read classical books, and I cannot say I appreciate that very highly with the miserable knowledge of Latin I possess. This change is really in the interest of the classes, and in order to keep up the aristocratic tone of the Army. But I say you should throw open the Army as wide as possible in accordance with the democratic ideas of the time. I do not wish to take a Division on this matter, but I do wish to call serious attention to it, and I do trust we may have an assurance that this regulation shall be swept away, and that we shall go back to the old system under which Latin was not an obligatory subject.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL:I hoped somebody from the front Bench would have given us a favourable answer. I have a notice on the Paper upon this subject, and I hoped I should find the opportunity of showing the absurdity of the new regulation, but my hon Friend has raised the question in a better manner than I could have done. I thought we had advanced to the extent that we were beyond the reverence for monkish Latin, but now I find the Government taking this retrograde step, and making this concession to the classes and the schools of the classes. There is no doubt that it is hard upon many intending candidates. A certain notice was given, I know, but the matter was forcibly brought to my attention in connection with a particular candidate, an enlightened man, who was preparing for the Army according to modern ideas, but who now finds that entrance is barred from want of knowledge of Latin, Knowledge of Latin may be useful, I admit, if taught in a reasonable manner, but I object to its being made obligatory, especially in the case of military officers who may spend their time so much more usefully learning other subjects of practical utility in their profession. I hope I see indications from the right hon. Gentleman that he means to reply, and I trust we
  1170
  may receive some satisfaction on this point before we reach the Education Vote for the Army.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I have no right to speak again, but as I may be thought to be wanting in courtesy if I do not reply to the hon. Member for Northampton I ask leave of the House to do so. I confess, I never expected to find myself in controversy with the hon. Member on this subject. The question before the House is really one between the crammers and the schools. I represent the schools, the hon. Member the crammers. ["No, no!"] That is the view I take. I am still more surprised to hear the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy decrying Latin, for I have always understood that the children in every middle class school in Scotland are taught Latin.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL:We are getting wiser now.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I am sorry to hear it. I have always thought that the success of the hon. Member's countrymen in various professions was largely due to their system of education. But seriously let me tell the house our reasons for the step. The fact is, that in 1888 the Civil Service Commissioners reported that the number of successful candidates from the public schools was less than it ought to be, and that Latin not being an obligatory subject, gentlemen who had received a liberal education at public schools were discouraged from competing.
  COLONEL NOLAN:No, not discouraged, but given greater advantages.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:We are doing our very best to get high scientific acquirements from the officers of the Army, and for that purpose candidates must have a good substratum of a really sound education. For that reason we think that boys educated at public schools ought certainly not to be discouraged.
  COLONEL NOLAN:Nor are they.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:They are the kind of candidates we want. To meet this state of things it was suggested by the Civil

  1171
  Service Commissioners that Latin should be made one of the obligatory subjects. They pointed out with great force that there was this further advantage that if a boy thus educated failed after examination as a candidate for entrance into the Army he was still well qualified for another profession. We submitted this to the consideration of head masters of public schools, and found they were almost entirely in agreement with the views of the Commissioners. This change has accordingly been made. But I must dispute the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton as to this being a change in the interest of the aristocracy. Since I have been at the War Office I have done all I could to make the Army easier of access for poor men. It is desirable that the successful candidates for the Army should have a sound and really liberal education in all subjects in which boys are ordinarily instructed at the present time, because such an education is found to be the best foundation for that technical training which Army officers now require. It is said that this change will handicap boys who are educated abroad. That will not wholly be a disadvantage, for a boy intended for the Army will be all the better for being educated in England and under English traditions than in a foreign school. That being so, I have laid down the regulation which I believe will be for the advantage of the Service. That being so I believe the regulation is one that will be found of much advantage to the Service. I know that it would bring into the Army a good class of men, and that at the same time it would not keep out of the Army a poorer class of men. I trust, therefore, that the House will without any hesitation agree with me in thinking that the regulation is a good one.
  MR. ROBY:I believe it is possible that, if the 10 years the hon. Member for Northampton thinks he had wasted upon Latin had been devoted to other topics, it might have produced a
  1172
  formidable addition to the number of questions put in the House; but, nevertheless, I must join the hon. Member in protesting against the making of Latin a compulsory subject. I do not think that any good is done by enforcing the study of Latin for purposes for which it is not necessarily an indispensable qualification. As far as I can judge, an officer in the Army would so seldom find any use for his knowledge of Latin that there is no need to make it a necessary qualification; and the possible amount of knowledge of Latin a man would obtain in order to qualify him to pass an Army examination would in any case be worthless indeed. The opinions of the head masters of public schools ought not to be taken as decisive in this matter. Naturally, they recommend what best suits the system in use at the schools. I have not a word to say against Latin as a public school subject; but for many professions and occupations in life a really good knowledge of French and German would be infinitely better; it would be more useful, and to students themselves the modern languages would be more genial subjects of study. It is not wise at all to make Latin a compulsory subject for Army examinations. It may be desirable that the study of it at public schools should in no way be discouraged, but that is a different thing from making it compulsory for Army examinations, and thus making it difficult for men to enter the Army who might make good and useful officers. As far as my opinion may be worth anything, I give it entirely against either Latin or Greek being made compulsory subjects for examination for the Army.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL:I am glad the Secretary for War has resisted the hon. Member for Northampton on this subject, because a grounding in Latin is necessary to those who do not succeed in entering the Army and have to go to other professions, and the knowledge of French and German acquired at school is so superficial that it is a farce to examine candidates in those languages.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Supply considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 153,696, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892."
  MR. E. STANHOPE:I am afraid I shall have to ask the indulgence of the House, first of all because I have had occasion to address it many times and at great length this evening, and also on personal grounds, because I am afraid I hardly feel equal to doing justice to the very considerable task before me. I have more than once appealed to hon. Members to allow me to make the statement I have to make earlier in the evening; but I make no complaint on this score, because I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen felt that they had no other opportunity of alluding to subjects of importance; and I therefore cannot complain that they preferred to discuss them instead of giving me the opportunity I desired. On the present occasion I hope to be able to compress my remarks within very reasonable limits, for I hope to be able to explain very shortly the progress that is being made with the three great works which have been undertaken during the past three years. And here I venture to claim very considerable credit for our Finance Department. Although within the last four years we have been undertaking improvements in every direction, involving a large expenditure of public money, it may fairly be said that substantially we have never had a real Supplementary Estimate. We have been able to give such accurate information to Parliament as to all the steps which we have proposed, that practically the House has not been called upon in any case to vote additional sums in conse-
  1174
  quence of any excess of expenditure' For this result I feel that I owe—and that the House owes—a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and to the Civil Staff at the War Office. The first great work which has been undertaken has been that of improving the defences of our ports and coaling stations. It will be recollected that the Imperial Defence Act of 1888 made provision for this object, and it was then estimated that the work would be completed in three years. I am happy to say that this anticipation will be almost exactly realised. The armament of our coaling stations, according to the accepted programme then laid down, is on the verge of completion, with the addition of Table Bay, as to the armament of which an agreement was come to between Sir Thomas Upington and myself at the Colonial Conference. It is not necessary to dwell upon the enormous additional advantage which these protected coaling stations will afford to the Navy in all parts of the world. The armament has now gone out to Singapore, Hong Kong, Table Bay, Simons Bay, Colombo, Jamaica, St, Lucia, and Sierra Leone; and the last guns for Aden and the Mauritius are now awaiting shipment. The armament is also ready for Esquimalt, for St. George's Sound, and for Torres Straits; but in none of these three places, I am sorry to say, have the Colonial Governments yet undertaken the preparation of the necessary works for mounting the guns when sent out. The task of adding modern guns to the armament of our great fortresses at home and abroad is also nearly complete. For obvious reasons I do not think it right to enter into detail, but I have no reason to doubt that the end of three years will find almost every item of the work disposed of, and within the estimates originally explained to the House, I cannot allow this work to come to that state of completion without expressing the great obligation which the country owes to the Inspector General of Fortifications, General Sir Lothian Nicholson, for the energy which he has thrown

  1175
  into the work and for the extreme pains he has taken to insure—a matter of no small difficulty in works going on in all parts of the world—that the expenditure shall be kept within the sums assigned. I do not think that the House will feel that I am informing them of anything which they would not be glad to hear, when I say we are now going to avail ourselves of Sir Lothian Nicholson's services in the command of the important fortress of Gibraltar. Nor can I omit to congratulate the Director of Artillery, General Alderson, upon the satisfactory completion of the necessary armaments. The new Naval programme, undertaken since the contracts were put out for the guns for the Imperial Defence Loan, has thrown much additional work on his Department and on the Director of Contracts, and it is all the more creditable that so little delay has been experienced. The result of this expenditure has been that, whereas three years ago no modern guns were effectively mounted in any one of our fortresses or coaling stations, except the four big guns at Malta and Gibraltar, now a powerful modern armament has in all cases added largely to their security. Amongst the places so strengthened are Portsmouth, Plymouth, the Thames, Malta, and Gibraltar. Any one who looks at the table which I presented to Parliament three years ago, showing all the places where improved armament was to be mounted, will see that the work that we then undertook and which we are now completing is work which undoubtedly will tend to give increased strength to our fortresses in every part of the world. The second great work which has been undertaken is the improvement of barrack accommodation. The changes that are being made are not, however, limited to the funds provided by loan, because the increased attention paid to barracks generally, and to the comfort of the private soldier, has caused so many urgent demands for sanitary and other services, that I have found it necessary considerably to increase the sum provided for these purposes in the Estimates of the year. The work of barrack improvement has, unfortunately, been considerably delayed by the long and severe winter, and the preparation of plans is a long and troublesome process,
  1176
  which is, however, being actively pushed on, while in many directions considerable progress has been made in building. Visitors to Aldershot during the summer will see the new brick camps rapidly springing up, and I hope that the occupation of some of the new blocks early next year will enable the much-needed work of demolition to begin. The increase of the troops at Alder shot has necessitated an addition to the hospital accommodation, which is being provided partly at the Cambridge Hospital, and partly on a new site in North Camp. Active work is also going on at Shorncliffe, while at Dover the improvements are nearly complete. In London, the large alterations required at the Albany Barracks will be almost immediately begun, and the additional officers' quarters provided at Wellington and Chelsea Barracks are in active progress. In Ireland the opportunity has been taken to re-consider, upon comprehensive grounds, the distribution of the reduced number of troops to be maintained in that country. Lord Wolseley has, with great activity, visited almost all districts, and a scheme of distribution has been agreed upon. Its main features are included in the endeavour to concentrate as much Royal Artillery and Cavalry as possible at New bridge and at the Curragh, which afford the best places of training. The garrison of Dublin will be reduced by one cavalry regiment. In the meantime, improvement is going on in all the Dublin barracks. The question whether it is desirable to discontinue the use of the remaining portion of the Royal Barracks has been very carefully threshed out by the Sanitary Committee and at the War Office. The result is a decision to occupy the barracks, after complete sanitary overhauling and partial re-construction, with a battalion of Infantry and the Army Service Corps, leaving the rest of the buildings to be occupied as storehouses, for which they are very conveniently situated. Good progress is being made at Wellington, and the new barracks at Grangegorman will be partially occupied by cavalry in a very few months' time. Work is also going on at the various fortresses and coaling-stations where improved or additional barrack accommodation is required; though, in several cases, the

