Sitting of 9 March 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANIES (EASTERN AND MIDLAND RAILWAY) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. WEIR: I oppose this Bill in consequence of the action of the Associated Railway Companies in raising their rates and charges, which is having a very serious effect on industrial and commercial undertakings in this country. This policy, adopted by the Railway Companies, so that they may pay 6, 7, and 7½ percent. dividends to their shareholders, is seriously detrimental to the public interests. I am not one of those who think that shareholders should not have fair interest on their money, but I look forward to the time when the Liberal Government, which professes to be the champion of progress, will think it desirable to absorb the Railway Companies, and guarantee the shareholders fixed dividends of 2¾ per cent., and after 1905, when Consols will pay only 2½ per cent., will guarantee them dividends at that rate. These large dividends are simply disastrous to our agricultural and manufacturing enterprise, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will put his foot down in dealing with the Railway Directors, and let them understand that the welfare of the community has to be considered as well as the interests of the shareholders. I read in The Daily News of to-day that—
    "The Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company, Mr. Parkes, has informed Mr. Mundella that the Directors of the Company have instructed the officers so to arrange the Company's rates and charges as to bring them, as far as possible, in accord with the rates charged to traders and others before 1st January 1893."
    I am glad to find they have taken a step in that direction, no doubt

    1407
    in consequence of the Resolution of this House last Friday night, and the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion. But Mr. Parkes winds up his remarks by stating—
    "The Directors reserve the right of moderately increasing certain rates when trade and agriculture revive."
    Well, what do Railway Directors call moderate rates? I suppose those which will ensure 6½, 7, or7½ per cent. dividends. This Bill, I believe, in itself, is a very good Bill; but, on principle, I think it is only the duty of Members of this House to offer a protest against the action of the Associated Railway Companies generally throughout the country. It is not very long since the Great Northern Railway Company set at defiance a large class of season ticket holders, whom they are still keeping at arm's length. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see to that matter when the question comes before him. I have no desire to divide the House upon this Bill, but I think it right that I should lodge a protest against the measure on the grounds I have stated, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will cause Railway Directors to realise that he is the master of the situation, and not they.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    INSTRUCTION TO COMMITTEE.
    MR.PICKERSGILL: I beg to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the City and South London Railway Bill that they do insert a Clause reserving to the London County Council a power to purchase the undertaking, after the expiration of a limited period, on terms similar to those provided in Section 43 of 'The Tramways Act, 1870.'"
    In bringing forward the Instructions which stand in my name, I have acted not merely on my own initiative, although I entirely agree with them, but on behalf and at the request of the London County Council. I am aware that hon. Gentlemen will probably endeavour to raise a prejudice against the proposal upon that very ground, but I feel sure the House will
    1408
    at least give a candid consideration to the proposals which emanate from the representatives of some four millions of people. What are the circumstances under which I bring forward these Instructions? There are now before the House a batch of London Electric Rail way Bills, by which it is proposed to provide London with a series of under ground railways traversing the Metropolis in various directions, and worked by electricity. And, Sir, all these projected lines are practically comprised within an area which is under the control of the London County Council. It is true a small portion of two of the lines penetrates the City of Loudon, but I think that that consideration may be disregarded in view of the fact that the Government has, happily, committed itself to the principle of the unification of the Metropolis. Therefore the case stands thus: that the London County Council is the local authority for the area which will be traversed by these Companies, and I ask the House to affirm the principle that it s right that the Loudon County Council, as the local authority, should be empowered to acquire these railway undertakings upon fair conditions after the expiration of a certain term of years. Now, Sir, it is only right and fair in two or three words that I should give the Parliamentary history of this question up to the present time. Several of these Bills were before the last Parliament, and then a Joint Committee of both Houses considered the whole question of Electric Railways for London. It is only fair that I should say that the London County Council presented before that Joint Committee the proposals which are embodied in my Instructions to-day. But, Sir, the Report of that Joint Committee made no reference to the question of purchase. The Report neither approved of purchase nor condemned purchase. It simply ignored purchase; therefore, so far as the Joint Committee is concerned, this question of purchase remained open. And now, Sir, comes the particular circumstance connected with the case with which I am dealing. In one very important respect these electric railway schemes differ from all other underground railways. What I mean is this: in other cases the companies have had to purchase the freehold of the land through

    1409
    which the lines run, but in the case of these Electric Railway Companies it is proposed to give to the companies the right to acquire way-leaves under the surface, instead of acquiring the freehold. Even so, Sir, whenever these lines pass under private property they will be subject to the Lands Clauses Act in respect of compensation, and in order to avoid the payment of such compensation the routes of these railways have been so marked out as to follow the line of the public thoroughfares; in fact, the lines twist and turn about in order to follow the line of the public streets, and in this way, Sir, a very considerable advantage will accrue to the Railway Companies by acquiring the power to tunnel under the public streets. Now, what are the rights of the public in the public streets? In some cases the public has vested in it absolutely the freehold of the soil in the streets, and when that is not in point of law the case, still it has been decided that the public has very large indeterminate rights in the sub-soil of a street to any depth which it may be necessary to use for any public purpose. Now, Sir, if the means of locomotion can be successfully provided at a depth of 60 feet or more below the surface, then I say this constitutes a public use of the sub-soil of the streets, and the public ought not to be required to part with its rights in this regard without obtaining some compensation, or some equivalent. On this point I know I shall be told that the Joint Committee of both Houses suggested a certain compensation — namely, that the Company should be put upon terms to provide an adequate supply of cheap trains. I am perfectly aware of that, but what I want to point out is this: that this obligation to provide a cheap train service is an obligation which this House now imposes upon all new lines with a suburban traffic which run into London. It is no satisfaction, therefore, of the particular claim which I now put forward against these Electric Railway Companies, in consideration of the fact that they are to be allowed to tunnel under the public streets, a privilege whereby the cost of constructing their lines will be very materially diminished; and I think, therefore, that this is emphatically a case in which compensation can most properly be given by providing that
    1410
    under certain conditions the community can acquire these undertakings. Sir, the principle of giving the right to the community or to the public to acquire railways is no new principle. I do not know whether it is necessary to remind the House that under the Act of 1844 the public has a right to acquire, under certain conditions, every railway in the country. Where a great trunk line is concerned of course the power of purchase cannot properly be given to any public authority short of the State itself. But here we are dealing not merely with local lines, but with what has been called, and I think very aptly, "municipal suburban tramways," limited to a certain area, and in this case I submit the local authority of the area properly represents the community. Now, Sir, I understand that, from a printed paper which has been issued by the promoters of the Bill, some objection will be taken to my Instruction upon the ground that it is in a mandatory form, and upon that issue I want to say just a word or two. All that I ask this House to affirm to-day is a principle, and I think it fairly falls within the province of this House to affirm a principle; whereas, upon the other hand, I leave the Committee to decide what I think properly falls within the province of a Committee—namely, to work out and to apply the principle. Sir, from the point of view of the promoters of these Bills the sting of this Instruction, if it has a sting, depends altogether upon the length of the term of years which is to be prescribed, at the end of which the right to purchase accrues; obviously so, for it is clear that you might fix a term of years so long that it is obvious no effect whatever could be produced upon the financial prospects of this company. For instance, if you fixed a term of 500 or 200 years, will anyone say that the financial position or financial prospects of these companies would be in any way affected? I think not, and therefore I say that the essence of the case depends upon the length of the term which you fix, and I am leaving it entirely to the Committee to determine what the length of the term should be. There is no desire in any part of this House, certainly not on my part or on the part of those with whom I am acting, to crush out legitimate commercial enterprise; but what we say is this: that the conditions of purchase must be adjusted,

    1411
    and may be adjusted in such a way as not to interfere at all with the development of these electric railways. And in the consideration of this question I think that the story of electric lighting is not uninstructive. By the original Act the term of years during which undertakers of electric lighting might enjoy the profits of their enterprise was fixed at 21, and undoubtedly under that Act, and it may be in consequence of that Act, electric lighting enterprise was checked. Well, what happened? It was said that Parliament had killed commercial enterprise in electric lighting. But what was done when that cry was raised? Did Parliament reject, in respect of electric lighting, the principle of public purchase altogether? Not at all Parliament took a very different course. Parliament re-considered the term during which the undertakers should enjoy the profits of their enterprise, and it extended that term from 21 years to 42 years, and under that Act electric lighting, which had received a check, has been stimulated and developed. That is instructive, and the moral is this: not to discard the principle of purchase by the community, but to be careful that in each case you fix a term of years which is suitable to the particular enterprise that is concerned. In this case we leave it to the Committee, after careful inquiry, to fix the term, and, therefore, I think any argument which can be drawn from the story of electric lighting tells rather in my favour than against me. As I know my friends on the other side will say that my proposals, if carried out, will kill these projects, I just desire in two words to point out the inconsistency of the promoters of these Bills. At one time the promoters draw the most glowing prospects and pictures of what can be done under these Bills. It was stated in the evidence produced before the Joint Committee that within seven years the number of passengers annually in London will be increased by no less a number than 400,000,000, if the means of getting about which these Bills offer are provided. In the case of one company —the Baker Street and Waterloo Company—it is estimated that it will carry 60,000,000 of passengers in the year, whereas the whole number of passengers carried by the District Railway over its whole system is only 36,000,000, and
    1412
    one witness seems to anticipate that these railways will have the effect of killing the omnibus and cab services in London, much in the same way as it is said the electric railways of New York have largely reduced the similar services in that city.
    MR. PROVAND: They are overhead railways in New York.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: That does not interfere with my argument. The statement is that the London cab service and the London omnibus service will be largely reduced by these railways. Then, finally, it is estimated by the proper authorities that the cost of construction of these railways will be only one-third of the cost of constructing the Metropolitan Railway; and it is further said that, having regard to the greater speed at which these trains will run, and the more frequent services, the expenses of management will be very much less than on the railways which now exist. I admire the enthusiasm of Mr. Greathead, the engineer, and other witnesses, and I think I am entitled to point out the inconsistency of the promoters, who in one breath extol the enormous economical advantages which those railways will possess over the underground railways which are at present in existence, and yet, in the same breath, tell us, "You will kill these projects if you fix any term in which the right of compulsory purchase may accrue." I think I am justified in pointing out that the promoters of these railways are blowing hot and cold at once in this matter. I have dealt with the particular objections which I understand are raised in this particular case, and it only remains that in one word I should sum up the broad grounds upon which I rest the Instruction which I desire to move to-day, and these grounds are these: that the public has a right to acquire upon reasonable conditions all the lines which are essential to the life of a great city, and which partake of the nature of monopolies, whether they are concerned with water, or with gas, or with locomotion. That is the simple proposition which I ask this House to affirm; all the rest I leave to the decision of the Committee, after taking evidence upon the question. I beg, Sir, to move the first Instruction which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the City and South London Railway Bill that they do insert a Clause reserving to the London County Council a power to purchase the undertaking, after the expiration of a limited period, on terms similar to those provided in Section 43 of 'The Tramways Act, 1870'"— (Mr. Pichersgttl).
    MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.): As a member of the London County Council, and of that section of it which has some regard for the interests of the London ratepayers, I desire to say a word on the Motion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. He claims to speak on behalf of the London County Council in this matter. I should like to explain how that body deals with these questions, for I declare deliberately that they do not receive adequate consideration. There is no real discussion upon them; they are brought forward in the Reports of Committees, which are circulated by the last post on Saturday evenings, or by the early post on Monday mornings, and on Tuesday the Council is called upon to discuss them. Perhaps a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes is expended upon them, when some impetuous member, not caring to hear arguments which are against his views, moves the closure, which, easily as it appears to be exercised in this House, is still more freely used in the Loudon County Council. When, therefore, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green tells us that this is the deliberate opinion of the Council, I say it is not so; and in so saying I speak in the interests of the London ratepayers. We all know that the Loudon County Council, if it could, would get hold of the railways, and would pay wages much higher than the market rates, with the result that passengers would be carried at non-remunerative rates at the expense of the ratepayers. But they would not stop there. They recently gave notice of their intention to acquire a small section of tramways within the Metropolitan area. There was a good deal of glib talk by members as to the profits to be made; estimates were paraded, and then, when the company sent in its claim, it was found to be seven times as much as the Council's engineer had estimated the value of the undertaking at. The question has not been
    1414
    settled yet; it is still before the arbitrator, and I only quote it as showing how fallacious are the arguments of the Radical members of the London County Council. I venture to assert that if you carry such an Instruction as this it will operate in absolute restraint of all private enterprise. And when we consider what private enterprise has done, I think the House should pause before it fetters the proposed railway in this manner. I do not think it is at all necessary that a Municipality like the London County Council should thus step in between those who use the railways and those who own them. Locomotion in London is exceedingly cheap, and I am not aware that the public have given any mandate to the London County Council to acquire these undertakings. I question very much the proposition put forward to-day that the people of London have a right to the subsoil of the streets. I venture to think it belongs to the freeholder, but still that is a point which is open to argument, and which has not yet been settled. I am not prepared to affirm that the companies should pay nothing for the privileges which they undoubtedly enjoy. I think they might well pay something in the shape of rent or royalty; but I would remind the House that at Huddersfield— the only Municipality which has acquired and worked a tramway—the experiment has turned out a failure. I believe that the London County Councill will not stop at the proposition now put forward by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green; but that they will go on and seek to acquire not merely electric but all other railways, as well as tramways, omnibuses, and steamboats and docks. Therefore, I appeal to this House to restrain this octopus, with its greedy, grasping antenna?, and prevent its acquiring these railways, which, in my humble judgment, are best left in the hands of private enterprise, and placed under State control.
    MR. STANSFELD: The House will have noticed that the Instruction put forward by my hon. Friend is mandatory, and directs the Committee, before which this Bill will go, to pursue a certain course. So far as I know, the Instruction is in Order; but at the same time it is most unusual, and ought to be very strongly justified. The hon. Mem-

    1415
    ber has asked this House to infer that the Joint Committee which sat on these Bills last year were in favour of this proposal. I rather think they came to the conclusion that it was not their duty to advise or direct future Committees. The Committee was, in fact, appointed to make suggestions for the general guidance of Committees, so far as they might be willing to accept them, on Bills of this character with the object of securing something like an approach to uniformity. I am not at all prepared to say what the opinions of individual Members of that Committee were. I think it is highly probable some were entirely opposed to the views of the hon. Member, but I may make this statement without fear of contradiction—namely, that we were all united in an unanimous conclusion against inserting any clause in the Report on this question on the ground that we could not undertake the responsibility of over-weighting the Bills and possibly preventing the initiation of works in the public interest. MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea): As a Member of the Joint Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that the reason why the Committee did not insert a specific paragraph in their Report condemnatory of proposals of this nature was that the evidence put forward on behalf of the London County Council was so unconsidered that it was really not before us in such a form as would enable us to come to a definite conclusion. I appeal to hon. Members who were Members of that Committee whether the evidence, such as it was, did not convince us that any such proposition as this would be absolutely fatal to the carrying out of any new railway enterprise. The evidence was overwhelming that no single one of these railway undertakings would be able to obtain the requisite capital if it were hampered by any such restrictions as these. Even if the proposal had any weight, surely the proper way to proceed would be not in this piecemeal and accidental manner, but by a general Public Act, which would have every opportunity of being considered by this House. I do ask hon. Members, in the interest of new railway undertakings, not to disregard the evidence laid before the Joint Committee of last year, but to reject a prosal which would, in my judgment, be
    1416
    absolutely fatal to the most necessary railway projects.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not on the present occasion speak as a member of the London County Council, but I venture as a plain citizen of London to give a few mechanical and industrial reasons why the Second Reading of this Bill should take place this day six months. The other night we discussed in this House the question of railway rates, and I refer to that subject for this reason — namely, that many on both sides of the House, traders and others, thought that our predecessors made a great mistake in not originally exercising the powers given them under a certain Act for the nationalisation of railways. I regret with many men that in 1864–5, when these powers were conferred, steps were not taken in the interest of the trade and commerce of this country to secure the nationalisation of the railways at the end of a given period, and no doubt those who may succeed us 10 years hence will curse our memories for having done nothing at this time in the same direction. My objections to this Bill are twofold. The first is a mechanical one. We find that the tunnels in this railway are to be 11 ft. 6 in. in diameter.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We are not now discussing the Bill; but the question before the House is the proposed Instruction to the Committee, and the hon. Member must confine himself solely to the terms of that Instruction.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As a matter of Order, Sir, is it not possible for me to advert to faults in the proposed undertaking?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Bill has been read a second time. Its principle has been affirmed, and it is only open now to the hon. Member to discuss the Instruction.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I only wanted to give reasons why some uniformity should be secured in the making of these railways. Here, as I say, the tunnel is to be 11 ft. 6 in. in diameter. On another railway the tunnels are 12 ft. in diameter, and on other railways the measurements vary. I want to point out that unless we have uniformity in the building of these tunnels, when the day comes for securing and amalgamating all the railways in the metropolitan district, we

    1417
    shall find that lack of uniformity practically fatal to the scheme.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Member is discussing the Bill, and not the Instruction.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Very well, Sir; I will drop that point. All I will add is that it seems to me that hon. Members wish to deny to London powers which they are prepared to give to other large cities and towns. I believe that if Birmingham, Glasgow, or Manchester were to apply for powers such as these, the House would agree that the request was perfectly reasonable, and would concede it at once. I hold that London should not be denied powers which other Municipalities enjoy. We have no desire to restrict private enterprise provided it is consistent with the homogeneous government of London from a physical point of view. I ask this House to reject this Bill, and, if possible, to prevent any such Bills coming before it until uniformity of system has been secured.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I hardly think the House would be disposed to refuse to London what Glasgow, Manchester, or Birmingham already possess, but that is not now the question before us. The hon. Member for Marylebone scarcely did justice to the discussions which took place in the London County Council. In the first place, the Reports of Committees are sent out on Saturdays, and I believe that ample time is given both for their consideration and for the discussion of them. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who moved this Resolution, has told the House that he speaks for the London County Council in this matter. I should like to ask him, but, speaking from memory, I do not think the London County Council have passed any resolution at all upon this question during the present year. Of course, if he tells me that they have done so, I shall accept the assurance. I do not, however, understand that he is prepared to do so. No doubt it is perfectly true, and he is entitled to say so; that e were of opinion a year ago that some such powers as these ought to be introduced in Bills of this character. But since that time there has been sitting a Committee of this House which went into the matter carefully, and the
    1418
    Chairman of which has certainly given very strong reasons against a Resolution such as this. I do not think that the Loudon County Council have re-considered the matter since that Joint Committee sat and with that information before them, and, therefore, though they were, a year or so ago, in favour of such powers as are indicated in the Instruction, I do not think they have decided that they would wish to throw out the Bill. There is a great deal to he said for giving Local Authorities power to acquire railways, but I think, in view of the strong statements made, that the effect of this Resolution would he to discourage private enterprise, that it would in the interests of London be better to allow the Bill to go upstairs and be examined by a Select Committee unfettered by any such Instruction as that now proposed.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,): I am afraid that I also must oppose this proposition. It is a serious matter; even more serious, I think, than is supposed by many who have spoken against it, for it is an attempt to engraft a new principle upon private legislation. While I express no opinion as to the propriety of the purchase of railways by the State or by Local Authorities, I must say that if that is to be done it ought to be done by a Public Bill, and the ordinary procedure followed so that everyone interested may have full notice of the proposed change. I should like to add—and I do not say it at all offensively—that the present proceeding is a mode of evading the Standing Orders of the House; and, if it were assented to, it would be possible to engraft upon some small, and perhaps insignificant, Bill a great public change, which the House might wish to take some time to consider. A mandatory Instruction ought to be very carefully scanned before being adopted, because under it the hands of the Committee are tied, and the valuable jurisdiction they possess is practically nullified on matters of very considerable importance. Under these circumstances, I must oppose the Instruction.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): The House, no doubt, is obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means for the very able guidance he has given us in dealing with this important matter. He has shown conclusively that whatever may be the merits or demerits of the abstract proposals the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has laid before us, at all events we are asked to consider them in a shape which makes it absolutely impossible for us to come to a proper decision on them. He has shown that if we are to deal with these matters at all we should deal with them in a Public Bill, on which every proper opportunity should be given to Members to express an opinion upon them. For my own part, even apart from that which is more an objection of form, I have the strongest objection in point of substance to the proposals made. It appears to me there are two objections, each of which is conclusive. The first is, that the acceptance of such proposals would absolutely kill the investment of capital in the Metropolis, and would render it wholly absurd for capitalists to come forward and start projects of this sort, knowing that when they had started them the persons who would reap the fruit of them would be a Body which had bad nothing whatever to do with their original inception. Secondly, apart from that, I look with the gravest apprehension upon any scheme for enormously increasing the position of Municipal Bodies as direct employers of labour. We have seen in this House how much the ordinary course of Business is hampered by the fact that the country is itself a great employer of labour. Night after night is taken up by discussions arising out of that fundamental fact. We cannot expect that our great Municipalities, least of all the great County Council of London, will carry on the duty that Parliament has entrusted to them satisfactorily if it is augmented by all the responsibilities that must attach under proposals of this nature.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion. Not only is it important that these enterprises should go forward, but, as a matter of fact, this undertaking will go beyond the jurisdiction of the London County
    1420
    Council. I have made inquiries and I find that the County Council have taken no action in this matter, and have made no communication to the Board of Trade. This Bill is not on all fours with tramway enterprises which are purely of a local character, and which it is frequently desirable to place under one authority, so that a variety of lines may be consolidated into one system. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.
    MR. W. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.): I would point out that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Leader of the House (Mr. A. J. Balfour), afford conclusive proof that this is a question which ought to be decided by the House and not by a Committee upstairs. What are the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman? First, that this proposal would prevent the investment of capital. That is a great argument, and one not applicable only to this Bill, but to all Bills of a similar kind. His second objection is, that it is not desirable to increase the powers of the County Councils in the employment of working men. That is also a general question. The proper questions for a Committee upstairs are those which arise upon the particular facts of a particular Bill. This Instruction, however, raises a general question of policy, which it is not proper to refer to a Committee upstairs. It is a question with which hon. Members may differ in opinion, and, therefore, ought to be considered by the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.): I desire to put a question to the hon. Member who is responsible for this Motion. Did I understand him to say that he has the authority of the London County Council for moving this Instruction.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Certainly.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. Member kindly explain how that authority was given, and when?
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The Loudon County Council has presented Petitions against the Bill, and in each of those Petitions it has asked that clauses on the line indicated by my Instruction should be inserted.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: Have those Petitions been subjects of consideration by the present London County Council?
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Certainly; by the Parliamentary Committee, to whom authority is delegated by the London County Council. I suppose the noble Lord understands what delegated authority is.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 242.—(Division List, No. 24.)