  1177
  negotiations with the Colonial Governments for the necessary land have caused very considerable delay. But, taking the work all round, it will be seen that very considerable progress has been made in barrack improvement. Now I come to the third head in which progress has been made. We have during the past year pushed on in all directions measures for the speedy mobilisation of our defensive forces in time of war. These measures are based, not upon preparations for sending a large force abroad—and for this reason alone they cannot properly be compared with those of Continental armies—but upon the idea that, while we ought always to be able at short notice to send a comparatively small force abroad, and while we must make provision for strengthening certain colonial garrisons, our duty also is to organise all our Defensive Forces, Regular and Auxiliary, into the most effective engine for the defence of the country against invasion. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate the general features of the scheme, which have already been explained to the House, and upon which we are working. We have taken stock of all our available resources, and after making full provision for the necessities of the garrisons of ports and coaling stations at home and abroad, we are organising all our remaining home forces into an army of defence. The general officers of districts have received detailed information as to the composition of its various sections, and as to the points of mobilisation, concentration and storage; and at the War Office itself every effort has been made for as complete decentralisation as is possible, which will put it in the power of district authorities to carry out the steps necessary for mobilisation, without reference to headquarters. That decentralisation of stores in particular has, to a large extent, been effected. The stores, for instance, required for the troops at Aldershot, which, under the old system, might have taken six weeks to get out of Woolwich, are now actually stored between Alder shot and Southampton, at which latter place some of the heavier equipment is placed, so as to be ready for immediate shipment in case of the Alder shot troops having to be sent abroad. There are other centers, also,
  1178
  where the scheme of decentralisation is practically complete. I hope that the House fully understands what is intended, and what is, to a large extent, actually carried out. On the occurrence of an emergency the troops (mainly drawn from the Regular Army) forming the first line of defence will concentrate at the appointed stations, which are all situated at important railway junctions, enabling them to be transported, with the least possible delay, to the threatened district. Every detail necessary for this, purpose is being laid down, and when our store arrangements are quite complete the stores necessary for them to take the field will be either at their peace stations or in magazines situated at or near to the points of concentration. Behind the Army is the great Volunteer Army, consisting of 19 brigades of Infantry with 80 batteries of Artillery, who will assemble at the points where danger is principally apprehended, and who will find there all that they require for encampment. In this country, with the immense variety in the conditions of service, the details of such a scheme are specially difficult to arrange. But they are all being worked out so as to leave nothing uncertain when the emergency arises. Among the many points in which advance has been made—because in this year I have to speak mainly, not of new principles, but of the manner in which these principles have been applied—I may mention the attention which has been paid by the Army Medical Department to the formation of base hospitals, and all the necessary organisation required for the wounded. A system has also been devised for providing in every Volunteer brigade a bearer and a supply company, so as to render them independent of the Regular Army in these respects. Much progress is being made in both cases. The demand for horses on mobilisation has been thoroughly dealt with by the Remount Department, which was founded three years ago. We have now actually upon the register 14,000 horses, of which over 3,000 are riding horses, broken to bit and bridle and suitable for cavalry. And here I cannot help saying how much we are indebted to the masters of hounds who have registered to a great extent the horses under

  1179
  their control, which every one will admit to be the horses exactly suited to our purpose and such as our cavalry would require on an emergency. An increasing number have been registered by masters of hounds, whose patriotic action in the matter cannot be too highly commended. And when it is remembered that of the large number of horses required by the cavalry on mobilisation a very large proportion are draught and not riding horses, our position will appear still more satisfactory than it does at first sight. I may add that the great experience now gained by the officers of the Remount Department will enable them at a critical time to lay their hands on the remaining horses necessary for home defence with very little delay. We have now by law obtained the power to take those horses whenever any difficulties may arise, and therefore in this most important matter of horses it is difficult to exaggerate the improvement that has taken place during the last two years. But in the course of framing a scheme for the general defence of the country we have been led very carefully to consider the question whether we are satisfied that the number of regular troops asked for is really necessary, and whether the increased strength of the Navy and the advancing efficiency of the Volunteers do not justify some reduction. Having regard, therefore, to the purposes for which our regular Army is required, I would venture to make the following remarks upon the different arms of the Service. We have sufficient cavalry for all expected requirements. In an enclosed country like England cavalry could not easily operate in large bodies, and after providing for the modest requirements of any force we should send abroad we should still have enough left for the work they would have to do. The cavalry manœuvres sanctioned last year have been of very great value. They have exposed certain defects, and they have taught useful lessons. To what changes, if any, they ought to lead in cavalry organisation is a question to which much consideration is being given. But upon that point I am not able at present to give any information to the House. We have barely enough Royal Engineers for the requirements of colonial garrisons and of home defence; and the demands upon this corps for all
  1180
  sorts of practical purposes in every part of the world tend rather to increase; but here we have a considerable body of Volunteer engineers, upon which we could rely for assistance in the work of home defence. We have just sufficient Horse and Field Artillery for our requirements. It is assumed, of course, that it is not necessary to associate batteries of Regular Artillery with our Volunteer Army. Indeed, the steadily increasing efficiency of the new batteries of position makes this an assumption which can be made with safety. With regard to the Garrison Artillery, it is more difficult to speak, because its whole position has been materially altered by the introduction of the new and complicated armaments now in use. Everything points to the necessity for coast defence of a small picked body of men with special acquirements and practical knowledge of the armaments of each place to be defended, who must be supplemented by a larger body of less skilled, and to a large extent af Auxiliary Troops. I hope, in the present Session, to fie able to make proposals in this direction, but it is in the meantime premature to discuss the matter further. It is upon the strength of the Infantry that difference of opinion is most likely to arise. I state the case, therefore, as it is presented to me from a military point of view. According to the principle accepted by Parliament at the time of the introduction of the territorial system, it was always intended that for one battalion maintained abroad one should be kept at home to supply the necessary drafts. This is not, and has never been, the case, though the disproportion between the number of battalions abroad and at home is beyond the normal, in consequence of the occupation of Egypt. It may be added to this that it has been found necessary first of all in 1885 to add 10,000 men (of which 8,000 are Infantry) to our Indian Establishment; and, secondly, since that time, to increase somewhat the strength of certain colonial garrisons, and to make also provision for further reinforcement at short notice in time of emergency. At this moment we have 65 battalions at home, besides the Guards, and 76 abroad, the drafts for the extra battalions being provided by larger

  1181
  depâts maintained at home. I think that mere statement from me without one word further will show that no reduction in the number of battalions can be thought of. Then it may be asked whether they are maintained at an excessive strength. The establishment of the battalions first for service is fixed at a much higher figure, but the regular home establishment now is 720 rank and file. Looking to the fact that we have annually to provide as drafts for the battalions abroad no less than 170 men who must all be over 20 and have had six months' training, and that we must at least be able to maintain our home battalions, after providing for these drafts, in a reasonable state of efficiency for home defence and for the other purposes of our Army, it is, I think, very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the establishment we maintain is no more than adequate. There are just a few other points as to which I ought to say a few words. They shall be very few, because I think I have trespassed at enormous length on the attention of the House to-night. As to the division of the Vote that took place a few years ago between the Army and the Navy, the Navy has accepted the responsibility of accounting to Parliament for its portion of the Vote; and, in respect to the division of the stores, both the Army and Navy will co-operate to carry out what is desired. Similar steps to those we have taken at home remain to be taken on foreign stations, but that matter requires further investigation, and I do not think I am entitled to express an opinion on the subject at present. And there is one other question I should mention. The Committee will remember that when I spoke last year of the changes that were taking place in the administration of the War Office, I also undertook to take an opportunity of mentioning the changes we propose as to Promotion Boards. Though I cannot even now give any details—for I should be detaining the Committee too long—I can state, generally, the effect of the changes we propose to make. Everybody will understand that under the present system Lieutenant Colonels will not be promoted to be Colonels, except by selection; and, therefore, we find ourselves in this state: that Lieutenant
  1182
  Colonels, after promotion abroad to regimental commands or service on the Staff, will be placed on half-pay, unless they elect to take retired pay. It would be obviously unfair to allow officers in that position to remain on half-pay, unless, in the opinion of the Authorities, there is a chance of their obtaining employment or promotion. A Promotion Board is, therefore, necessary. We propose to appoint a Board which will be composed of five general officers, three of whom will be senior Generals holding command in the United Kingdom—not, of course, connected with the War Office. Independent of that, three senior officers, for the time being in command in the United Kingdom—and who are willing to serve—will be members of the Board, and the remaining members will be two general officers added according to the particular branch of the Service which is under consideration. That is to say, if a question of promotion in the Cavalry is under consideration there will be two Cavalry officers on the Board, and if a question of promotion in the Artillery is under consideration there will be two Artillery officers on it, so that such arrangements have been made that each branch of the Service will have the opportunity, through its representatives, of taking care that the claims of any particular officer are fully considered before they are rejected. As far as practicable, in making selections, seniority will be observed in order to avoid supersession, but where a younger officer has special qualifications to meet special requirements his selection must necessitate supersession. I believe the Services would recognise that the Board has been framed with an earnest desire to give every officer, whether he has seen foreign service or not, the fullest opportunity of selection. There is one change contemplated during the year as to which I have not been able to enter into details; I refer to the change introduced into the Royal Artillery. I have taken money in the Estimates to enable that change to be carried out, but until the House can be placed in possession of this very important change in its complete form, I think the best thing I can do is to abstain from speaking of it. I think I have stated enough to the Committee to show that the past year,

  1183
  certainly the three years that have passed, have not been inactive, and that we have done much, at any rate as much as we think we could do with all the great interests that we have to protect on one side or the other, to improve the general defensive position of the country, and to increase the efficiency of the defensive forces to whom that defence is intrusted.
  COLONEL NOLAN:I always admire the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, because he always manages, as on the present occasion, to tell us extraordinarily little, but to make that little extremely interesting. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has placed his heavy-stores between Alder-shot and Southampton instead of at Woolwich. I rather doubt, however, whether stores can be obtained with such extreme rapidity from the new station if it takes so long a time to get them from Woolwich. I agree that the acquisition of the horses mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is a valuable one, but as to the scheme of organisation put forward by him I would point out that it was purely a paper organisation. The War Office produces every year a new scheme for the defence of the country. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little more into figures. His usual custom is to be extremely explicit, but in his speech to-night he has sketched out everything vaguely. He told us he had organised 19 brigades of Volunteer Infantry, but he did not tell us how many men there were in them. Then he told us there were 18 batteries of Volunteer Artillery. Does he mean that they all have field guns, or that they are batteries of garrison artillery? I did not know that there were 18 batteries of Volunteer Artillery at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman has also been extremely vague on the question of barracks. As an Irish Member, I positively object to
  1184
  the policy of Lord Wolseley in Ireland, as sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says the greater part of the troops in Ireland are to be concentrated at New-bridge and the Curragh.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:The Cavalry and Artillery.
  COLONEL NOLAN:In that case it is a matter of less importance, but it is still of considerable importance. The troops are accustomed to be in town quarters, and like to be there for a large part of the year, whilst the inhabitants of the towns like the troops and make money out of them. I do not say the men will not be better instructed if concentrated in camps; but the system is very much against the interests of the inhabitants and against the comfort of the troops, whilst it is opposed to the custom of every European nation.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS BILL. (No. 159.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

  POSSESSION OF GAME BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Dorington, Bill to amend the Law in reference to the illegal possession of Game, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Dorington, Mr. Mount, Mr. Whitmore, and Mr. Darling.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 226.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
THE EARL OF MORLEY:My Lords, I beg leave to present a Report from the Committee of Selection appointed for Standing Committees, and I shall not do so in absolute silence for this reason: that the Committee of Selection have not pursued precisely the same course as was followed last year. In accordance with the apparent wish of the House they have this year only appointed one Committee, but they wish it to be distinctly understood that the 72 noble Lords who are placed on that Committee are only to be appointed for a time, probably till Easter, the object being to appoint noble Lords only who are likely to attend up to that period After Easter it will probably be necessary to re-constitute the Committee or to appoint again the two Committees, as was the case last year. But I was anxious that it should be distinctly understood by noble Lords who are not placed on this Committee now, that if they desire to be placed thereon, according to the new Standing Orders, there will be no difficulty in the Committee of Selection placing them on it.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. L.) nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairmen of Standing Committees:

L. Chancellor.

E. Camperdown.

E. Cadogan (L. Privy Seal.)

E. Kimberley.

E. Selborne.

E. Derby.

L. Monk Bretton.

E. Belmore.

L. Herschell.

E. Morley.

L. Basing.

And that the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. XLVI.) nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee appointed on Thursday last:

L. Abp. Of Canterbury.

D. Rutland.

L. Chancellor.

M. Salisbury.

L. Archbishop of York.

M. Abercorn. (D. Abercorn.)

V. Cranbrook. (L. President.)

E. Mount-Edgcumbe. (L. Steward.)

E. Cadogan. (L. Privy Seal.)

E. Lathom. (L. Chamberlain)

D. Saint Albans.

E. Derby.

L. Foxford. (E. Limerick.)

E. Chesterfield.

E. Lauderdale.

L. Colchester.

E. Cowper.

L. Ker.(M. Lothian.)

E. Stanhope.

L. Clanwilliam. (E. Clanwilliam.)

E. Waldegrave.

E. Spencer.

L. Chaworth. (E. Meath.)

E. Lucan

E. Belmore.

L. Sudeley

E. Brownlow.

L. Houghton.

E. Morley.

L. Romilly.

E. Beauchamp.

L. Kenry. (E. Dun raven and Mount Earl.)

E. Camperdown.

E. Granville.

E. Kimberley.

L. Norton.

E. Wharncliffe.

L. Shute. (V. Barrington.)

E. Northbrook.

E. Selborne.

L. Watson.

V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

L. Brabourne.

L. Hothfield.

V. Oxenbridge.

L. Bramwell.

V. Cross.

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Bp. London.