  QUESTIONS.

    THE OFFICE OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.
    SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the vacancy in the office of Judge Advocate General has been or will be filled up, or what arrangement has been made for the discharge of the duties attached to that office; and in what way it is proposed in such arrangement to deal with the immemorial right of the officers and soldiers of Her Majesty's Forces to have the findings and sentences of Courts Martial submitted to the Judge Advocate General personally for examination and revision?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): A Judge of the High Court of Justice, the Right Hon. Sir F. Jeune, has-been appointed Judge Advocate General, without salary. This appointment is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1888 on Army Estimates. As a matter of fact, only very important cases have in the ordinary course been brought before the Judge Advocate General personally, the others being dealt with by the Deputy Judge Advocate General; and those cases will still be dealt with by that officer.

    THE GARVE AND ULLAPOOL RAILWAY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a railway from Garve to Ullapool is already authorised by "The Garve and Ullapool Railway Act, 1890"; whether, having regard to the serious distress prevalent in the western districts of Ross and
    1422
    Cromarty and the Island of Lewis, the Treasury are now prepared to sanction an arrangement under which that railway may he constructed with the aid of a Government guarantee; whether a similar arrangement will be sanctioned for the proposed railway from Achnasheen to Aultbea; whether he is aware of the contention of the Garve and Ullapool Railway Company that they were led by the Treasury to expect that an arrangement in the nature of a Government subsidy or guarantee would be made provided a solvent Railway Company would agree to construct and work the line; and that an arrangement to this effect was then made by them with the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, and why the Treasury thereupon withdrew from the pending negotiations; and whether the Treasury are now prepared to accept the offer made by the Garve and Ullapool and Great North of Scotland Railway Companies as to the construction of the railway authorised by "The Garve and Ullapool Railway Act, 1890," with the aid of a Government guarantee; and, if not, why not?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The Highlands and Islands Commission, in July, 1890, reported against this line in the following terms:—
    "The Ullapool line cannot, as at present designed, be recommended as one accommodating fishing requirements. Uilapool is situated some miles from the sea, entailing too long a beat inwards or outwards for fishing craft."
    The Special Committee of 1891, appointed to inquire into the various railway schemes in the West Highlands, reported as follows:—
    "For this reason, we concur in the opinion of the Highlands and Islands Commission, that Ullapool is unfitted for a fishery centre."
    There appears to be no ground for the contention in the fourth paragraph of the question. The determination of the late Government not to contribute to this line was communicated to its promoters by the Scotch Office on the 16th December, 1891, and repeated by the Treasury in June, 1892; and the present Government see no reason for reversing that decision. They are not prepared to guarantee the Achnasheen and Aultbea line.

    ESCAPED CONVICTS FROM NEW CALEDONIA.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed in The Melbourne Age of 31st January a telegram from Sir George Dibbs, Premier of New South Wales, declaring that there were at that time in New South Wales 700 ex-convicts from New Caledonia not liable to extradition, and that 11 convicts had escaped from New Caledonia to some part of the Australian coast during the past three months; whether he is aware that in the adjoining colonies of Victoria and Queensland there is also a considerable number of escaped convicts from New Caledonia, that serious offences have been committed by such persons in Australia, and that they have had to be re-imprisoned at the expense of British colonists; whether he will remonstrate with a view to prompt correction of this evil; and whether, in view of the fact that New Caledonia is situated in Australian waters, and only came into the possession of France under accidental circumstances, he is prepared to suggest transference of the island to British control under terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): No official information of the statement attributed to Sir George Dibbs has been received by Her Majesty's Government, but there are grounds for believing that the facts are, generally speaking, as described by the hon. Member. Various representations have been made to the French Government from time to time, and the subject will not be lost sight of, but Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to make such a proposal as is suggested at the end of the question.

    THE CROFTERS' COMMISSIONERS.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when it is expected that the Crofters' Commissioners will visit the district of Appin, in Argyllshire, for the purpose of fixing fair rents, application for which was made in April, 1887?
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): It is anticipated that the Commissioners will visit the district of Appin in the course of this Spring or early summer.

    CHRISTIAN BROTHERS' SCHOOLS IN IRELAND.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consult the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, with a view to having some arrangement come to by which the Christian Brothers' schools in Ireland may be able to participate in the grant for education in Ireland?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): At present the Government have no intention to initiate action in the direction indicated by the hon. Member in his question.

    JUDICIAL RENTS IN NORTH CLARE.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when a Sub-Commission will sit to fix rents in North Clare; and whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in this district owing to the fact that a number of cases, in which the originating notices were fixed over two years ago, have not yet been heard?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commissioners report that a Sub-Commission will sit on an early day to hear cases arising in County Clare — probably in two months. There are 57 outstanding cases altogether in the county in which the originating notices were served so far back as two years ago. All these cases have been listed for hearing, but have been adjourned in some cases on the application of the parties themselves.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not induce the Land Commission to appoint a Sub-Commission to fix rents in County Clare within the next two months?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I will bring the matter under their notice.
    MR. W. REDMOND: There is much dissatisfaction on this matter in County Clare.

    THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what kind of magazine rifle the British Army is now being supplied with, and the cost for each weapon; whether competition was invited for the best magazine rifle before the pattern was decided upon; whether he has ever directed trials to be made of the Mauser and Mannlicher rifles, in comparison with the rifle now being supplied to the British Army; whether a weapon in every essential respect identical with that intended for the British troops has been tried and rejected by the Military Authorities of the chief European and American States; whether, as a single-loader, the rifle now being supplied to Her Majesty's soldiers is inferior to the old Martini-Henry; for how long will the British soldier be able to fire at magazine speed, as compared with the time a German soldier armed with the Mauser rifle can so fire; and whether the cost of producing the new rifle, including wear and tear and depreciation of machinery, interest on cost of plant, &c, is greater than the cost of the Mauser or Mannlicher?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:The Army is being supplied with the Lee-Metford magazine rifle. The cost, as made in the Small Arms Factory, is about £3 15s., but, those obtained from the trade cost more. Before the Lee-Metford was adopted many rifles of the best-known systems were examined and tried by the Committee of Investigation; among others the Mauser and Mannlicher. We have no evidence to show to what trials foreign States have subjected the Lee-Metford or a rifle resembling it. As a single-loader the Lee-Metford is not inferior to the Martini-Henry. The magazine of the Mauser rifle holds five cartridges; that of the Lee-Metford, as now being made, holds 10. Presumably, therefore, the British soldier should maintain magazine speed for the longest time. The cost of the Lee-Metford rifle exceeds that paid under certain contracts made in the countries using them for the Mannlicher and Mauser rifles; but the difference would be to a large extent accounted for by the higher wages paid in this country.
    MAJOR RASCH: May I ask if the report is correct, which states that the life and endurance of the Lee-Metford rifle is limited to 3,300 rounds?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.

    IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MB. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the provision in the National Education Act, passed in last Parliament, that all National school teachers should receive 20 per cent. addition to their class salaries, applies to work-mistresses in the National schools; and whether the National Education Commissioners allow this percentage to work-mistresses?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Irish Education Act provides an increase of 20 per cent. to the existing rates of class salaries of teachers and of salaries of assistant teachers of National schools, but makes no provision for any increase to the salaries of work-mistresses in such schools. Work-mistresses are not in receipt of class salaries, and are not recognised as classed teachers or assistants. The Commissioners have no warrant to allow the percentage to work-mistresses.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question, and see if anything can be done?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, Sir.