L. Monkswell.

L. Bp. Winchester.

L. Lingen.

L. Bp. Carlisle.

L. Ashbourne.

L. Knutsford. (One of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.)

L. Wantage.

L. Elphinstone.

L. Herschell.

L. Hillingdon.

L. Willoughby de Eresby.

L. Kensington.

L. Thring.

L. Zouche of Haryng worth.

L. Machnaghten.

L. Basing.

L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

L. De Ramsey.

L. Morris.

L. Balfour.

L. Field.

L. Boyle.(E. Cork and Orrery.)

L. Hannen.

Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law with respect to the qualification of Justices of the Peace was presented by the Duke of St. Albans; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Tuesday the 3rd of March next. (No. 39.)
TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL. (No. 38.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY):My Lords, this Bill is not a stranger to your Lordships. It has appeared for many years before this House. It has made many journeys and has been exposed to many vicissitudes since you first made acquaintance with it. Whether the results have been altogether salutary I cannot say. At all events its fair proportions have been very much diminished, and it is now reduced to an amount, not

  1011
  such as we should wish to pass, but to an amount which, under the existing practice and conditions of Parliament, it is possible to pass. A Bill raising severe controversial differences, although meeting with a large amount of approval and sustained by strong Parliamentary majorities, could hardly be expected to pass in the present state of Parliamentary business unless every unnecessary weight were removed from it. The most important change that has taken place in the Bill since it was first introduced here is the abandonment for the time of all attempts to legislate upon the question of tithe redemption; but it must not be supposed that by that abandonment we in the least degree renounce our opinion that tithe redemption is a subject well worthy of the attention of Parliament, or that there are evils which require remedying. But it is a very difficult and complicated subject, and we have thought it better to consent to refer it to a Commission in the first instance before inviting Parliament to consider it more carefully. The Bill is now limited practically to effecting two changes in the law. One of them is that process before the County Court is substituted for the simple process of distress by which the tithe owner now recovers the money that is due to him. The other is that the landowner pays directly instead of paying through the hands of the occupier. The first of these two changes has, I think, already commended itself to your Lordships, and I do not think that it requires much recommendation. It is evident that process before the County Court is more in harmony with the general character of our legislation than the ancient process of independent distress. The actual procedure, as far as regards the levying of the tithe, will not vary very largely, because in order to secure that the tithe payer shall not be in a worse position than he is now, the Bill limits the action of the County Court to those remedies now open to the tithe owner. By the Act of 1836, in the first instance, distress is to be levied upon such produce as is to be found upon the land on which tithe is chargeable, and if that is not sufficient, in the second place, there is to be an appointment of a receiver to cultivate the land in place of the owner. That is practically the remedy that is given by the Act of
  1012
  1836, and, with small differences, that is the remedy given by this Bill. But there will be this great difference—namtely, that the processes will take place under the direct operation and sanction of a Court of Law, and will not bring the tithe owner into that close conflict and struggle with the tithe payer which is in all cases a matter to be deplored, and especially in cases where the tithe owner is, as he generally is, the spiritual pastor of the parish, with the result that an unnecessary amount of lamentable friction occurs between the pastor and his flock. We believe that a very considerable amount of the difference which has arisen in some parts of the country with regard to the payment of tithes will be gradually diminished, or, at all events, very much mitigated, by substituting the sanction of a Court of Law for the unsupported and unsanctioned act of the creditor himself. The other change is one of great importance, and is one to which we look for a more wide - reaching and permanent effect, and that change is the substitution of the owner instead of the occupier as the person on whom the tithe is levied. That was the original policy of the Act of 1836, and the present state of things, by which the payment of the tithe and the risk of all alteration in the value of the tithe fall upon the farmer—which is a state of things over a large part of the country—certainly never was contemplated by those who passed the Act of 1836. I do not say that it can be called an absolute departure from the Act, but I think it is entirely at variance with its spirit and intention. What the Act of 1836 says with respect to the relations of the cultivator to his landlord is, that any tenant who shall occupy any lands by agreement made subsequent to the cumulation of any of the rent-charge upon it, shall be entitled to deduct the amount thereby payable from the rent he has to pay to his landlord, and it shall be allowed to him in account with his landlord. Those words, although they do not actually say so, evidently contemplate that the precise sum which the occupier has paid to the tithe owner he shall afterwards recover from his landlord. But that is not the practice throughout a large part of the country. In many places the practice is that the

  1013
  farmer takes upon himself the whole risk of the variation in the value of the produce; that he takes the surplus when it is above par and he loses when it is below par; and that a fixed rent without variation is paid to the landlord. I do not say that the farmer loses on that account, and I do not say that in itself it is an undesirable arrangement, but the evil of it is that in bad times the farmer feels the loss very severely, and is apt to think himself very much aggrieved unless he obtains from the tithe owner the same sort of remission which a farmer under such circumstances expects to obtain from his landlord. It is not just to the poorer clergy that these remissions should be asked for. Their payment is low enough in all conscience as it is, and it was intended by the Legislature that whatever was secured to them by the Act they should receive. But in many districts they have been subjected to the pressure of opinion, which it was almost impossible for them to resist or appeal against, and which forced them, in addition to the less which they sustained by the fall in the tithe rent-charge, to make considerable remissions to the tithepayer besides, in order to meet the bad times and the suffering which the agricultural classes have been undergoing. I feel that this is one of the practical evils which has resulted from our not following the policy of the law of 1836, and departing, in fact, from the provisions which it laid down. We propose to return to the system which it was intended then to institute, and in making this proposal I must demur entirely to the language that has been sometimes held, as though we were departing from the bargain of 1836, and placing the tithe owners in a more favourable position than Parliament intended them to occupy. That is distinctly not the case. Parliament distinctly intended that they should occupy the position which is defined by this Bill, but the machinery was imperfect, and the intention has been defeated in practice by the custom which has grown up. There is only one more provision to which I need refer. There are, of course, many details and many difficult questions which your Lordships will give careful attention to when the Bill goes into Committee, but I do not think it neces-
  1014
  sary for me to touch upon them at this stage. There is only one thing which is, in principle, of great importance, and to which I will refer in a few words, and that is the remission which the County Court is enjoined to give where it shall appear that the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the assessed value of the land. I need not say that this will not be of frequent occurrence, but in a few parts of the country there are cases in which it does happen, and the policy which Parliament should pursue in such cases should be as carefully considered as if it was likely to be of general effect. I think that there will be no difference of opinion upon this point, that when we are adjusting the remedies which the tithe owner is to use for the purpose of recovering his tithe, we should be careful that nothing is done which will have a tendency to throw land out of cultivation. If the tithe exceeds the assessed value of the land, it is obvious that the land must go out of cultivation, because the farmer will be giving his pains and his capital to the cultivation of the land without receiving the full return for what he expends, and he naturally will not continue to incur that expense for the benefit of the tithe owner, to whom the money is to go, and therefore will cease to cultivate the land; and when the land is no longer cultivated, there will be no produce upon which the tithe can be levied. In arresting that state of things we are doing the tithe owner no wrong because that condition would deprive him of the produce on which his tithe is to be levied. We are preventing the arising of a condition of things in which not only will the land go largely out of cultivation, which is a great public evil, but there will be no produce which will be titheable, which is a great evil to the tithe owner himself. But we go a step further than that, and, although I quite admit it is open to considerable question and dispute, still on the whole I think that the course we have taken is capable of being adequately defended. We have resolved not only that if the tithe exceeds the assessed value of the land, but that if it exceeds two-thirds of the value there shall be a remission of the rent-charge. Now that difference of one-third represents the expense and the difficulty which the tithe owner would be at if he had to

  1015
  exercise the remedies which are placed in his hands. The remedy, which is practically given to the tithe owner in the case of land like that which is at the very edge of the cost of cultivating it, is to take the land into his own hands and cultivate it and so raise the amount of his tithe. Nobody believes that he could take it into his own hands and cultivate it with a result equal to that which the farmer already in possession, with the experience and with all the convenience which long occupation and skill would give him, would be able to cultivate it in his place. We have measured the difference between the two as being one-third of the assessment. It is a rough measurement, but I believe on the whole it is a fair one. Many persons have pressed us to go as far as one-half; but without being able to put down in exact figures the steps of the calculation, my impression is, judging from the opinion of persons well skilled in this matter which we have had the advantage of hearing, this remission of one-third will fairly and approximately represent the negative value to the tithe owner of the remedy by which alone he can recover the tithe in that case. We, therefore, give the County Court Judge power up to that point to make such remission within those limits as he shall think fit. There is only one other observation I wish to make, and it is with reference to the Amendment of which notice has been given. Of course I have no right to forecast the nature of the opposition my noble Friend will raise against this Bill. It is possible that it may be entirely different from what I anticipate. He may be the enthusiastic advocate for the tithe owners. He may think that this is a Bill for the confiscation of tithes. He may think that much greater advantages ought to have been given to the tithe owner than are given to him; but if I am to found myself on the language he has previously used, I gather that he wants in any Bill of this kind to re-open the settlement of 1836. Now, if it is intended to do this on just principles, that is to say, if it is intended to give to the tithe owner substantially that which by the common law he has a right to the law which has existed for many centuries—namely, one-tenth part of the gross value of the land—the proposal which has been submitted by
  1016
  my noble Friend would be the most disastrous proposal to the landowners that could be made. In the settlement of 1836 the Church agreed to the loss of a great deal for the sake of getting permanence and peace. It is very easy to ascertain that that was the case. The reckoning may be difficult if you follow it into all the possible Varieties of crops that can be grown; but very few figures and a slight consideration will show you that tithes, as calculated according to the principles which prevailed up to 1836, and tithes as levied now at present prices, would be very much in excess of anything that the tithe owner receives. Take corn. The practice up to 1836 was to let the straw represent the cost of threshing and dressing for market. The tithe owner had a right to the corn as soon as it was cut, but for the further process he had to pay, and his practice was to pay for them by surrendering the straw to the occupier. That was a very good bargain for the occupier then, but it would be even better now, for in consequence of the increased facilities in locomotion, straw is a very valuable agricultural product. I do not know whether I have the assent of the noble Lord opposite.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:It is not so with us.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Then I pity you. But at all events that was the practice throughout the greater part of the country. I do not know that I shall command the assent of the noble Earl if I say that the price at present rates of an acre of grain of all kinds, leaving out the straw, may be very fairly taken at £5. I think if the noble Earl will make the calculation he will not find I am very far wrong, though, perhaps, I have underrated the price of barley a little. If that be the case it requires very little calculation to find that the tithe of that sum is 10s.; but it is seldom indeed that the occupier now has to pay a tenth, and 10s. an acre would be enormously in excess of what he has now to pay. That there are cases where 10s. would be paid I am well aware, but they are exceedingly rare; and in most cases throughout the country 10s. would be enormously in excess. But even if you go to the opposite end of the scale and take a less remunerative crop, the crop of hay. The tithe owner before 1836

  1017
  had a right to the hay when it was put in cock—he had a right to have it made up to that point. I suppose I am not exaggerating prices when I say that 60s. an acre for hay in cock would be very readily given in most places, and 6s. an acre, though not an unknown tithe is a very large tithe in any part of the country. The more you look at this by the light of the figures the more you will see that the tithe payer made a very good bargain in 1836, and that even now he would make a very bad bargain if he invited a reconsideration of the covenants. What I think misleads people is the fact that parsons in those days were satisfied with much less, and there were all kinds of agreements and practices and customs which had grown up by which the parsons received really and substantially less than a tenth part of the gross value of the produce of the land. But those were agreements to which no person was bound who had not made them. In the then difficulty of communication, in the difficulties which the parson had in disposing of the produce when he had it, it was no doubt to his interest to make agreement of this kind. But it was decided, in a case before the Court of Exchequer, just before the passing of the Act of 1836, and I think that was one of the causes which led to the passing of that Act, that such engagements were not in the least degree permanently binding, that they were purely voluntary acts on the part of each successive clergyman, and that the clergyman could always, if he chose, resort to his Common Law right of having the tenth part of the gross value of the crop. Therefore, for those reasons, the tithe owner would gain very much if there was a re-valuation. And also, you must remember, that if there was a re-valuation, something according to all fair principles would have to be paid for the growing value of the land. That was an element which was entirely neglected and passed over in 1836; but if you intend to behave fairly in the matter, and to deal with it on the principles on which you buy land for any public purpose, I think you would have to take that circumstance also into consideration. But I have no doubt my noble Friend behind me will not condescend to any calculations of this kind. He will simply rely on the distressed
  1018
  state of agriculture, and the right of owners and occupiers to be relieved. He will rely upon the fact that this is a powerful interest, and that the Church is comparatively weak. My Lords, arguments of that kind which have been put forward in more or less disguise are really nothing but throwing your sword into the scale. They are departing from the principle of justice in dealing with others, and that departure will be subject to all the penalties which every departure from the principle of justice involves. The practice of throwing the sword into the scale is one that when once it begins is very contagious, and it is one winch certainly the owners of property would not be prudent, by their example, to encourage. I submit this Bill with some satisfaction to your Lordships, because I hope that at last we are in sight of harbour; but I earnestly trust that it may pass through your House without any alteration sufficiently grave to make its success in the other House doubtful. I am well aware that your Lordships will carefully consider the Bill, and I have no doubt that many valuable Amendments will be introduced. We shall have an opportunity of considering it in Committee of the whole House, and afterwards in the Standing Committee, and I earnestly hope that when those deliberations are concluded we shall have produced a measure which will secure the assent of the other House of Parliament, and which will introduce a very much needed amendment in the administration of the law. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE:My Lords, the noble Marquess, in the eloquent speech which he has just addressed to us, has congratulated us upon the fact that his ship is at last within sight of harbour; but at the beginnning of his speech he told us that this measure is only a part of the tithe reform that is contemplated, and therefore I fear that though the harbour may be reached on this occasion, the ship will have to put out to sea again, and that her future setting out may be accompanied by disaster. I know that I am engaged upon a very thankless and

  1019
  hopeless task in opposing the principle of the Government measure on this occasion, but I am emboldened to do so by two considerations. In the first place I cannot forget that, however unanimous Parliament may appear at this moment to be on the subject of this Bill, only fire years ago they were equally unanimous in passing a Bill upon the kindred subject of extraordinary tithe of which no one whom I have ever heard speak of it has had a good word to say since. That was a measure which related to the addition made to ordinary tithe on lands upon which crops of a specially lucrative character were being grown, which ceased when the crops were no longer grown. Well, Parliament abolished that tax for the future, but in respect of the past it appointed Commissioners to ascertain in some extraordinary way the gross value of that tithe, and then imposed upon the owners of the lands (who had received no benefit from the crops in question) an everlasting burden by way of rent-charge, and made them pay for setting the law in motion. But there is another reason why I hope Parliament will yet deal with greater caution than it has done with this matter. This is not the first Bill the present Government has introduced upon this subject. I am bound to admit that the second Bill was an improvement upon the first, and that this Bill is somewhat an improvement upon the second; but judging by that happy result I am also inclined to think that if the Government will take back their Bill, make a little further inquiry into the matter, and make it somewhat more like the one previously introduced, it is possible that at last we may have a Bill that is nearer perfection than the one before the House. Now I put it to your Lordships—was there ever in the history of Parliament or of this country a measure brought forward with so little inquiry, or with so little demand for it? Who has asked or petitioned for this Bill, and what statistics have your Lordships had placed before you—what evidence to show that the present system is not working well in England? I may be told—I have seen it stated in the public newspapers—that the reason for the introduction of this Bill is the difficulty of collecting the tithe in Wales. Well, that may possibly
  1020
  be an argument for confining the operation of this Bill to the Principality; but if you are going to change your system, whether it be in England or in Wales, you ought first to show that there is some fault in the present system, and that has not been proved or even alleged upon any statistics which have been presented to this House. I myself asked the noble Marquess last year if he could furnish some statistics in the matter; but he replied that he did not know how or where they could be got. If, since 1836, when this Act was passed, there have been no complaints in this country,—as I maintain has been the case—of the manner of collecting this tax, why is the whole of England to be disturbed and existing arrangements upset because there has lately been a difficulty experienced in Wales? So far as I understand it, though I do not pretend to be very conversant with that agitation, it is due to a different cause altogether. It is not a protest against the manner in which the tithes are levied, but to the application of them after they are levied; and therefore, whatever you may do, however you may alter the manner in which the collection is made, that objection will remain. But there seems to have stolen into the imagination of the Ministry some idea that people who resist and detest distraint at the present moment are going to be entirely satisfied the moment that distraint is put in force by the County Court, and not by the owners, the clergy themselves. That is an entire surmise, and for my part I believe the dissatisfaction arises from the distraint itself, and that the resistance would be the same in vigour and vivacity from whatever quarter the distasteful operation may be enforced. Now, the noble Marquess stated fairly enough what the object was of the Bill of 1836. He said very truly that the object was to make the landlord liable. That is true; and what I contend is that the landlord always has been, in fact, liable ever since the Act of 1836. It is quite true that in many instances the tithe is paid through the occupier, but how does that affect the position? If I give my butler £5 in addition to his wages in order that he may pay bills to that amount for me, I am not increasing his wages by £5; and in the same way if I let a farm for £80 instead of —100 in

  1021
  order that the farmer may himself pay some charge to the estimated amount of £20 upon the land, I am not putting upon that tenant any burden. He is not bearing the burden upon the land; and what the noble Marquess has really done I will describe in a moment. Here let me say how astonished I have been at hearing the claim which has been put forward, not, I own, by the noble Marquess, but by some of his supporters, that this is a great benefit to the tenant farmers of England. A Member of Parliament, more or less distinguished, no doubt, came down to my part of the country the other day and made a speech to an enthusiastic audience of 56 persons, of whom ten were clergymen—in which he said that the present Government had done a great many good things, which I do not dispute, but the greatest boon ever conferred on the tenant-farmers was shifting the burden of the tithe to the shoulders of the owner from the shoulders of the hard working tenant-farmer. The error of that statement is only equalled by its audacity. If there was any gratitude due to anybody it is due to the Whig Government of 1836, who put the burden upon the shoulders of the owner. Everybody knows that the owner is liable. The process gone through where a tenant is about to leave his farm and has not paid his tithe is very simple: the agent of the landlord goes to the valuer, who is valuing him out, and tells him that he must not pay over the valuation until a receipt has been produced for the rent and tithe. The Government know that they are not benefitting the tenant-farmer at all. What they are doing in this Bill is to say that certain arrangements which have existed, and have answered since 1836, shall no longer be allowed to exist—that is to say, they who have so often on other occasions protested against the violation of private contracts are going to declare that this particular description of private contract shall no longer exist. But I leave the noble Marquess, if he will so far condescend to ask himself one single question—why is it that the rent-charge has been so constantly paid through the occupier, and not directly through the landlord? The question answers itself. This arrangement has grown upon account of its convenience; it is not a thing which has
  1022
  been imposed upon trembling occupiers and fearful tenant-farmers by cruel landlords. It is a simple arrangement which has grown up because it has been found so convenient. This Bill is going to find out the owner everywhere, but I venture to say you will find a little difficulty sometimes in doing that. I do not think the noble Marquess has realised the enormous difficulty of it. Let him go into any house here in this Metropolis, or in the suburbs, and try to find who is the owner. He may find that there is, first, the occupier, then a sub-lessee, probably several, then the long lessee, then a mortgagee, and at last he arrives at the man who has what the lawyers call the "equity of redemption." You may know that he exists but you have to find him, and the difficulty of finding him will be immense. My belief is that without intending it, the noble Marquess will in many instances plunge the tithe owner into a sea of litigation and difficulty of which he has no conception at the present moment. I have said that it is a misstatement to say that the Government are conferring a benefit upon the tenant-farmers. If I thought they were doing so I should be among the first to give the Government credit for it, for I am always willing to give them credit if I can, but in this instance I must deny that there is any credit due to them. The noble Marquess told us that the Act of 1836 was an immense benefit to the landowners, and that great sacrifices were then made by the Church. Now, I utterly dispute that proposition, and I ask noble Lords to read the history of that time as contained in the Debates upon that Act if they wish to know the real state of things. In the first place, from the manner in which the tithe was collected, the system had become so unpopular that many people thought it was time to sweep it away altogether, and the whole system of tithes and the position of the Church were never in greater danger. That Act was conceived in the interests of tithe owners and tithepayers alike. I have here a quotation from a speech of Lord John Russell upon the subject. Lord John Russell's own words were—
  "The income of the clergy will ultimately flow from the landowners, and not from the tenants or farmers, and the clergyman will be relieved from an alternative that now often exists, either of making a personal enemy by

  1023
  pressing his demand or injuring himself by abandoning it."
  But what, has been the loss? I have explained how it was that the system grew up by which the tithe was often paid through the occupier. Let us now ask ourselves how about this great sacrifice on the part of the Church? It was stated in the Debates at that time, and without contradiction, that the opinion of that Bill throughout the country was such that it was popularly called the "Clergyman's Bill." I will not go so far as to say that was correct, but it is certain that one great point which had to be faced by them in the matter was the expenses of collection. The noble Marquess tried two or three times to show, from the manner in which the tithe had to be collected, that undoubtedly a great sacrifice had been made by the Church. I find, however, from the Debates of the time that, while in some instances it was alleged that the costs of collection did not exceed 5 or 10 per cent., in a great many more they constantly came to 40 or 50 per cent., and as the cost of collection was entirely saved to the Church it is not so unnatural, I think, if the noble Marquess will consider what the circumstances of the case were that the measure should have been considered as favourable to the clergy. They had to get the produce from the land and prepare it for market; and to house that produce necessitated the erection of those large tithe-farms which many of us remember, find the maintaining and repairs of these buildings of course involved considerable expense. The Government of that day took evidence upon the matter; they acted with impartiality, and they came to the conclusion that upon the average the tithe owner got, perhaps, £75 out of £100 supposed to be due to him. That is to say. £75 per cent. was the net amount received. Now all that cost of collection was entirely saved to the Church. But there was something besides that. The clergyman besides had the immense advantage of having the land instead of the produce of the land from which to take his claim, and he had the security of the landowner behind him. When the produce of the land had to be looked to, and the clergyman had to take his tithe, every tenth sheep and so on, if any disease attacked the
  1024
  flocks, or if a blight happened to the produce, he was of course a sufferer; but instead of that he then had the hard cash secured to him, which was no trifling benefit to him, and beyond all that he had the security of the landowner who was responsible for the tithe. Therefore to say that the Church made such an enormous sacrifice, and that that Act was for the benefit of the tithepayers is an assertion which in the interests of that justice which the noble Marquess invoked so pathetically just now I cannot allow for a moment to pass. Now, I want to know what is to be the great gain which you are to obtain from this Bill? In the, first place, as I understand it, the owner is to pay direct. Has the noble Marquess thought of the effect of that? As far as regards the tenant farmer, there is an idea that he is to be benefited in some extraordinary manner by this arrangement, and that as far as the clergy are concerned friction is to be avoided. I never could quite understand what is meant by the friction between clergymen and their parishioners. I can understand the existence of friction in Wales, because there the people object to the tithe itself; and I can understand friction existing in some parts of England where the tithes are so heavy that, however patient men may have been under them, they will not be patient much longer. But I deny that in most parts of England there is any friction between the clergy and their parishioners. I believe there is the greatest possible good feeling between them; and whether a man is a small owner paying on his own account or not I believe there is little difficulty from one end of England to the other in the collection of the tithes. I think it is strange that those who pose as the friends of the Church should entertain so bad an opinion of the relations between clergymen and their parishioners. I think that argument of friction is an argument insulting to both, and I do not believe there is that friction. And besides, what is it that is objected to? The occupiers are still to pay the tithe yearly, but I am not to be allowed to say to my tenant, "You are to have your land for so much less rent, and you are to continue to pay the charge yourself," I am to pay the charge, and it is specially