    IMPERIAL GRANTS TO BELFAST UNION
    MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, during the year ending 31st December, 1892, the Parliamentary grant from the Imperial Exchequer, for various purposes, to the Belfast Union amounted to £14,230; and whether, in view of the proposed changes in the relations between the Imperial Government and the Belfast Union, he can state, if these grants be withdrawn, what the increase to the poor rate will be in the Union?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The first paragraph correctly states the fact. The total amount named—namely, £14,230, will represent a poundage rate of 3|d. on the Union valuation unless the Irish Government of the day should continue the payments.

    DUTY-PAID SPIRITS.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the nature of the change introduced in 1888–9 in the system of accounting for the removals from Customs warehouses of duty-paid spirits between England, Scotland, and Ireland?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The Board of Customs are not aware that any change was introduced in 1888–89, in the system of accounting for removals from Customs warehouses of duty-paid spirits between England, Scotland, and Ireland. Before the 5th July, 1890, no record of such removals was kept; but from that date a system of recording such removals has been introduced.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a change introduced, or by whatever epithet it may be described, has resulted in a loss to the credit of Ireland of no less than £360,000 a year in the appropriation between the three Kingdoms.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask the hon. Member to put the question on the Paper.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether, before the Government of Ireland Bill goes into Committee, he will afford the Irish Members an opportunity of understanding and appreciating the system which has been adopted and is now in operation.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member perfectly well knows he can obtain the information he desires by putting a question on the subject upon the Paper. I must ask him not to put these questions on hand.

    BARGES IN THE THAMES ESTUARY.
    MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how many barges of all kinds have been run down in the estuary of the Thames during the five years previous to June, 1892?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am having the particulars got out from the Returns in the Wreck Department, and will furnish the hon. Member with the result.

    OVERCROWDING ON THE ELECTRIC RAILWAY.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the overcrowding of the trains on the City and South London Electric Railway at certain times of the day, which is said to be illegal, and is dangerous to human life; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent overcrowding of trains?
    MR. MUNDELLA: The Board of Trade have from time to time received complaints of overcrowding on this railway, and have communicated with the company. The company state that they are using every effort to meet the press of traffic which occurs for about an hour every morning and evening. To enable them to do this, additional sidings are being constructed, and an application is now before Parliament for power to construct a duplicate line from the Borough to the City.
    MR. MORTON: May I ask why, if omnibus and tramway proprietors are prosecuted for overcrowding, even for carrying one person above the prescribed number, Railway Companies are not proceeded against in a similar way?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I am unable to answer that question.

    THE NORDENFELDT GUNS.
    MR. ROBERT WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state how many Nordenfeldt guns have burst during operations connected with the Navy since the introduction of the weapon into the Service: and whether any, and how many, persons have been killed or wounded in such accidents?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): None of the six-pounder Nordenfeldt guns have burst on service. But of the Nordenfeldt machine gnus, from 1879 to the present time, two have blown off their muzzles, without injury to anyone. Twenty-two other accidents, principally due to haug-fire, have occurred, resulting in injuries to 15 persons. In 1879 one accident occurred, due to bad manipulation, and resulted in the death of one man and the injury of one other. No more Nordenfeldt

    1429
    machine guns are being made; the Maxim guns are the only machine guns now ordered.

    SCOTCH RAILWAY RATES.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Scotch Railway Companies are not in the habit of exhibiting tables showing mileages at their stations, so that, in consequence, traders are unable to know what rates they are charged; and that, when applied to, these Railway Companies in many instances state they are not aware of the mileage, and can only quote their rate of carriage; and whether he will order inquiry into the matter and endeavour to arrange for mileage tables, clearly stated, being put up at all stations?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Section 14 of the "Regulation of Railways Act, 1873," provides, under a penalty, that every Railway Company shall keep at each of their stations a book or books, showing not only every rate charged, but also the distance from that station to every place to which the company book. The book in question is required to be, during all reasonable hours, open to the inspection of any person without the payment of any fee.
    MR. A. CROSS: Upon whom devolves the duty of laying information and bringing actions to recover penalties when the regulations are not complied with?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Anyone can prosecute to recover a penalty.
    MR. TOMLINSON: Have the Board of Trade any information as to whether, in the new rate books, the distances are uniformly or generally set forth by the companies?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I must ask for notice of that. It deals with another question altogether.

    PARISH RELIEF IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state why five paupers—namely, Widow Stewart, over 70 years of age; Widow Mackintosh, over 80 years of age; Widow M. Cameron, nearly 80 years; Widow Mackenzie Corriemoilie and Alexander Grant, said to be 97 years of age, resident at Garve or neighbourhood,
    1430
    have to pay a person to go to Contin, a distance of six miles, to receive their parish allowance, a duty which should be performed by the Inspector of Poor for the parishes of Urray and Killornan, an Assistant Inspector, or other competent person appointed by the Parochial Board as provided by statute; and whether steps will be taken to remove this grievance?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member's question was at once referred to the Board of Supervision. They telegraphed to their local Inspector to make inquiries, but his reply has not yet been received.

    MOONLIGHTING IN CLARE.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of moonlighting there were between 20th August, 1891, and 28th February, 1892, in County Clare, and whether he will give descriptions of each; and how many non-agrarian cases of moonlighting there were for Clare, for Kerry, for Cork, and for Limerick during the periods from 20th August, 1892, to 28th February, 1893, and from 20th August, 1891, and 28th February, 1892?
    MR. J. MORLEY: There were nine cases of moonlighting, agrarian and non-agrarian, in County Clare between August 20, 1891, and February 28, 1892, classified as follows: Firing at the person, 1; firing into dwelling, 4; intimidation, 3; robbery of arms, 1—total, 9. The following statement gives the number of non-agrarian cases of moon-ling in Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Limerick, during the periods mentioned: From August 20, 1892, to February 28, 1893, Clare, 10; Kerry, 3; Cork, 6; Limerick, 5. August 20, 1891, to February 28, 1892: Clare, 3; Kerry, 4; Cork, 1; Limerick, Nil. This increase in moonlighting to which I have referred has manifested itself not throughout these counties in their general areas, but rather in particular localities.
    MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, W.): Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number of evictions and seizures for rent in County Clare in the same period.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have not the numbers here.

    THE POLICE AND THE HOME RULE BILL.
    MR. THOMAS HEALY (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, within the past week, an ex-policeman, named Forsythe, and a man, named Tuohy, entered the Police Barracks at Murrintown, in the County of Wexford, for the purpose of obtaining the signatures of the police to a Petition against the Home Rule Bill; and whether steps will be taken to prevent servants of the Crown being subjected to visits and canvassing of this nature?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the police at Murrintown were not asked to sign, nor did they sign, any Petition against the Bill. The two individuals referred to were looking for signatures to the Petition in the vicinity of the barrack, and this apparently has given rise to the unfounded report so far as the police are concerned.

    EXTRA POLICE FOR WEXFORD.
    MR. THOMAS HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is the case that at the coming Wexford Assizes a Presentment for the sum of £391 for extra police for the half-year ending 30th September, 1892, is to be applied for; whether the ordinary number of police have been found insufficient to deal with the exceptionally small amount of crime in Wexford County; who is responsible for bringing the extra police into the county, and for what purpose were they required; and whether the Magistrates of the county were in any way consulted on the matter?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General informs me that the statement in the first paragraph is according to the fact. The ordinary free quota of police was not sufficient to perform all the police duty of the county, and in August, 1889, the Magistrates of the county, at a meeting duly convened for the purpose, certified that the free quota was not sufficient, and that a further force of 25 men was necessary in order to ensure the peace of the county, for which purpose these men were appointed, and they still remain in the county.
    MR. THOMAS HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware
    1432
    that the criminal business, both at the Spring and Summer Assizes, is generally over in about half an hour?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say.

    ABSENTEE MAGISTRATES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to remove from the Roll of Justices of the Peace for Ross and Cromarty all persons who are not actual in-dwellers in the same shire, as required by the Scotch Act, 1587, c. 82.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): It is not, according to the existing law, essential to the name of a person continuing upon the Commission of the Peace that he shall be actually resident in the county, though care should always be taken to have an adequate number of Resident Justices to meet the public requirements. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, do not propose to take steps in the direction indicated in the question.
    DR. CLARK: May I ask if a man may remain on the Roil when he no longer possesses a property or residential qualification?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: This matter was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor 10 or 12 years ago, and he expressed an opinion that the actual cessation of residence did not necessarily involve the removal of the name from the Commission.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular county there are 33 Justices on the Commission who are non-resident. Some are resident in India and other parts of the world?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I cannot say.

    LIMERICK ASSIZES.
    MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Gibson at the opening of the Limerick Assizes on Thursday last, to the effect that there was an increase of specially reported crimes as compared with last year, the numbers being 81 as against 54; that he regarded them as showing a certain amount of hardy lawlessness in the community, while an utter disregard on the part of the victims to come for-

    1433
    ward and give evidence was displayed; and whether, in view of this statement by the Judge of Assize, and the hope expressed by Mr. Justice O'Brien at the Clare Assizes, that means would be found to remove the administration of the Criminal Law entirely out of the County of Clare, he will consider the advisability of again putting in force in those two counties those clauses of "The Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1887," which provide for special juries and change of venue?
    MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the criminal records for these Assizes have for years past been practically blank, and that one of the Judges who go this circuit has stated that he does not know what to do with all the white gloves presented to him?
    MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the language of the learned Judge. No Assizes will be held for Clare or Limerick until the Summer Assizes, and meantime the Crown will consider what course is proper to pursue. I may add that the number of the reported outrages was in 1888, 103; in 1889, 85; in 1890, 97; in 1891, 78; and in 1892, 84; and, therefore, though the figures fluctuate, there is nothing alarming about the fluctuations. Of course, it is not a satisfactory state of things.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that if any attempt is made to apply any of the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act to County Clare, I shall strongly oppose it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say there was any such intention.