  1025
  enacted in this Bill that a receipt shall be given me specifying that so much of the amount paid is "tithe paid to the Rev. Mr. Smith." Of course, you thereby earmark the payment. The farmers are not going to be deceived. This Bill is really an attempt to humbug the tenant fanners into the belief that you are giving them some advantage which you are not giving them; but they will soon be undeceived, and the effect will be to increase the dissatisfaction in regard to tithe. Whether the Rev. Mr. Smith distrains in respect of the tithe, or whether I distrain in my own name on account of the payment which I am obliged to make to the Rev. Mr. Smith, the tenants are far too sharp not to know exactly how it arises, aid the friction will be as great as ever it was. The noble Marquess has told you what good this transfer to the County Courts is to establish. Well, I am not so certain of it. The County Courts were introduced, I suppose, to afford the public an easy manner of recovering debts and to give cheap law to the community. They have worked well and are popular; and the noble Marquess should consider whether he is not likely to make them unpopular by converting them into engines for extracting tithes from unwilling people. I am not going into the question of what the effect of a re-valuation might be; but I think it is most mischievous to allow the present state of things to exist. Perhaps many noble Lords have read certain publications which have been recently issued, which state the enormous proportion which tithe in a great many instances bears to rent. I happen to know how it operates in my own county. I will give three instances: In the case of one small farm the landlord receives £35 and has to hand over £18 for tithe; in the next case the rent is 20s. an acre and the tithe 10s.; and in the third (these are only, my Lords, some of many similar instances) the rent which the landlord receives is 12s. per acre, of which he has to hand over 8s. to the clergyman, so that he has to be content with 4s. himself. In the case of large landowners that may be a matter of small importance. The most rev. Prelate has told you in a previous Debate how very many tithepayers are small landowners. If you only consider
  1026
  what this burden of tithe is on the land for a moment, I think you will agree with me when I say that it is an enormous and a cruel one, which ought not to be placed on the producers of food in this country. I do say that in dealing with a big subject of this kind, before attempting to give further facilities for inflicting a burden and enforcing such a tax as this, you ought, in the first place, to see that the burden is placed upon a fair and proper footing. Let us have an inquiry; let us have a Commission. That is the proper constitutional mode of proceeding in dealing with a great question like this, in order to ascertain whether there is not land which is too highly rated, and whether there is not land in respect of which the tithe should be much lowered. There ought not to be such a state of things as the Church taking the greater part of the rent, whether only a half or as much as three quarters of the value of the land is taken. Such a condition of things is preposterous; and if it does not appeal to your Lordships now and to the House of Commons, it will come home to you by-and-bye, because it is a cry which will come up again and again until justice is satisfied. The proper course to take would be to inquire, by Commission, into the incidence of the tax, with a view to remedying its inequalities and injustice in many cases. If some such course is not taken now the time will probably soon come when the demand for justice in the matter by the country will force it upon your Lordships and the House of Commons. The noble Marquess has spoken of criticisms on the details of the Bill. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by entering now upon those details. The Committee of your Lordships' House, if the Bill goes into Committee, would be the proper stage at which to consider them. Nor do I mean to detain your Lordships by going into the history of abortive measures in the past. I am satisfied that we have a practical measure to deal with to-night. I have stated what are my objections to this Bill. I believe it is an entire mistake to interfere with a system of arrangement which has grown up by itself, and that very fact shows that it has not been a useless or unpopular arrangement. I believe it is a mistake to place the County Courts in the position in which you are proposing

  1027
  to place them by this Bill, and that it is a still greater mistake to deal with a little bit of this large subject when the Government, with a majority in both Houses, might have taken a comprehensive and effective view of it, and have taken the necessary and proper means to find out where justice lies, and how in this matter justice might be done. I do not suppose that any objections which I have urged against the Bill will be sufficient to induce your Lordships to refuse to give it a Second Reading, introduced as it has been by Her Majesty's Government, but I believe those objections will be recognised elsewhere. I believe they will be felt by the clergy themselves when they find that they are obliged either to forego a claim or to place themselves in irritating and unhappy conflict with their parishioners in the County Courts, and that the clergy, before they have gone very far with the Bill, will find that it is not so acceptable as they have been led to suppose. They may find one difficulty in that part of the Bill which refers to three months' grace being given to the tithe payer. It is necessary that you should give it under the circumstances affecting this Bill. That three months' grace is in substitution for what the noble Marquess in the first Bill proposed—that 5 per cent. should be allowed to the tithepayers who paid within a certain time. That 5 per cent. would have been a boon to some of the tithepayers, and also to the tithe owners, because they would not have been kept out of their money possibly for many months, but would have been paid at once. I think, therefore, the clergy will recognise that this Bill is not so entirely favourable to them as they may have supposed. I believe, also, that my objections to the Bill will be felt by the tenant farmers when they find that, under the proposed system of payment of the tithe, their landlords are obliged to expend large sums, and, therefore, will not be able to extend to them that indulgence and consideration with respect to their rents which they do now at present, when probably a large part of the tithe has been paid by the squire and the larger farmers, the clergyman is able to exercise a judicious clemency as to the rest. But if the squire is obliged to collect and pay it all he will be
  1028
  compelled to press his tenant for, payment in a manner which has not hitherto been done. There is no class, however, that will feel these objections more strongly than the large class of small owners occupying and cultivating their own land. Those men are a very numerous body, particularly in the South and West of England, and they have always regarded the present Government as their special friends, and have supported them accordingly. Here is their reward! The Government forgets or despises and has ignored their complaints, bitter and loud as they have been, in this matter, and has dealt with the question solely in the interests of the tithe owner. This large class must be more than human if they forget this, and if they do not resent such treatment. I am afraid you will drive those men to only one conclusion, the effect of which will be to make them more readily listen to arguments that justice is only to be secured through the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church, that tithe is national property which should be devoted in a just and equitable manner to national purposes, and which must not be imposed in an oppressive manner upon struggling and suffering agriculturists. It may, perhaps, be thought that I am hostile to the Established Church. Not at all. I speak in no spirit of hostility to that Church. I believe the Established Church of England never stood in a stronger position than she does at this moment in some respects; and that in the history of mankind there has never been an Organisation which has made such rapid and excellent progress in good work as the Church of England during the last 50 years. But that is all the more reason why the Church should not be associated with that which I say again is an unjust burden. These payments to the extent of three-fourths of the whole value of the land were never intended to be given. I do not consider now the questions why they were given, or to whom. This question of Disestablishment will be again brought forward, if justice is not done, and before that time comes we shall hear more about this burden if its pressure is not relieved. It is impossible that the small owners in England should be content to go on

  1029
  for ever under this burden. I promised I would not detain your Lordships long, and I think I have kept my word. It is for the reasons I have given that I believe this Bill to be an unwise and unnecessary measure, that I believe the noble Marquess has begun at the wrong end by seeking to impose this tax arbitrarily instead of first putting it upon a reasonable and just basis, and that I feel compelled to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY:My Lords, it is no place of mine to go into the general question of tithe or the terrors we are threatened with. I wish to say a few words upon the question of this particular Bill, and to state what I believe to be the attitude of the chief part of the clergy and loyal Church people with regard to it. The wisest thing that can be done when disorder appears in any part of a body material or a body politic is to attend to the symptoms, in order to ascertain the cause of the evil, and to remedy this as far as may be; and, therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that friction is not characteristic of the relations between clergy and tithepayers at large, yet I believe that it is well, and absolutely necessary in many cases, to diminish friction where it exists now, lest the same cause should begin to act in other quarters. It is not that the County Court alone will diminish friction, or that payment by the landowners will do so; but it is a judicious combination of these two principles in one Bill which I believe will act very widely indeed in the diminution of friction. If the Bill had been brought in for carrying out either of those two principles by itself, objections might have been taken on the other, but it is the combination of the two principles which gives me hope for the working of this Bill. The noble Lord who has just sat down has commended this Bill beyond its predecessors, which is exactly the line which I myself should wish to take. It deals with the question so far as we are now able to deal with it, and it
  1030
  certainly is the most equitable measure of those which have been before us within recent years. But I cannot help regretting exceedingly the omission of that third principle which was expressed before in the Redemption Clauses. The tithe question will not be really settled till the question of redemption is settled. That is a point in which friction is really felt—the payment of very small sums by very small owners—in all directions. They are both difficult for the clergyman to collect and worrying and vexatious for the small owners to pay. But I am perfectly willing to believe that the Royal Commission which is now sitting on the subject will discover upon delicate questions and phenomena relating to the collection of small tithes, so numerous especially in some parts of the country, some means which will enable the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with that subject in a way, perhaps, possible as yet. One of the most equitable improvements in the Bill appears to me to be the omission of that 5 per cent. which was really to be paid to the landowners as compensation for their taking the liability of the tithe on themselves. It gives me confidence in the justice of the country when I consider why that provision has been withdrawn. It really was not, when the tithe agitation began anew, generally understood that the burden was actually laid by the Tithe Commutation Act on the landowner, and that it was intended so to lie. But the testimony of those who were concerned in the drawing of the Bill upon the fair interpretation of the words in it, such clear interpretation as the noble Marquess has enunciated to-night, has satisfied people in all directions that the liability was always really the landowner's. It is satisfactory to feel, that on a better understanding, that the 5 per cent. has been withdrawn from the Bill. There is another point upon which certainly considerable alarm has existed among the clergy. The private letters I have received, as well as the communications made to the newspapers, exhibit it. This alarm is in regard to the concession made in waiving the amount of the tithe rent-charge which exceeds two-thirds of the rateable value under Schedule B

  1031
  of the Income Tax Act. This has been boldly called confiscation; and if it had been pushed to the extent of deducting everything beyond a half when the tithe rent-charge exceeds a half of the value. I think it would have been very difficult and even impossible to defend the provision. I assent to all the noble Marquess said about the difficulty of precisely fixing the ratio which should be established. But in dealing with this property I am certain that a reduction to a half would be a most unfair ratio; but I confess I do not share the alarm of some of the clergy that they will be made sufferers by the provision that, when the tithe rent-charge exceeds two-thirds of the annual value of the land, the excess shall not be paid to them. I do not share the alarm, because at present I feel that the system, which exists is one which does tend to keep land out of cultivation; and I believe that in some parts of the country land is actually kept by it out of cultivation. It is very desirable to remove that lion out of the path. It is unfair to the whole population in a certain way, and unfair to the occupiers and the owners of the land that it should be compelled to lie uncultivated by the fact that, if uncultivated land is taken up again, the cultivator has to face two years of tithe rent-charge in arrears. I believe that, with the provisions of the present Bill, the tithe owner, having to lose only the excess over two-thirds of the annual value, will find that lands will come back into cultivation which have been lying uncultivated, to the great benefit of himself as well as of the farmer. The farmer will be disposed to take the land back into cultivation from the hope that his share will increase, and he will endeavour to cultivate the land in the best manner. It appears to me, therefore, that, though it is but a rough-and-ready estimate that can be formed in this instance, the new provision will be a distinct advantage to both parties. The cases may be, I believe are, few; but this we really do not know at the present time. It may turn out that more land may come into cultivation under benignant provisions than we know of; but, at any rate, the provision will be a distinct advantage to both sides. There is yet another point which has created, and is creating, a considerable alarm. That is connected with the new clauses
  1032
  which were introduced in the other House relating to rating; and these clauses will, I hope, be explained here by those who are thoroughly familiar with the subject. It is an intricate subject, on which I should not presume to enter minutely now; but lam given to understand that by these new clauses the tithe owner will only be placed in the same position as every other ratepayer is placed in; and, moreover, he will be placed in the position which he was supposed to occupy by all except minute investigators of the law until a recent legal decision was given. In practice the tithe owner in the past has been liable to this provision; and I do not think that it would be at all wise or just for us to desire to place ourselves, as tithe owners, in a different position from the rest of the ratepayers of the country. I should be most loth to do anything or to say a word which would tend to make the passage of the Bill difficult when it goes back to another place; but there are two omissions which I trust the Government will be ready to take into their consideration, and if possible I hope they will introduce some fresh clauses on the subject: The first of these points is the omission of the present right to take possession of land which the farmer has let, or is about to let, go out of cultivation, because he thinks he cannot produce from it a sum which will enable him to pay the tithe. At present the tithe owner then has the right of saying that he will take the land over into his own possession and cultivate it himself. Now, I do not know whether this has actually occurred very often; but I am in possession of cases in which the power to do this has induced the farmer to try again, to his own benefit and to that of the tithe owner. The tithe owner has real property in the land; the farmer is the person through whom he receives its value. If the tithe owner demands his own property, and the farmer replies, "You cannot have it because I cannot produce it out of the land," the tithe owner ought to be able to say, "Then allow me; for I think I can." I know that the saying of this in the past has often produced a fresh application of industry and intelligence to the land, to the advantage of both sides. I hope, therefore, that that provision may be

  1033
  put back into this Bill. The other point I wish to mention is this—I do not know how the difficulty is to be overcome; but it appears to me as a real difficulty, and I hope the Government will consider it—it is this: the owner of the land may make arrangements for his tenant to pay a small or almost nominal rent on condition that the tenant erects buildings on the estate, carries out drainage, or brings a supply of water from a distance. I have been connected with transactions of that kind myself, and they are very advantageous and generally fair and above board. But they might also be used in the new state of things in a collusory manner; and in any case, whether used in a collusory manner or employed in good faith, there ought to be some provision by which the value which is not paid in rent, but which, is actually given in the way of buildings, irrigation, or otherwise, shall somehow be ascertained, and not be withdrawn from what is due to the tithe owner. I certainly hope that these two points maybe taken into consideration by the Government, and that some means may be devised for meeting them. In the latter point there is certainly a most real risk and danger. I will not detain, your Lordships longer on the present occasion.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE:My Lords, I wish to state to your Lordships, and I will endeavour to do so at no great length, my reasons, not only for dissenting from the Motion which has been made to read this Bill a second time this day six months, but also for accepting the Bill as likely, on the whole, to meet the exigencies of a very difficult situation. In the first place, I entirely agree that the Bill is an improvement on those of former years. In two particular points that improvement is marked. One is that it adheres very closely—I am bound to say rather too rigidly, if anything, in favour of the tithepayer—to the principle of the existing Commutation Act, which throws the burden of the tithe upon the property and not upon the landowner personally. One or more of the former Bills proposed to make the landowner personally liable. That certainly was going beyond the provisions and the intention of the Commutation Act of 1836. If anything could have justified the bonus of 5 per
  1034
  cent which the same Bill proposed, I think, to give in certain cases to the landowner, it was the imposition of that personal liability which is now abandoned. There was another provision in the same Bill, and, I think, more recently repeated, which I have always looked upon with alarm as to the result which in working might possibly follow, and that was to make a remission to the landowner, no doubt on the same principle as some remission is made to him now, but in the case of the land not being cultivated at a profit. Now, nothing could, I think, have been more difficult, and nothing more alarming, than an investigation of that question in a contested case; and I am very glad to see that those difficulties are overcome in the present Bill by assessing the value of the land to the landowner in a simpler way, and in a self-acting way, with reference to a known existing standard of value, that adopted for the public purpose of Income Tax assessment. The adoption of that standard is in itself a security against it being warped or misdirected or used for any improper purpose. In that respect the Bill is also an improvement upon its latest predecessor, which proposed that there should be a special assessment of the value by the authority which acts for rating purposes. A special assessment for tithe purposes only would have been a less satisfactory way of arriving at any calculation than that proposed by the present Bill founded upon the valuation made for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule B. Having said that, I am bound to say that I acquiesce in, rather than approve of, the 5th clause, which does make a certain deduction in a certain case. I acquiesce very much on the ground stated by the Most Rev. Prelate that the cases are not likely to be very numerous, and it certainly is much better that such a deduction should be made than that the land should become waste and be thrown entirely out of cultivation. I cannot at all adopt the point of view of my noble Friend who moved the Amendment, and who would claim not that deduction, but infinitely larger deductions for the benefit of the landowner, whom he considers to be at present injured by the incidence of the tithe, and to have a first claim to consideration. I will not follow my noble Friend in his general observations, but

  1035
  I must express my entire dissent from the principle on which they were founded, and I will endeavour to do so in the words of much greater authorities than myself. In the first place, I will, in support of my dissent, read some words of Lord Althorp in 1834, which I commend to those who, in the interest of the landowners and landlord, suppose that some general re-adjustment of the tithe rent-charge ought to take place for the purpose of practically relieving the landowners from what they consider to be a burden upon their land. The words which I quote show that it is no burden upon their land at all. It is a share and interest in the property of the country which belongs not to themselves, but to others. The passage is very short. He said—
  "Whatever opinion may be held as to the abstract right to tithes, there can be no difference of opinion as to the question that they do not belong to the owner of the land."
  And even in that event, to which the noble Lord referred as a possible event, if the discontented landowner were driven to extremities—the event, I mean, of disestablishment and disendowment—it would be remembered that to whomsoever the tithes did belong, they did not belong to the owner of the land. Well, then, my noble Friend seems to think that there is a great vice in the Commutation Act, because it has not in some way divided the beneficial interest in the land, in some reasonable proportions, between the owner of the tithe and the owner of the land which is subject to the tithe, and he spoke of the word "tenth" as if tithe originally meant a tenth of the clear net value of the land. It never meant anything of the sort. Whether it was a good form of property or a bad form of property, it never meant any proportion—a tenth or any other of the clear or net value—of the land. The whole cost of cultivation always was upon those who considered it worth their while, and found it worth their while practically, to cultivate subject to the existence of this paramount right to tithe, and no deduction from tithe was ever made on account of the cost of cultivation. It is, therefore, quite clear that it is a transparent fallacy to think that the Commutation Act went on wrong principles, because it did not provide for a division in some reasonable proprotions between the owner of the charge
  1036
  and the owner of the land subject to the charge. Upon that point I will content myself with reading to your Lordships Sir Robert Peel's words on the introduction of the Commutation Act in 1836. He said that—
  "Tithe was a payment founded on the basis of actual profit, but rent was not, and, therefore, the two charges were incommensurate, and that being so, an attempt to establish a proportion between rent and tithe must necessarily end in failure and disappointment. He quite agreed with Lord John Russell that it was proper to abandon the attempt to establish a proportion between rent and tithe."
  The very idea, I must be permitted to say, is founded upon a total misconception of the relation of the two kinds of property the one to the other. I will not dwell further upon the argument for the rejection of the Bill; but my noble Friend said something as to the tendency of the Bill to increase rather than diminish friction, and he seemed to take exception almost to those who speak of friction as existing to any extent which made any remedy necessary or desirable. He also spoke of the possibility that the County Court, now a popular and successful tribunal, might be more or less discredited by having this additional duty to perform. Now, I do not think the Bill has the slightest tendency to create or increase friction, and I do think that the working of the Commutation Act under recent circumstances and under the pressure of that uneasiness which naturally arises out of the state of distress existing in the agricultural interest, joined to other causes which I would not wish to particularise, has produced in some places an actual friction of a serious and alarming kind, not only serious and alarming to the owners of tithe, but to the general interests of order in the country at large. The state of things which for the last few years has existed in Wales has brought to a point, which the previous circumstances, never did, the question whether it is right, whether it is convenient, whether it is in the interest either of Church or of State that the clergyman's remedy should be against the property of that person who is not treated by the law as the man primarily chargeable with the burden. Now, in that respect, the Tithe Commutation Act was open to some

  1037
  exception, from which it is only relieved by the fact that the difficulty did not arise in practice for a great number of years, during which years enormous benefits accrued to the land, while the Church certainly suffered a very considerable diminution from its former right in respect of income from tithes. But in principle, when the difficulty arises when the friction does take place, when passions are excited, when advantage is taken of that state of things by those, who wish to excite passions, for purposes not in the public interest, is it possible to defend in a manner satisfactory to one's own mind this state of things—that the law says the burden is laid upon the owner primarily, that if the recovery is made from the tenant he may deduct it from his rent payable to the owner, but that if the person who ought to pay it does not pay it the only remedy is by going on the land and taking by distress the goods of the occupier for that which in the intention of law was not the occupier's burden. It may be said, and truly, that that injustice is theoretical and not practical when the occupier has agreed with the owner that he will pay the tithe rent-charge; but it was not meant by the law that it should be his proper burden; and, therefore, any remedy which distinctly applies itself to the interest which ought to bear the burden, and makes the distress available only when it would be available for rent, and when rent is not properly paid, is an improvement upon the existing state of the law, and especially an improvement when you consider who the persons are who are obliged by the present state of the law to put in force that unpopular remedy, which is so easily capable of being represented to the minds and imaginations of men as making a difference in the incidence of the burden from that which the law intended. The clergy as against their own flocks are in this state of the law obliged by their own direct action to put in force that most unpopular remedy, and to encumber themselves with the difficulty and ill-blood which arise from it. Surely it is a great improvement to let that be done when it must be done through the ordinary machinery of a Court as in other cases of the administration of justice, so that there
  1038
  will never be occasion to distrain against an occupying tenant paying a sufficient rent to a landlord, except for that which is due from him to the landlord, and then the Court only comes, into the landlord's place for that purpose. I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend was mistaken in supposing that using the County Court for this purpose would have the bad effects he has feared. It is a great mistake to suppose you will create litigation by giving this form of remedy. Things generally will go on as they went on before. Honest people will pay what is due from them as they paid before; and if the landlord pays through the hand of his tenant—not under binding contracts, for that will now be prevented—as long as the tithe owner gets his money, it is all he can ask for. That is all which anybody can require; and in the great majority of cases, where there is no disposition to put other people's money into their pockets, or to resist other people's rights, things will go on quietly and without litigation, as before. It is only when the man who ought to pay will not pay, and thereby forces others to use legal remedies, that this new legal remedy will come in; and when it does come in, I say confidently that it is likely to work far better and create far less friction and ill-feeling than the existing state of the law. The advantage which persons who are misled by others, or not themselves honestly disposed, can take of the existing state of the law has been proved in Wales on a scale which I cannot but think, from a public point of view, very deplorable and very serious, and which, if permitted to go on, most certainly would spread to other places, because, although those who desire to withhold other men's rights are but a small minority, yet I suppose there is no part of the country where some such do not, unfortunately, exist. Now, with regard to the detailed provisions of the Bill, this is not, of course, the time at which one would go into any minute points. I do not feel sure that I quite understand how the new rules about the House going into Committee first, and afterwards sending such a Bill as this to Standing Committee, will operate. Any Amendments proposed in this House will accord-

  1039
  ingly, I suppose, all have to be gone through over again or be liable to modification.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:They will be liable to be re-considered.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE:The Standing Committee will exercise its discretion; and I suppose, when it comes back from the Standing Committee, there will be a third Committee upon the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:There will be a Report.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE:I do not know what time the noble Marquess proposes to allow for the consideration in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That would be entirety in the hands of the House.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE:I thought that probably Tuesday would be rather too early a day to fix in view of any Amendments which are not yet in form. I think sufficient time should be allowed between the Second Reading and the Committee on the Bill to allow of Amendments being carefully prepared. But, though I do not propose on this occasion to go into details, I wish to reinforce as strongly as I can what was said by the most rev. Prelate upon one point. I do not feel quite so strongly as he does upon the first point he mentioned, and, therefore, I have nothing now to say about it; but that which he mentioned last certainly is one of absolute importance which must, and I venture to say will, be provided for. I refer to those cases in which the remedy given by this Bill might be defeated or postponed by arrangements which may be, and in many cases would be, straightforward and legitimate between landlord and tenant, but which also might be sometimes of a different character. In cases where there may be arrangements of that kind made, if no provision were made for them, you would have taken away the existing remedy without practically substituting any other, and would have enabled the owner and occupier, between them, to keep the clergyman out of his money for an indefinite period of time. There might be a lease granted for a certain number of years rent-free, for family reasons or under certain conditions of service; and though under Clause 5 there might be
  1040
  an amount clearly recoverable against the person liable, yet there would be nothing to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, and, therefore, the clergyman would be kept out of his money during the whole of that tenancy purely by an arrangement between landlord and tenant. There might be cases in which tithe free land and land liable to tithe might be put together, and such an adjustment of rent made that the larger portion should be put on the free part, and the lower portion on the other, and in that way the remedy for the charge would be affected. Another case, not uncommon, of which many of your Lordships may have had experience, (as I have myself) is that in which some outlay is necessary at the commencement of a tenancy to improve the condition of a farm; and the landlord, who will obtain that benefit, grants to the tenant, for one or more years of the tenancy, by the terms of the contract, a remission from or reduction of rent to an extent sufficient to make the rent in those years inadequate for the payment of what is justly due in respect of tithe rent-charge. The appointment of a receiver would not avail, because there would be nothing, or not enough, for the receiver to receive from the tenant, and, therefore, the clergyman would be kept out of his money. The particular mode of providing for that no doubt requires consideration. I lave considered it, but I should be sorry at this moment to commit myself is to the exact mode of doing so, which would be the best. I should desire, if I can, to avoid making any proposition on that subject which the Government might think not so good as some other that might be made, but in some way or other I think the cases which I have mentioned must be provided for.
  LORD BRAMWELL:My Lords, I hope, and believe that your Lordships will read this Bill a second time now. I cannot think you will be deterred by anything that has been said by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and I think I can show, why you ought not to be. This is a matter of procedure entirely. It is not a matter of substance. It does not put a burden upon any particular person mote than exists now, and it does not take away from anyone any advantage or privilege or right that