    SHEFFIELD POOR LAW DISTRICTS.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state on what ground and by whose recommendation an Order is to be issued breaking up the ancient township of Sheffield into arbitrarily?divided wards for the election of the Guardians of the Poor, without public local inquiry and in defiance of the representations of seven out of eleven of the present Guardians elected by the township, and of an urgent Petition signed by nearly 600 ratepayers; and having in view the strong local feeling on the sub-
    1434
    ject, if he will withhold or suspend his approval until an official of the Local Government Board has fully investigated the whole of the facts upon oral evidence, and made report to himself?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The township of Sheffield has a population of more than 90,000, and it was in consequence of an application by the Guardians of the Sheffield Union of which the township forms a part, that it was proposed by the Local Government Board to divide the township into wards for the election of Guardians. The proposed wards, it was understood, were to be the same as those which have been constituted for municipal elections. The Board have since received representations adverse to the proposal, and I have directed that a local inquiry shall be held before a final decision is arrived at.

    EDINBURGH COMMISSARY OFFICE.
    MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a Memorial from the staff of the Commissary Office in Edinburgh, asking that they may be admitted to rank as Civil servants in respect of pay and other advantages; and whether, in view of the fact that the work done at this office is as important and efficient as the similar work of the Dublin Probate Office, that the salaries are nearly 50 per cent. lower, and that the hours of the staff, which consists of only eight persons, have recently been raised from six to seven a day, he can give a favourable answer to the prayer of the memorialists?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have received the Memorial to which the hon. Member alludes. In 1890 the Treasury laid down the principle that in offices of a semi-legal character, like that of the Commissary for' Scotland, it was inexpedient to entertain a staff of clerks on the Civil Service Establishment. I think it not advisable to press the Treasury now to re-consider this line of policy which they have clearly laid down.

    POOR LAW PRACTICE.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in reports of young persons (especially girls) who have been started

    1435
    in life from the union workhouses, their names, and often their addresses, are given and published; and whether he will give instructions that this shall be discontinued, and the cases merely referred to by numbers or initials?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand that the report which has suggested this question was a report made to the Guardians of the St. George's Union by the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants with reference to girls who have been placed out in service by the Guardians of that Union, and who have been visited on behalf of the Association. I have made inquiry of the Association, and find that the report in question was sent by them to the Guardians in manuscript. It appears to me that the report would be of little value to the Guardians unless the names of the girls to whom it refers were given, and also the addresses where necessary. The report has been printed, but I assume that this has been done by the direction of the Guardians with a view to a copy being supplied to each Guardian. I entirely concur in the view that there should be no publicity given to these reports, which I think should be regarded as confidential documents for the exclusive use of the Guardians, and I am making further inquiries of the Guardians on the subject.

    LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATION.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government, without any further delay, to carry out the unanimous recommendation made in December last by the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication with Lighthouses, &c.— namely, that the Goodwin (North Sand Head), Kentish Knock, Shipwash, Hans-borough, and Scarworthy light vessels be immediately connected?
    MR. MUNDELLA: The recommendations of the Royal Commission will be carefully considered by a Departmental Committee, but I am not yet in a position to announce a final decision.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission recommended that these light vessels should be immediately connected?
    MR. MUNDELLA: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Report he will
    1436
    find pointed out the difficulty of doing this. The Board of Trade have communicated with Trinity House, and there will be no unavoidable delay.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I shall take the earliest opportunity of bringing this matter under the notice of the House.

    RENT APPEALS.
    MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can, and will, take some steps to prevent the great delay in fixing rents by the Court, and lessen the injury caused to tenants by the delay now endured?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commissioners inform me that on August 22, 1888, there were 61,317 applications to fix fair rents outstanding; that on December 31, 1891, this number was reduced to 9,398; and on December 31, 1892, it was still further reduced to 6,581. There are at present 24 Lay Assistant Commissioners continually employed. The Commissioners add that by simplification of procedure and otherwise they do all in their power to promote expedition, so far as is consistent with efficiency and the proper consideration of the cases to be adjudicated upon.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): Have not some cases in Cork County been pending for years?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners are making special efforts now to. Clear their lists.
    MR. MOLLOY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to hurry them on?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have no authority over the Land Commissioners. I will, however, transmit to them any representations that reach me.

    TOTTENHAM FEVER HOSPITAL.
    MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he can say if any, and what, decision has been come to by the Board with reference to the application of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to extend the time for the reception of patients in the temporary fever hospital at St. Ann's Road, Tottenham?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have given instructions to hold a public inquiry with reference to the proposal of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District that the land in question should be permanently appropriated as a site for a fever hospital.

    WHITE FISHING IN SOLWAY FIRTH.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill may be extended so as to apply to the white fishing industry on the Scottish shores of the Solway Firth, in accordance with the recommendation of the Departmental Committee which reported last year?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to a question of the hon. Member for Wigtownshire on the 23rd February last, I stated that the Fishery Bill, which will be brought forward very shortly, relates to the general deep-sea fisheries of Scotland. When that has been disposed of, the Government will do its best to deal with the salmon fisheries, with special reference to the Tweed and to the Solway. The white fishings of the Solway are so mixed up with the salmon and the general fishing of the Solway that they cannot be taken apart.
    SIR H. MAXWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is nothing in the recommendations of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside to prevent the extension of the existing regulations?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: It is impossible to deal with this question by itself.

    SPAEKBROOK FACTORY.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of persons employed in the Royal Small Arms Factory, Spark-brook, Birmingham, on 1st August, 1892, and on 1st March, 1893, and the number of persons employed in the Enfield Factory on the same dates?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: August 1, 1892, was a Bank Holiday, but on the previous working day 2,175 persons were employed at Enfield, and 714 at Sparkbrook. On March 1, 1893, there were 2,205 at Enfield, and 664 at
    1438
    Sparkbrook. I may remark that several classes of work performed at Enfield, and on which no reduction is required, are not executed at Sparkbrook.
    MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.): I beg, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, to ask the Secretary of State for War why the Estimate for wages for the Government Factory at Sparkbrook, Birmingham, has been reduced in greater proportion than the similar Estimate for Enfield?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I regret that it will be necessary to reduce, in all the Government Factories under the War Department, the amount of production. But the hon. Gentleman will see that, if the Bagot Street and Sparkbrook establishments are taken together, the reduction is in very much the same proportion as at Enfield.
    MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask if there is any special reason for reducing the Sparkbrook Vote out of proportion with the Enfield Vote?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have just explained that the reduction is not out of proportion.

    INSANITARY TUG BOATS ON THE THAMES.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Medical Officer of the Port of London has declared that in many cases the tug boats on the River Thames are in an insanitary condition, particularly with regard to the source of drinking water which is taken from the river, and which he describes as a most dangerous proceeding; and what steps can be taken to prevent the development of disease among the floating population through this practice?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have communicated with the Medical Officer of the Port of London on the subject of this question, and he informs me that there is some foundation for the report as to the insanitary condition of some of the steam tugs on the Upper Thames, although it cannot be said that, generally, they are in a bad state. He is making a close and careful inspection of these tugs, and is requiring that defects shall be remedied. In the case of any tugs where it is known that water has been obtained from the

    1439
    river the Medical Officer insists upon the emptying of the water vessels, and after warning the master of the tug as to the danger communicates with the owners, with a view to such instructions being given as will prevent the use for drinking purposes of water taken direct from the river.

    LASCAR SEAMEN.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the Peninsular and Oriental steamship Kaisar-i-Hind, which sailed from Portsmouth with over 600 men, women, and children on board belonging to the North Staffordshire Regiment, and which vessel was manned by Lascars; and will he inform the House whether there are any regulations providing that all vessels carrying British troops shall be manned by competent seamen; and will he state whether it is intended in future to take steps to prevent troop-ships sailing with a large number of passengers being manned by Lascars, having regard to the fact that at the recent inquiry into the loss of the steamship Roumania a British officer who had had considerable experience of Lascars stated that they were not reliable seamen in cold or stormy weather?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. There is no regulation precluding the employment of Lascars in transports or hired ships conveying troops; nor is it thought that it would he either desirable or possible to refuse to employ as freight ships passenger steamers, like the Peninsular and Oriental Company's vessels, which are manned by Lascars. The regulations require that troop freight ships shall be as completely equipped and manned as the highest class of passenger steamers of similar size. The opinion referred to in the last sentence of the question was given by an officer of the Indian Staff Corps. No naval officer was on board the Roumania.
    MR. W. S. CAINE (Bradford, E.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those Lascar seamen are natives of British India, and are entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No doubt that is so.

    THE CASE OF L. OLSEN.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case of L. Olsen, late second engineer of the s.s. Blakemore, who died on the voyage from the Tyne to the West Indies; if he is aware that the said L. Olsen had, at the time of his death, due to him the sum of £12 5s. for wages, which amount had been forwarded to the Norwegian Consul, instead of being sent to the wife and family of the said L. Olsen, he having sailed for over 19 years on British ships, and has a wife and family living at the Port of South Shields; and if, upon inquiry, he finds the money has been sent to the Norwegian Consul instead of to the wife of the said L. Olsen, what steps, if any, will be taken to see that the money and the effects of the late L. Olsen is delivered to the wife of the deceased man?
    MR. MUNDELLA: The seaman referred to by the hon. Member was a Swedish subject, and, in accordance with an agreement entered into with the Swedish Government in 1863, his wages and effects must be handed over to the Representative of the Swedish Government in this country. As the man has left a widow in this country the Board of Trade endeavoured to induce the Swedish Authorities to allow the wages, amounting to £12 5s., and the effects to be handed over to her; but I have within the last few days been informed by the Swedish Consul General that the mother of the deceased man refuses to waive her claim upon the estate. The widow has been advised to apply to the Consul General, and will, no doubt, receive the portion of the estate to which under the Swedish law she may be entitled.

    SUNDAY IN POLITICAL CLUBS.
    MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the statements made in an article in the Evening News and Post of Monday the 6th instant as to the proceedings in certain political clubs on Sunday; and whether the police and Excise authorities have been, or could be, instructed to

    1441
    take steps to prevent this alleged violation of the law?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Since this question has been put down I have seen the article referred to, which seems of a somewhat sensational character. The Inland Revenue, in the last 12 months, have obtained 15 convictions of bogus clubs in the Metropolitan area, and fines have been inflicted, where evidence can be procured.
    MR. HULSE: Is the Government prepared to direct the attention of the Excise authorities to what goes on in these so-called clubs on Sundays?
    SIB W. HARCOURT: Their attention has been drawn to it, and 15 convictions have been obtained as a result.

    THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
    MB. DARLING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Government received the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission, presided over by Sir James Mathew; and when it will be presented to Parliament?
    MB. J. MORLEY: It will, I believe, be presented to-day.

    THE PROPOSED FEVER HOSPITAL AT TOOTING.
    MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will extend the instructions of the gentleman whom he has authorised to hold the public inquiry with reference to the proposed fever hospital on Tooting Common, so as to allow them to receive evidence not only that the proposed site is objectionable in itself, but also evidence (which they have not felt able under their existing instructions to receive) that the site is inferior to other sites which are obtainable in the same district at a less cost to the public purse, and not open to the same objections; and, if there be any rule or reason against extending such instructions, whether he will allow such evidence to be laid before himself afterwards?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The experienced Inspectors who conducted the inquiry as to the proposed fever hospital acted in accordance with the practice of the Local Government Board, and I see no reason for interfering with their dis-
    1442
    cretion. The inquiry was limited to the proposal to acquire a specified site, and such an inquiry could not properly have been extended to other sites, in respect of which there was no proposal of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District before the Local Government Board, and with regard to which no notice had been given to those interested in the localities where the sites are situate. Any information that can be given as to sites which are available for hospital purposes, and which are considered to be more suitable than the site in question, should be submitted in the first instance to the Asylum Managers, and I shall be prepared to receive and consider a copy of any communication which may be addressed to the Managers on the subject.

    CORDITE.
    MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the War Office, during the month of September last, invited rival manufacturers to witness the process of manufacture of nitro-glycerine and the whole process of making cordite at Waltham Abbey, notwithstanding that the validity of the cordite patent was then in dispute; whether he is aware that a large portion of such processes are the result of many years of special experience in the manufacture of nitro-glycerine explosives, and were shown in confidence to officials of the Government by the inventor and owners of the Nobel Ballistite Patents, before it was known that the Government had any intention of attempting to take out patents (now the subject of litigation) for the manufacture of any similar powder; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As the whole question of cordite patents is the subject of impending legal proceedings, I think that the hon. Member will see that I can hardly answer his question.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many carcases of home-bred cattle were con-

    1443
    demned on account of tuberculosis during last year?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no information as to the number of carcases of cattle which were condemned by Justices on account of tuberculosis during last year.
    MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.): Will the right hon. Gentleman try to obtain the information from Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: If a Motion is put on the Paper the Government will consider if it can be granted.
    MR. LEES KNOWLES: I will put it down.

    MOONLIGHTING IN LIMERICK.
    MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the reports in the public Press of the proceedings at the Limerick Assizes, before Mr. Justice Gibson, on Saturday last, from which it appears that four men were tried for moonlighting with blackened faces, that apparently the Judge was convinced of their guilt, and that the jury acquitted them; and whether these reports are accurate; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to stop the further development of crime in the County of Limerick, by directing that future cases of moonlighting in that county shall be tried in some other venue?
    MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the proceedings in the case referred to and to the observations of Mr. Justice Gibson. Four men were indicted under the Whiteboy Act, and the jury acquitted them on all counts. The Judge, in his Charge to the jury, said—
    "The case was not attended with any violence, and the offence was not an aggravated one; still it was the duty of jurors to put down such a system of lawlessness by idle youths visiting houses for the purpose of raising money with or without violence, otherwise if it remained unchecked by jurors they themselves would sooner or later pay the penalty of their cowardice."
    He had already stated that, pending the next Assizes for the county, the Crown would consider what course it would be proper to pursue.

    LANDLORDS AND THE YEOMANRY.
    MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the notice to quit served on Mr. Joseph Knowles, of Yew Tree Farm, Appleton, Cheshire, by his landlord, Colonel Piers Egerton Warburton, by reason of the former's refusal to serve, personally, in the Arley Troop of the Earl of Chester's Yeomanry Cavalry, though sending a substitute; and whether such method of recruiting the Yeomanry is sanctioned by the War Office?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no knowledge of this case except through paragraphs in newspapers. The Secretary of State for War has no concern with the particular conditions enforced by a landlord in an agricultural lease. But I can imagine nothing more unfavourable to the interests of the Yeomanry Force than the existence of a burdensome provision such as is described.

    THE CONGO FREE STATE.
    MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the Royal Decree signed by King Leopold, as Sovereign of the Congo Free State, on 29th September, 1891, declaring his intention to preserve for the use of the State the fruits of its domains, notably ivory and rubber; the Royal Decree of 25th July, 1892, declaring that the right of hunting elephants is interdicted throughout the territories of the State, except by special permission; and the Royal Decree of 30th October, 1892, prohibiting all trade with natives in rubber, except by the State, over districts therein specified, and comprising, at least, half of the whole area of the Congo Free State; and whether Her Majesty's Government, as one of the signatories to the Berlin Treaty of 1885, has protested against those Decrees as violations of its first Article, which stipulated that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in all the regions forming the basin of the Congo and its outlets?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the Decree of October 30th, which carried out the intention stated in the first part of the question. It is doubtful whether, and if so how far, the doctrine of State domains in Africa is inconsistent with the Free Trade established in the Zone by the Berlin Act, and Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, not protested against it. They have, however, made inquiries as to the policy of the Congo State, and it is possible that the Decree will shortly be modified. The Decree of July 25th has not been communicated. If it merely makes regulations against the uncontrolled slaughter of elephants it would not be contrary to the spirit of the Act. It will be obtained and examined.

    MILITARY CLERKS.
    MR. GEORGE ALLSOPP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House of the number of Non-Commissioned Officers and men borne on the rolls of their regiment and employed as clerks in the War Office and Departmental Head Quarters and receiving pay in addition to their regimental pay?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The number of military clerks such as are described by the hon. Member is 11.
    MR. BROOKFIELD: Is there any objection to giving this civil employment to discharged soldiers and Army Reserve men?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That subject is not included in the question upon the Paper. It is a matter of policy and of opinion, which I am not bound to answer.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question upon the Estimates.

    THE SPARKBROOK FACTORY.
    MR. JESSE CODLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to remove the repairing department in Bagot Street, Birmingham, to the Royal Small Arms Factory, Sparkbrook?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to the last part of the question, I have to point, out that one is in the Army Estimate and the other in the
    1446
    Ordnance Estimate. It is at present intended that the inspection and repairing Establishment at Bagot Street, Birmingham, should be maintained at least for another year.

    MAGAZINE RIFLES.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the cost of magazine rifles (per rifle) made at Enfield and at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is very difficult to form a very exact estimate; but the cost is about £3 15s., and the difference between the two establishments appears to be very slight.

    ILLITERATE VOTERS.
    MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now give the House some definite assurance as to when the Return of Illiterate Voters at the last General Election, ordered in August last year and laid upon the Table, will be circulated; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not responsible for the circulation of the Return, but I will cause inquiries to be made.
    MR. WEBSTER: Has the Return been presented to the House?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes; a long time ago.

    CRIMEAN PENSION ARREARS.
    MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the regulations as to the payment of arrears of pension to Crimean veterans, or other pensioners, who have earned a pension, who have gone abroad for some years and have on returning home been restored to the Pension List?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As regards foreign residence pensioners fall into two classes, those under and those over 50. The former cannot draw pension in a foreign country; the latter may. A man under 50 returning from abroad may be reinstated on the Pension List, but he can receive nothing for any period he was out of Her Majesty's dominions.
    MR. HANBURY: I have had several letters in which the writers say they have had three years granted. Is that to be the regular maximum?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The regular limit is one year, but in some cases a liberal interpretation is put upon the regulations.

    THE KACHIN HILLS.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a telegram in The Times of 6th March, dated Rangoon 5th March, in which it is stated that it has been decided that all active operations in the Kachin Hills, east of the Irawaddy, are to cease, and also, that a Chinese officer had been killed near Sima, during the recent fighting; whether he is able to confirm these statements; and whether he can supplement them by any further information?
    SIR E. GREY: Yes; the statement is correct. The officers on the spot reported the rising as over, and on the 28th of February the Viceroy of India telegraphed that the work of the Eastern Columns may be considered closed for this season. Her Majesty's Government have received no information bearing on the report that a Chinese officer had been killed near Sima; and they have no further information on the subject of the hon. Member's questions.

    THE UNIFICATION OF LONDON.
    MR. LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is in accordance with the usual precedent to announce the name of a member of a Royal Commission before it has been submitted to Her Majesty for approval; and whether, having communicated to the London Count)' Council the name of Sir Thomas Fairer as the representative of the views of that body on the Royal Commission relating to the amalgamation of the City and County of London, he has also communicated to the City authorities the name of the gentleman he proposes should serve on that Commission as representative of their views; and, if so, whether he has any objection to stating his name?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: When I informed the House of the proposed Commission relating to the amalgamation of the City and County of Loudon I stated that it would consist of five members, of whom one would be selected as representing the
    1448
    London County Council and one as representing the City of London. It was therefore thought desirable to ascertain whether the person whom the Government considered to be qualified to represent the views of the Loudon County Council would be acceptable to that body, before his name was submitted to Her Majesty for her approval. A similar course has been pursued with regard to the person whom the Government considered as suitable to represent the City of London.

    THE NEW LABOUR CORRESPONDENTS.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the special duties of the new Labour Correspondents, and will they be expected to furnish reliable information with regard to the number of workmen employed?
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will my right hon. Friend be so good as to say what salary or remuneration is to be paid to those provincial correspondents of the Labour Department; and if, having in view that some of those whose nomination appears in to-day's papers are well-known Gladstonian propagandists, they will be strictly forbidden, as public servants, to engage henceforward in any active political work?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I ought to have notice of that question.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I will repeat it on Monday.
    MR. MUNDELLA: A statement on this and other matters pertaining to the organisation and work of the Labour Department will be presented to the House immediately after Easter, as already promised. It will, however, be one of their duties to give information on the subject mentioned by the hon. Member.
    MR. DALZIEL: Will they report from personal observation, or will any machinery be provided for securing them the information they require?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I make a full statement to the House on the subject.