  1041
  he has now in substance. There is a different mode of getting at the due of the tithe-owner and a different procedure is adopted; but it is, as I say, entirely a matter of procedure. Now, the principal argument of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment was a sort of objection to tithe in general, especially to the arrangement that had been made in the year 1836, as between the tithe owner and the landowner, and a kind of suggestion that some alteration ought to be made in the Commutation Act unfavourable to the tithe owner, favourable to the landowner. I trust your Lordships will never accede to an argument of that description. That Tithe Commutation Act was a bargain between the tithe owner and the landowner, ratified by the Act of Parliament itself. Parliament, in fact, made a bargain between the man who had a right to the tithe and the man who had a right to the land, and it was, I do not scruple to say—for I remember perfectly the passing of the Act and what was said at the time about it and what was known by everybody—a most advantageous arrangement for the landowner. I do not ask your Lordships to take my poor word for that, though I remember it distinctly; but you may remember that the present Earl Grey has recently expressed an opinion to the same effect, and he had to do, and very much to do if I remember his own statement on the matter, with the passing of that Act. It may have been a benefit to the tithe owner, and probably was; and it is an exemplification of that which some people cannot apparently be brought to understand, that a bargain between two people may be advantageous to both of them. That bargain was no doubt advantageous to both parties. It was said by the noble Marquess, "If that agreement is to be set aside let us revert to that condition of things which existed before the agreement was made, and the tithe owner will then be entitled to take his tithe in kind." It might not be so advantageous to him as the present condition of things. I believe it would be; but, on the contrary, I believe it would be much more advantageous to the landowner than the present condition of things. And I want to make another remark about tithe in general. The noble Lord who moved the Amend-
  1042
  ment has called it a cruel burden upon the landowner. It is no burden at all. I daresay the landowner would rather keep the value of tithe in his own pocket than distribute it to any one, but it cannot be called a burden. Suppose there are two persons who are entitled to a piece of land in equal moieties—joint tenants—has either of them the right to say, "That other tenant being entitled to a moiety is a cruel burden upon me." Each of them would be a burden upon the other according to that, and I think the noble Lord would not agree to such a statement of the case. Does it make any difference if the interests of the owners, instead of being divided into moieties, was divided into tenths? The tithe owner has a great deal more than the value of the tenth of the produce, for it is not produced at his expense. But the landowner holds his land upon the terms that the tithe owner is entitled to that share which the law gives him. I cannot think, then, that your Lordships will be influenced by any of those considerations of the character I have referred to which have been presented to you by the noble Lord. I venture to repeat that the question is one of procedure. But the noble Lord proceeded to say there is no question of alteration in the procedure, or, if there is, this is not the best alteration, and he seemed to say that everything went on as pleasantly now as could be except for an occasional little disturbance in Wales. My Lords, I will venture to say that those occurrences which have taken place in Wales have been a perfect discredit to this country, and that something ought to be done to prevent their recurrence by finding a remedy for the dissatisfaction which is the cause of them. Although the noble Lord has paid a very high compliment to the Church of England, and has said that her clergy and their parishioners are on the best possible terms—and I trust they are on very good terms—does anybody doubt that those people, the Welsh farmers, who do not belong to the Church, pay those tithes with the greatest reluctance? The notions of the tithepayer are such that he cannot be got to see that it is not a question between himself who actually pays and the tithe owner, but that it is a question between his landlord and the tithe owner. That they cannot

  1043
  be got to see, and they believe they are supporting a Church, from which they differ, which they think is wrong. Therefore, upon all those considerations it seems to me most desirable that some alteration should, be made in the law, and I think that nobody who has heard the noble Lord's speech can doubt the expediency of some such alteration being made. For my own part, I have a great misgiving whether the man from whom the tithe is due should not be liable to an action if he does not pay. Everybody else from whom anything is due is liable to an action if he does not pay, and I do not see that tithe is a less respectable debt than any other debt. I know that it might be attended with this consequence: that the tithe owner might be able to maintain an action against a solvent person; whereas if he had nothing but his old remedy of distraining there might be nothing for him to distrain upon. But a remedy for that condition of things might be given by the County Court Judge, and I think it would be a much less elaborate and expensive process if such a remedy as that is given against the landowner. I know that there is a notion prevalent that the landowner might be imprisoned for the debt. Nobody is imprisoned for debt. People are imprisoned for dishonesty. That is to say, when a judgment is got against them, and they have the means of paying the debt and do not pay it, they are sent to prison not because they owe the debt, but because having the means they dishonestly omit to pay it. I cannot see why a tithepayer who is in that position should not go to prison just as much as anybody else. Here I may be permitted to say that I am by no means sure this system of taking out judgment summonses for sending people to prison is an advantageous thing to the community. Upon this subject I would like to call attention to a very admirable article by Mr. Chambers, which appeared in the Fortnightly Review about three or four years ago. I will not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon the details of the Bill, which can be more conveniently discussed in Committee; but I think it might be well to say a few words upon the proposal in Section 5, in cases where the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the value of the
  1044
  land. I do not pretend to say whether two-thirds is the right figure, or whether three-fifths or a half would be a better. That I do not know. I am content to take the judgment of those who have considered the matter and have presented that figure to your Lordships. I want to make two remarks upon that subject. One is this, which the noble Marquess omitted in his statement in support of that clause, that the one-third which is left may very probably be consumed by rates and taxes; so that I think the third is left as a margin partly to give some temptation to the landlord to let his land, though he may get very little for it, and partly as a precaution in order that the tithe and the rates and taxes together shall not exceed the entire value of the land. There is one other remark I would make upon this head. I have suggested it before. As the matter at present stands the question would have to be considered annually. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a reasonable tithe owner and a reasonable tithepayer would go on from year to year unless there was some reason to the contrary; but what I think would be a very good thing to do would be to enable them to come to an arrangement which would last for some years, whether three, five, seven, or what not, and to safeguard it in the same way as leases granted by ecclesiastical owners are guarded. I hope I make myself intelligible. Whether it would be worth while to do that I do not know. I think it would, and I cannot see that any mischief would result from it.
  EARL STANHOPE:My Lords, I must be allowed to say a few words to express the great satisfaction with which I have listened to the noble and learned Lord's speech, partly on account of the great weight and judgment with which he comes before your Lordships, and partly because I rejoice that he has changed his views during the last year or two. Some five or six years ago I had the honour to introduce a small and very modest Bill on this subject, which was to the same effect as the measure at present before this House, namely, to try and impose the burden of the tithe upon the owner instead of upon the occupier. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord took a very strong and hostile view of my

  1045
  proposal, and, in fact, doubled me up altogether. Very pleased I am now to find him blessing altogether the Bill which Her Majesty's Government have introduced. My noble Friend (Lord Brabourne), who opposes the Second Reading of the Bill, will not, I trust, get much following in your Lordships' House. He has not even remained, I regret to see, to listen to the arguments of noble Lords opposed to his views. He asked, in the first place, who is it who presses for this Bill? Why, my Lords, in the interests of law and order we all wish to see the disturbances which have lately been quite a scandal in the Principality of Wales put an end to. Lord Brabourne says it is only to the application of tithes which the Welsh people object. Well, that is so; but the payment of the tithes is made the stalking-horse, and it must be in your Lordships' recollection that so grave had the position of matters become in the year 1887 that a special inquiry was instituted to make out whether or not a real grievance existed. Sir John Bridge, a well-known and leading Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts, went down and made a most exhaustive inquiry and heard evidence. The result of that inquiry, which was held on the spot in the most disturbed districts, was that the alleged grievance was not a real one, and in his Report he puts one sentence which, I think, will answer one objection of my noble Friend Lord Brabourne. After hearing evidence most carefully, he says—
  "It is most important that this question of tithes should be settled at once, and not mixed up with graver questions."
  That was the opinion of a gentleman accustomed to take evidence, who was not biassed one way or the other, but had in a judicial capacity heard the evidence given in the disturbed districts themselves. Further than that, I must say a few words when the question of settlement is alluded to. Your Lordships must know there has been under the Law of Distraint difficulties found to arise in this country. Distraint is an odious form of the law, and where enforced is often opposed most vigorously. I can say that has been so in the Home Counties, because distraint was felt to be a hard system, and especially so in the recovery of tithes. My noble Friend Lord Bra-
  1046
  bourne said this measure would render the County Courts unpopular if this unpopular system were connected with them. I have yet to learn that the County Courts have ever elicited much public interest. They were instituted for the recovery of small debts; and I assume that it will be very seldom that cases will arise where the remedy of application to a County Court will be invoked for the recovery of tithe. I quite coincide with the most rev. Primate's opinion that this Bill is only in part settlement of the general question. The larger question of the redemption of tithe is now before a Royal Commission, and I have every hope and confidence that some means may be found, as has been found in Ireland, by which the tithe may be spread over years, and so gradually redeemed without either being a burden to the landowner or doing any injustice to the tithe owner. I have every confidence that some measure of the kind will be carried out. I very much rejoice, and I hope it is a detail of the Bill which will remain unaltered, that two-thirds of the value is enacted in the 5th clause as the full measure for the recovery of tithe—that when no more than two-thirds of the rent is paid, one-third shall be remitted as an abatement in the collection of tithe. Another question has been alluded to, that of rating under the 3rd clause. That will, of course, come before the House in Committee on the Bill. It was raised in another place in Parliament by the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire. I think, though at first sight it may appear a hardship, that the Act which we all stand by, the original Act of 1836, should be altered; because, undoubtedly, that gave a sort of favoured nation clause advantage to the tithe owner, yet it is only equitable and right that all the ratepayers should be put on a similar footing. Not only in another place, but here, exemptions are not considered favourably, and therefore I think, on the whole, that that clause may remain as it is, as I believe cases will arise very seldom indeed where the rates will be demanded much before the actual receipt of the tithe. I am exceedingly glad that this Bill, which I, too, venture to think a very great improvement on the former Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government, has received the con-

  1047
  currence of the House of Commons, and I earnestly hope that the Amendment of my noble Friend, though it has been ably argued and well brought forward by him, will be rejected by the House.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON:I do not desire to detain your Lordships above a very few minutes, because everything that has been said in favour of the Bill runs very much in the direction in which I should myself have spoken if I had spoken earlier. I believe the Bill will be an exceedingly useful measure; I believe it is, on the whole, a just measure; I believe it will be a very great help to a large number of the clergy in disputes in these matters; and that it will tend very largely indeed to bring peace, where at present there has been a great deal of disturbance and trouble. It may be said that disturbances in Wales ought not to affect us here; that they have not happened in England; but the sentence—
  "Mea res agitur cum proximus ardent,"
  applies to this case with a great deal of force; and when you have these disturbances in Wales, if you allow them to go on it is quite certain they will not be confined to Wales. It is the plain duty of the Government to provide against such a danger, and it is necessary to secure that the administration of justice shall be made as effective all over the country as it can possibly be made. I venture to think the method proposed is the best method that can be adopted. It is, in reality, nothing more than putting the law into such a shape as to make the real incidence of tithe visible to all concerned. It is a matter of great importance to do this, because there are so many who act upon the mere appearance of things and will not be induced to consider anything which gives the opposite impression to that which they think the law at first sight appears to convey. I shall have some observations to make upon the details of the Bill—not that I wish to say anything which would in any degree embarrass the Government in carrying the Bill through Parliament. One of the things which struck me most—namely, the operation of Clause 5—has been already dealt with in such a way that I am quite sure the Government will carefully consider the effect of that clause. But there is another thing which has been cursorily touched upon by
  1048
  the Primate and by Lord Stanhope just now, which I should like to say a few words about, because I have received so many earnest letters from the clergy concerning the subject. It is proposed to make a great change in the old law in regard to rating. The rate which has always hitherto been properly by law levied on the occupier is now to be levied on the tithe owner: he is to pay it directly. Your Lordships will observe by this change the tithe owner becomes what he has never been before—personally liable for the rate. At the same time you are taking great care that the landowner shall not be personally liable for the tithe; but you are putting upon the tithe owner a personal liability which is altogether new. This is entirely a new departure in the law, and, of course, ought to be very carefully considered, for it will unquestionably operate very hardly in certain cases. The landlord wants time for the payment to be made by him, but meanwhile there is no provision as regards delay in the collector collecting the rate; and I think it is only just that the tithe owner should have the same delay of three months before the rate is collected from him as the landowner has in regard to the payment of the tithe. I would like to point out that in Clause 3, Sub-section 2, it is acknowledged that the ultimate source from which the rate is to come is the landowner. The tithe rent-charge is in his hands. If it cannot be got from the clergyman the rate collector is then to have the power of taking the tithe in the landowner's hands and demanding that a sufficient portion of it shall be paid to him. I cannot see why the rate collector should not go directly to the landowner in the first instance, and tax the tithe there, instead of first going to the clergyman and then going to the landlord afterwards. Difficulty, of course, will only occur in very rare cases. In most cases the clergyman will be able to pay his rates as he has hitherto paid them, and he will pay them without demur; but when it becomes a case of real difficulty, and the man has not the money to pay, what does the new proposal mean? What is the result? Why, the rate collector is to have the power to come in and sell the poor man's property—his spoons, his crockery, and the like— in order to satisfy that rate; and then,

  1049
  after the poor man has been sold up, the collector is to go to his property in the landowner's hands. Why is there to be this intervening step? Why sell up the poor man first, and then go against the tithe which all the time is his property, though he has not yet received it? It is obvious, also, that the proposal may work injustice in another way, and that is in cases where there is a remission by the Court under the 5th clause. There will be the assessment upon the tithe owner already made; he will be charged a rate upon property which is not his at all, which under the law is taken from him. That seems rather a hardship. I am told that there must be hardships every now and then. That is true certainly, but I do not see why hardship should fall upon a poor clergyman in such a case. It is not merely the hardship of being required to pay a rate in advance before he has received that upon which it is levied, but of being required to pay a rate levied upon property which was supposed to be his, but which the Court may pronounce not to be his at all. I do not propose to introduce any Amendments myself in this matter; but I want to see it very carefully considered, because from the letters I have received, I know the clergy are very sore upon this matter. I have received a very large number of letters within the last few days from clergymen, and I have no doubt some consideration will be given to their complaints, and some attempt made to meet the objections which I venture to put before the Government. I regret very much that we have only the clauses contained in this Bill, instead of having in it the redemption clauses, which I believe to be almost as necessary for settlement as the questions which are dealt with by the Bill, because the mischief which is caused by the trouble and friction of collecting very small sums in the way of tithe—5s. from one man and 2s. 6d. from another—is very great indeed, and some mode of redemption, by which all those small sums should be compulsorily bought up and so the difficulty entirely put an end to—some measure of that kind is, I think, really needed to make this work complete. I cannot help feeling also that it would be a real advantage if we could still retain, at any
  1050
  rate in certain cases, as the Primate has pointed out, the power of seizing the land. I do not see how the power of seizing the land and working it could do any harm, at any rate in cases where the land is going out of cultivation. If it is to be given up and not cultivated at all; in such a case it seems not unreasonable that the tithe owner should be allowed to step in and see if he cannot get his tithe out of it. These, however, are matters which ought not to impede the progress of the Bill, and I am too grateful to the Government for having introduced it to have any wish to put any impediment in its way.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite intends to press his Motion to a Division, but if he does, I must tell him that I shall consider it my duty to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and upon the one plain principle that in future it places the liability for the rent-charge on the landowner instead of directly and independently upon the occupier. If I could find anything in the details of the Bill with the object of placing the payment not absolutely on the owner, I should be in favour of the noble Lord's Motion and not for the Second Reading. Probably this Bill would never have been heard of had it not been for the unfortunate disturbances in Wales. I agree with my noble Friend opposite, who moved the Amendment, that there is no serious dissatisfaction existing in England between the payers and the receivers of tithe. As a general rule the tithe is paid freely, and, although there may have been a certain amount of grumbling, especially on account of the working of the seven years' average, which has, for a considerable time, caused the tithe to be high when prices of the produce of the land are low, I do not believe that on the whole there would have been any necessity for a change in the law, though there might have been a desire for some improvement in its operation. In passing, I may say I regret not to see in the Bill a proposal made by the Government in one particular as was done in one of the former Bills, to alter the seven years' to a three years' average. I know there was a difficulty in regard to that, but if it could have been done without injustice to present tithe owners and payers it would

  1051
  have been an advantage to have made a provision of that kind. While, on the one hand, a seven years' average presses hardly on the tithe payer, it presses hardly also on the tithe owner, if the prices of produce were now to rise it would be a long time before the clergy got the benefit of them, and I think, therefore, it would be much better to have a three year's average. I only mention that in passing. Apart from the principle of the Bill, which I believe to be sound, and apart altogether from the disturbances in Wales, I do not believe the Bill is of great importance as regards England. As regards Wales, I believe it is. I feel the greatest regret, as everyone must, at the state of things which has prevailed in the Principality, and I most sincerely hope that this Bill may succeed in pacifying the agitation which has prevailed there, though I have considerable doubts whether it will succeed in doing so. I am not personally much acquainted with Wales, but I should imagine that a great portion of the lettings there are from year to year, and not under lease. If that be so, under the provisions of this Bill the tithe will have to be paid, in fact, under another form, that of rent, and, therefore, I exceedingly doubt whether this will, in point of fact, persuade payers of tithe. It may to some extent lighten the difficulty, because the landlord will be interested in getting a settlement of the matter, and in some instances he may have to forego payment. If one of the earlier clauses was rightly read by the noble Lord, and if the payment is to be earmarked upon the receipt as a payment of tithe, a provision for which I do not see the necessity, then I think you will have provided for almost the same amount of friction between tithepayers in Wales, who are largely Nonconformists, and tithe owners, because they will say to the landowner: "This is for the tithe, and we refuse to pay it." That would be a result which, I think, every one would greatly deplore. It may, I think, be found in Committee that that is not the right reading of the clause, but if it be, I commend that matter to the attention of the Government, as I think it might be a serious difficulty in the measure. My noble Friend Lord Bramwell argued the
  1052
  question of tithes on high and some what abstract terms, and had we been discussing the question together at the Political Economy Club I might have agreed to a great deal of what he said; as, for instance, when he spoke of tithe not being a burden upon the land. Scientifically speaking, the arguments of the noble and learned Lord were, no doubt, perfectly true; but these matters are not settled upon scientific principles. We must deal with facts as they are. What we have to deal with here is the existence of a number of men with small holdings throughout the country, and I venture to tell my noble and learned Friend that his arguments will not be of the slightest avail with them. What everyone desires is that there should not be friction between the tithe owner and the tithe payer. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that this tithe is in no sense the property of the owners. They have no right to it, and so far from desiring to whittle the tithe down, if I may use the expression, I am as strongly against it as anyone. I am free to confess that subject to its present use by the Church I regard tithe as national property, and regarding it as national property I certainly could not be a party to reducing it below its fair and real value. With regard to what the noble Marquess said as to the present value of the tithe, which I think he came to the conclusion would probably be more if calculated according to the method employed before 1836 than under the present system, I think he omitted from his calculation one consideration, and it is this: one of the principal arguments, and a very strong and sound one for the measure of 1836, was that the tithe being levied upon the gross produce of the land discouraged expenditure in the improvement of it. That was a perfectly sound and just argument. What I would point out is this—partly from other causes and partly from the relief which has been given to landowners, very large sums indeed have been expended in improvements upon the land. Drainage, for example, has amounted to from £6 to £7 an acre, and in the East of England, where I live, which is most heavily burdened with tithes, enormous expenditure has been made upon buildings. That expenditure upon buildings and drainage

  1053
  must, I contend, be taken into consideration in comparing the old tithe system with the present, because, to my mind, the Church has no right, under the agreement of 1836, to look to the result of those improvements as conferring value upon the land in which the Church ought to share. Therefore, to that extent, I think the calculation of the noble Marquess should be reduced. I do not say, of course, that in some cases the amount of tithe, if calculated on the old system, would not now be more, but I think you must give full consideration to the large expenditure made by landowners for what has been necessary in the shape of permanent improvements upon the land. Now I come to what the noble Lord opposite said as regards the very heavy pressure of the tithe upon some, and especially upon the smaller landowners. I do not think it is quite a sufficient answer to say that there was a bargain made in 1836, and that a bargain having been made in 1836 there is no kind of reason now to complain. If you look at the thing as a whole, if you look at the payments to the Church and the value of the land throughout the country as a whole, I am not disposed to say that there is anything in the agreement which was then made that ought to be disturbed. I quite admit that it is a very dangerous thing to disturb particular portions of a large composition. If you disturb it on one side you ought, in strict justice, to disturb it on the other. If the Church is to be deprived of a portion of her right where the value of the land has fallen, she ought to be compensated in other cases where the value has risen. But there is one class of cases in particular in this country where the hardship is very much felt, and that is the case of land the value of which depends specially upon the price of wheat. There is some land in England which is properly burdened with a very high tithe because it produced a large amount of wheat, as is the case in the East of England; but it so happens that the greatest fall which there has been in agricultural produce has been in wheat, and land which formerly produced a very high rent for the production of wheat has fallen in value to such an extent that, as in Essex for instance, it has not been
  1054
  cultivated at all. There is no doubt that in the case of those particular lands the heavy tithe imposed, because they were thought to be specially valuable, does fall with crushing weight. That I think is the defence, and a very sound defence, for the clause in the Bill by which the Government intend to introduce, at all events, a certain amount of remedy for those hard cases. The right Rev. Prelate who has just sat down referred to some of the details of the Bill, and thought that in one or two of the points he mentioned they were well worthy of consideration, and there are other points of detail which, of course, at another stage will require to be looked into carefully; but as they do not involve any question of principle, I need not trouble the House on those points of detail. Sending the Bill to Standing Committee may be found to be very salutary, because the Bill contains some pitfalls—not, I think, intentionally left, but arising from there not having been sufficient consideration of the various cases which may arise, and they will require to be dealt with. There was one point specially mentioned by the noble and learned Lord Selborne as to cases in which very little would be left for the clergyman, and I quite conceive that there might be some cases in which there would be nothing left for the clergyman at all. Those are all points of detail which will require very careful consideration. Upon the whole I think the Bill will be an improvement in the law. I do not think it will be a hardship upon landlords to pay directly what they have always had to pay indirectly. They must always have paid it in the long run. Also in England I think it may remove any ill feeling on the part of occupiers that they are specially burdened. It is a singular thing that some people have conceived the notion that the burden falls upon them, whereas it is quite obvious that the burden ultimately falls upon the owner. It is a distinct advantage that the law should really and in fact correspond with the fact. That in itself would be, I submit, a useful change; but, as I said before, I am greatly afraid that the Bill may not be found to have the effect which we desire in Wales, and I hope that those parts of it which seem to press on the occupier as apparently making him pay rent in the form of

  1055
  tithe or anything that might tend to excite his jealousy will be carefully considered with the object of removing the difficulties which now exist, in order to render the relations between tithe-payers and tithe owners less strained and to restore good feeling between them. We are all interested in seeing that order is preserved and that no more unseemly riots and disturbances shall take place, such as those which have occurred in Wales of late in these matters.
  EARL FORTESCUE:I will not detain your Lordships for many moments, but I wish to express my entire concurrence with the noble Earl who has just sat down, in considering that this Bill, if passed, as I trust it will be, is a decided improvement; upon the law as it stands. I desire to say particularly that I speak with absolute disinterestedness on this subject; its passing into law will not affect either my payments or my receipts in any respect. I thought it as well that one who is absolutely disinterested in the matter should bear his testimony in favour of this Bill. The wisdom of my predecessors ever since the passing of the Act of 1836 led them, and I have merely followed their example, to undertake the payment of the tithes on their estates and thus to let their farms tithe free. The result is that there is no ear-marking of tithes in the rent and I have no intention of introducing that alteration in my dealings with my tenants. I am bound to say that though this Bill will leave me absolutely unaffected in pocket and in every respect I prefer it, speaking as I have explained quite disinterestedly to the Bill which would have given landowners the benefit of a certain per centage; because the object of my predecessors in establishing, and mine in continuing, this practice was to remove, as it happily has now for over half a century, occasions of difference and complain I between a number of tithepayers and tithe owners in the different parishes by the landlord taking upon himself the burden of paying the tithes, thus facilitating good relations, which I am happy to say I have the testimony of several clergymen showing that it has and does between them and those members of their congregations.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My
  Lords, the Bill has been received so
  1056
  favourably that I am not tempted to take great advantage of my right of reply. As to giving time for the consideration of Amendments I shall be very lad to postpone the Bill to Thursday, if that will suit the noble and learned Lord in order to give sufficient time for consideration before Committee. I do not think it is necessary that I should refer to many of the observations which have seen made. There is no doubt there are pitfalls in the Bill, as the noble Lord opposite (Earl of Kimberley) has just said, or the avoidance of which we must examine the clauses very carefully. No doubt they might raise serious difficulties, and none more serious than that pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, which, I think, it will tax all our ingenuity to provide a remedy for. But I hope the Bill will be rendered more workable in that respect. The Right Rev. Prelate who presides over this diocese has raised some important points, and I do not in the least dispute that in those directions we may find some Amendment necessary. I thought there was a good deal of force in his request that the clergyman should not be exposed to the demands of the rate collector until he has received the tithe for which the rate is levied. There might be some inconvenience and injustice in that respect. I should like to have considered carefully also the power of re-introduction and taking over the land. At present a receiver has the power of taking the land, and if necessity arose would probably, therefore, take it. So that practically the remedy provided by the Act of 1836 is given in this Act. Whether it should absolutely be introduced into this Act is a question which I should desire to reserve for Committee. With regard to the assessment, I hope the Right Rev. Prelate will not interfere too much with Clause 3. I regard that as a very precious clause. It provides that any rate to which the tithe rent-charge is subject shall be assessed in like manner and by the like process as in the case of any occupying ratepayer. It is within the knowledge of your Lordships that that is not the way in which tithe is assessed now, that it is assessed upon very different principles, and that the tithe owner is the one owner in the country who pays on his gross receipts. I hope that grievance will be remedied

  1057
  in Committee, but I hope nothing will be done which will affect the principle of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:Does the noble Marquess mean a deduction for the cost of curates. I should object to that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:What about the cost of collection? However, I do not think there is any other matter which it is necessary now to refer to. When we are in Committee of the whole House we shall be able to deal best with any considerable Amendments, while matters of mere detail and drafting had better be reserved for the Standing Committee.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BREAD.
  Address for—
  "Copies of Reports recently received from Her Majesty's Consular Officers in Austria and Italy, relating to the price of bread in those countries.—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.