    NOSS HEAD.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether anything has been done in reference to the pro-

    1449
    posed fog signal on Noss Head, promised to be erected last year?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I can find no trace in the Scottish Office of any promise to erect a fog signal on Noss Head. The Commission of Northern Lights reported last November that this fog signal should be erected, but they did not attach the first importance to it. The funds of that Commission are derived from the Board of Trade, and the Scottish Office has no control over them.
    DR. CLARK: I will ask the President of the Board of Trade a question on this subject on another day.

    ANTHRAX.
    MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he Will issue an Order authorising the Local Authorities to grant compensation not exceeding the dead carcase value of any animal which has died of anthrax, provided proper notice of the existence of the disease has been given by the owner; and, should he have no powers to issue such Order, if he will embody such a clause in any Bill relating to contagious animal diseases which he may introduce this Session?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I have no power under the law as it stands to issue an Order to the effect proposed, and indeed I should have thought that the carcase of an animal which has died of anthrax did not possess any value at all. I shall, however, be happy to make a note of the hon. Member's suggestion, and to give it my careful consideration.

    THE UNEMPLOYED.
    MR. KEIR-HARDIE (West Ham, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information concerning the numbers of unemployed persons in the different centres of industry, and the measures which are being taken by Boards of Guardians, Vestries, Town Councils, or Unemployed Committees for the relief of the unemployed; and, if he is not in possession of such information, whether he will agree to a Return giving this information?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is proposed to address communications to Local Authorities with the view of ascertain-
    1450
    ing what measures have been, and are being, taken by them as regards the execution of works which afford means of employment to persons who otherwise would he unemployed. I am unable to give any information as to the actual number of unemployed persons in the different centres of industry. It appears to me that it would be extremely difficult to obtain accurate particulars as to these numbers.

    THE TITHE QUESTION.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is correctly reported to have stated to a deputation of Essex farmers on the 23rd February, that the Government could not possibly deal with them (the tithes) without further investigation, for the Act passed by the late Government was admitted to be a failure, and that the question would be dealt with by the Select Committee about to be appointed; if he will say in what respect the Act of the late Government is a failure; when the Select Committee is to be appointed; and whether he can yet state what the terms of the Reference will be?
    MR. H. GARDNER: I have not seen the report to which the noble Lord refers, but I gather from his question that it does not accurately embody the remarks I addressed to the Essex deputation. What I did say was this: that inasmuch as several of the speakers at the deputation had declared that the Tithe Act passed by the late Government had been a failure, there could be no doubt that the question was one which could not fail to receive the attention of the Committee which was to be appointed. The terms of the Reference to that Committee were placed on the Notice Paper nearly three weeks ago, and I should be in a position to move for the Committee on Monday next, if the noble Lord would use his influence with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division to withdraw his opposition.

    SCOTLAND AND THE IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER.
    MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consent to

    1451
    the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the financial relations of Scotland to the Imperial Exchequer, in continuation of the inquiry commenced but not concluded in the last Parliament into the financial relations of England, Ireland, and Scotland?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I much regret the delay which has occurred with regard to this matter, but since last year Irish finance has been put into a position which must make it certain that it will undergo the thorough consideration of the House; and, that being so, I am of opinion that it would not be expedient to appoint a Committee at the present time to examine into the Scotch portion of the subject, for the reason that a great deal of light will be thrown on the subject by the discussion which will take place on the Irish branch of the question.
    DR. CLARK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present relations are based on a Return of four years ago, and that in one case a sum of £18,500 too little was allocated to Scotland?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not conversant with the details.
    MR. HUNTER: I beg to give the light hon. Gentleman notice that I shall take the first opportunity that offers to call attention to the fact that Scotland is overcharged to the extent of £1,500,000 per annum.

    COUNTY JUSTICES.
    MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that about 90 per cent. of the Justices of the Peace (county) are now drawn from one Political Party, the Government intend to take any action in this matter, with a view to altering the present state of affairs?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This question is one of very considerable difficulty and, at the same time, of importance. I cannot make any definite statement at the present moment. The subject has been under the active consideration of the Government, and correspondence has taken place upon it. I should think that in the course of a very small number of weeks I may be able to give a more definite answer to the ques-
    1452
    tion. I am not cognisant of the fact that the proportion is 90 per cent.
    MR. LODER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a similar state of uncertainty as to the politics of gentlemen appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the Borough Benches?
    [No answer was given.]

    IMPERIAL FINANCE.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Bill of 1886, it was considered an equitable contribution for Ireland to pay £4,242,000 per annum towards the Imperial charges of the United Kingdom, and also, in view of his recent statement that in future he proposes that Ireland is only to pay a contribution estimated at £2,370,000 per annum, will Scotland be called upon to make up any part of the deficiency caused by the difference between these two sums?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In my opinion, subjects of this kind are not conveniently raised by questions on the Paper, but they belong properly to discussions on the various stages of the Bill. It is especially unfortunate when questions of this kind are asked that they should be based upon figures which are entirely inaccurate. The errors into which the hon. Member has been betrayed are of a most serious character. He has forgotten that in the Bill of 1886 the sum of £1,400,000 was credited to the Irish Revenue which did not belong to it, and it also appears that he has overstated by £640,000 the amount of the contribution from Ireland.
    MR. COCHKANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the difference, whatever it may be?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that the hon. Member is not in a condition to say as yet there is a difference. He had better make a careful re-examination of the subject before he again ventures to ask the question.
    MR. A. CROSS: May I, as a Scotch Member, say that there is no difference.

    THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Trea-

    1453
    sury whether he is aware that a very strong desire exists among the working classes of the country for a complete and satisfactory Employers' Liability Act; that great dissatisfaction now prevails with regard to the existing Act on this subject; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will give early and sufficient facilities to enable the Bill now before Parliament to pass its Second Reading on an early date?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We shall carefully look for an opportunity of taking the Second Reading of this Bill before Easter, if possible. I hope and desire very much that it may be possible, but I am not now in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

    HOME RULE AND TOBACCO.
    MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that after the passing of the Home Rule Bill the Irish Government will have no revenue of their own from the article, the Imperial Government will continue to control and supervise the manufacture of tobacco in Ireland, as is done at present throughout the United Kingdom; and will any, and if so what, steps be taken to ensure that no tobacco can be imported into Great Britain from Ireland of a purity less than is required by law at present, and generally, under what conditions the manufacture of tobacco will be carried on in Ireland after the passing of the Home Rule Bill?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The management of this subject is at present under the control of the Excise. If the fiscal arrangements proposed in the Irish Government Bill should be adopted in the state in which they now stand, and should receive in that way the sanction of Parliament, it is probable that a change in them will be necessary; but I think it would be inconvenient to enter upon the consideration of that matter until we have received the stamp of the authority of the House to the arrangement.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are we right in believing that in the Home Rule Bill as it at present stands there is no machinery for dealing with the question of the adulteration of tobacco?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No change is proposed in the machinery as the Bill now stands. Whether a change ought to be made will depend upon the form which the fiscal proposals of the Bill take. I must not as yet assume that in every particular of administration as well as of taxation they will be certain to receive the sanction of the House without any alteration.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the actual proposals of the Government are that this important branch of Imperial Revenue should be looked after by purely Irish officials?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; the consideration of the question is postponed until we know what the decision of the House may be on the subject of administration—I may add, in common I have no doubt with a great number of other matters of detail, the consideration of which, at the present moment, would be entirely premature, and would lead to nothing but confusion.

    THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
    SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Suspensory Bill for the Church of Scotland; and, if so, whether it will be introduced before Easter?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not in a position to make any further announcement on the subject of the Suspensory Bill.
    SIR M. STEWART: In view of the importance of this matter, I shall repeat my question on Monday.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My answer stands for Monday as well as for to-day.

    THE OPIUM QUESTION.
    SIR M. STEWART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill, with a view to legislation, on the opium question this Session, in accordance with the Resolution passed by this House in 1891?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Secretary for India is sensible that a strong sentiment exists upon this subject among an important section of the public; but I am not able to say that Her

    1455
    Majesty's Government have arrived, at any view on the subject which would enable them to promise any during the present Session.

    THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to give the House some information as to the course of business before Easter. We intend to proceed with the Estimates, as is necessary, in order to comply with the provisions of the law: the Army Estimates, Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates—which I am given to understand will, after the substantial discussion of the other night, pass with a little more expenditure of time -— the remaining Supplementary Estimates, and, finally, the Vote on Account. The Government propose to fix the Vote for the Evicted Tenants Commission for Monday, and it will, therefore, be necessary to postpone the Irish Government Bill, which now stands for Monday, until Thursday, and I intend to move the Bill that day, and to assign to it Thursday and the following days, so far as depends upon us. In the present state of Public Business, it may be necessary to make appeals to the patriotism of the House to accede to arrangements entailing some sacrifice of its convenience—whether it be by Saturday Sittings or by abridging the period usually appropriated to the Easter Recess. I 'gather that this is not an agreeable announcement, but I apprehend that the first duty of the House is that the Public Business shall be done, and I assure the House that the Government will make no demand of that kind upon it except what might appear to us to be absolutely called for by the interests of the country and the exigencies and necessities of the Public Service.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to ask one or two questions in order that we may clearly understand exactly what the views of the Government are. Am I right in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman in fixing a date for the discussion of the Evicted Tenants Commission means to bring on the Estimate, and that the discussion shall take place first on Monday, whatever may happen to the other Estimates?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask him, in the second place—of course I do not ask
    1456
    for any declaration in regard to the Easter holidays—what views he has with regard to Saturday Sittings? My own view is that a Saturday Sitting, while imposing unquestionable inconvenience on the House, and imposing unquestionable hardships on the officers of the House, is not likely in matters of Supply greatly to further the progress of Public Business. However that may be, I think the Government should give us full notice of their intention to put down a Resolution for a Saturday Sitting, in order that we may take steps to see that the matter is thoroughly threshed out, and I should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to put down for to-morrow before the commencement of Public Business a Resolution requiring us to sit on Saturday. The only other question that I have to ask is with regard to the Notice of Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Paper to-day. I should like to ask him whether the Government have placed that notice on the Paper with the same view and intention as they placed a similar notice on the Paper last Monday? At that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that all the Government desired to attain by the temporary abrogation of the Twelve o'Clock Rule' was, not to prolong our Sitting, but to prevent the striking of the clock intervening between the House and a decision which the House was prepared to arrive at. If the Government can assure the House that they do not intend to prolong the Sitting to-night, but merely to prevent any inconvenience that may arise from some hon. Gentleman talking out the question before the House, as sometimes happens, I shall certainly not do anything to embarrass the Government. I think we ought to know exactly what are the intentions of the Government.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to say, in reply to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Vote for the Evicted Tenants Commission will be taken first on Monday, irrespective of the position in which we may stand in respect of any other business. As to the second question, I must make an apology to the House for not stating that it is my intention to move tomorrow for a Sitting on the day after to-morrow. We shall not repeat that Motion unless rigid necessity should

    1457
    appear to compel us to do so. As regards the third question, the right hon. Gentleman being satisfied with the terms in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer described his intention of moving the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule last Monday, I may say that it is just with the same intention that we propose it now. It was done repeatedly in the time of the late Government, and it was a perfectly reasonable proceeding. There is no intention on the part of the Government to make it a heavy post-midnight Sitting, but merely to prevent the interference of the Twelve o'Clock Rule with the main business of the evening, which we shall close within a reasonable time afterwards.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I understand that in the event of an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair being under consideration, the Government would afford an opportunity for the discussion upon that Amendment being brought to a conclusion, but that no attempt would be made to proceed with other Amendments or any other questions.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not going to enter into details, and I think I must take my stand on what I have already stated.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: In view of the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Thursday next, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any alterations that may be proposed in the schedules or clauses of the Home Rule Bill relating to finance will be laid on the Table before the Second Reading? I gathered from the Chief Secretary, at the close of the Debate on the introduction of the Bill, that the clauses were not presented in their final shape, and there are two blank schedules. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information to communicate to the House on these matters.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no information to communicate as regards the clauses of the Bill which would in any way affect the votes of hon. Members. There is one clause of the Bill, with respect to Excise, the particular terms of which I do not think can be regarded as absolutely fixed. The two schedules are not yet filled; but with regard to one, at any rate, I think it is
    1458
    the intention of my right hon. Friend to give information before the Second Reading, and if the right hon. Gentleman puts a question to-morrow he may obtain a distinct answer from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is one point on which I find my hon. Friends near me take a different view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman from that I gathered from his words. I understood him to say that the Government proposes to take the Home Rule Bill on Thursday next, but a stronger interpretation has been put upon the words by some hon. Gentlemen, who appeared to understand what I cannot quite credit—namely, that, whatever the condition of Public Business may be, and however necessary that Supply must be obtained, Supply must be put on on one side in order that the Home Rule Bill may be taken.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My statement was that we would take the Home Rule Bill on Thursday next and following days, for the Second Reading of that Bill. I do not think I can add anything to that. With respect to Supply, there may be contingencies, but I am not able to make any calculation which would lead to the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I want no calculations from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is quite possible he may get all the Supply he wants by Wednesday. But what we want to know is whether we are to regard the Home Rule Bill as being absolutely fixed for Thursday, as the Evicted Tenants Commission is fixed for Monday?
    MR.W.E.GLADSTONE: Certainly.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement made by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury on Wednesday is correct, that the Government intend to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-night on the Army Estimates, and to force the Amendments to a conclusion in order to carry the Vote to-night?
    MR. HANBURY: I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether if the Navy Estimates are not reached before 12 o'clock they will be taken after that hour?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We shall be desirous to get forward as far as we

    1459
    can, but we shall be guided by the feeling of the House. I should not be disposed to run counter to that feeling, unless for some object of a vital character. I do not think I can go further than that.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I think I am justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he endorses the statement made yesterday by the Patronage Secretary, that the Government intend to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-night? If the right hon. Gentleman does so I shall divide against the Motion for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We shall make all the progress we can with the Votes.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Then I will divide against the Motion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I now understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he proposes to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-night under any circumstances.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never said so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I am mistaken. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the answer he gave me just now, that he has no wish whatever, no intention, of having any prolonged Sitting after Twelve o'clock.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: He has never said so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then we are to regard the termination of business to-night as wholly irrespective and independent of whether the Speaker is or is not out of the Chair?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to give notice of a similar Resolution to the one we have now submitted to us whenever Supply is put down as the principal business before the House? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more in harmony with the ordinary practice of Parliament to submit a general Resolution, which we could discuss, if it be his intention, whenever Supply is put down as the principal business of the House, to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If we had formed a Resolution of that kind, it would have been our duty to communicate it to the House, and I would not
    1460
    have waited before communicating it, to be reminded of it by the noble Lord.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Twelve o'clock Rule has already been suspended five times, though this is only the sixth week of the Session, and whether he will not adopt the view of the noble Lord, and do away with the Rule altogether.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Right hon. Edward Heneage, for the Borough of Great Grimsby.
MOTIONS.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER.)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the proceedings on Supply, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the provisions of the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Gladstone,")
  The House divided: — Ayes 264; Noes 179.—(Division List, No. 25.)
  MR. BARTLEY: I rise to order, Sir. The wrong numbers were given.
  MR. SPEAKER: Point out what is wrong.
  MR. BARTLEY: In announcing the numbers the Teller said, Ayes 274, and it should have been 264.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to say, Sir, I deeply regret having made the mistake, but it was not made of malice prepense.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  LORD WANTAGE'S COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)moved—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of Military Administration fails to secure either due economy in time of peace or efficiency for national defence."
  His remarks must not be taken in any sense as an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of

  1461
  State for War, nor upon the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), to whom the country owed a great deal for his administration of the War Office, nor were his remarks intended as an attack against the distinguished officers and civil servants who served the country in their office, but what he intended to put before the House were certain observations intended to show that the system those officers had to administer was not a system that tended to economy in time of peace nor efficiency for national defence. This system, if it might be called by that name, was the result, not of a definite policy of any Minister, not the result of any policy adopted by this House, but a description of patchwork for which many Ministers were responsible, and many Commissions. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (General Sir G. T. Chesney), who was going to second this Motion, would speak—and he was second to none as an authority in this country—as to the reason why the administration of the War Office was deficient; he could put his hands on the weak spots and point out why they were weak and had arisen from the present mis-called "system" of the War Office. He proposed to show from the last public document at the disposal of Parliament that the administration at the War Office was neither economical nor efficient. The public document to which he referred was known as the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, and he took that as the basis of his remarks, because it was the last authoritative document on the subject. The points he proposed to make good were three. In the first place, he proposed to show that the War Office had induced the country to adopt schemes and a policy entailing vast expenditure, but the War Office itself had never carried them out, nor properly administered them. He proposed to show, in the second place, the War Office had wholly neglected to make provision against some very important and wholly certain contingencies. And, in the third place, he proposed to prove that the general condition of affairs in connection with the Home Army, produced by this maladministration, had become serious. The Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister,
  1462
  which began in 1869, was a great epoch in military reforms. Mr. Cardwell, as the War Minister of that Administration, initiated a policy which was worthy of the name. Hon. Members might have varying opinions as to the soundness or otherwise of that policy; but no one could deny it was a definite policy that Mr. Cardwell submitted to the House, and the House and the country adopted it. That policy, whether good or bad, involved a vast expenditure of money, and that expenditure having been incurred, or the liability of it having been contracted, that policy having been adopted by the House of Commons, it then devolved on the War Office to carry out that policy efficiently, and to administer the money economically. He was prepared to prove the War Office had not administered that policy, and pro tanto as that administration had been deficient so it had been uneconomical. In the Scheme of Mr. Cardwell a cardinal feature was that the number of battalions of the Army at home should never be less than the number abroad. He did not propose to argue whether the plan was a good one or a bad one; he did not propose to argue whether it was one that suited the requirements of the country or not; what he took as the basis of his statement was the incontrovertible fact that that was a cardinal feature of the policy which Mr. Cardwell represented to this House, and which this House adopted. Now, to. what extent had the War Office carried out that part of Mr. Cardwell's policy? There were two ways of carrying it out. Either it could be rigidly interpreted that the number of battalions at home were always made to equal the numbers abroad, or when the number of battalions abroad were, through emergency, in excess large depots might be formed at home, which would be tantamount to the formation of temporary third battalions. The War Office had done neither one thing nor the other, with the result that two years ago the state of affairs became very serious. The then Secretary of State appointed a Committee, and in paragraph 10 of the Report of that Committee it was stated
  "The present difficulties are not attributable to short service as such, but to the failure of successive Governments to carry out the principles accepted in 1872, upon which the short

  1463
  service organisation adoptedlin that year was based."
  And, again, in paragraph 23—
  "The system adopted for the Army in 1872, and which is the foundation of the present organisation of the Army, has never been carried out in its entirety, the provisions of the system which have not been carried out being precisely those essential to its successful working."
  There was a Minority Report of that Committee, a very able Report by Sir Arthur Haliburton, who, differing from the Committee on many important points, was entirely at one with them in this respect. He would call the attention of the House to what Sir A. Haliburton said on this subject in paragraph 49 of his Report—
  "It will be seen0 that the present difficulty is purely one of administration, and is not caused in any way by a general want of recruits or by insufficient inducement to men to enter the service."
  A more remarkable paragraph could not be penned by a permanent official. From that it appeared that the critical and dangerous condition of affairs two years ago was solely owing to the maladministration of the War Office. There was another very important feature in Mr. Cardwell's scheme. Mr. Cardwell thought that the forces ought to be localised, and proposed that every Infantry regiment should have a local connection with a given district, and the result of his policy was that now the country was covered with military centres, to each of which a regiment was attached for recruiting purposes. Up to the 31st March of last year, which was the last period for which the Returns were forthcoming, the total cost to the country of the Localisation of the Forces Act had been £3,457,353 14s. 1d.; but that did not represent by any means the total outlay on that particular part of Mr. Cardwell's policy, because not only had the country been covered with these expensive depots, but each depot had an extensive and expensive staff attached; therefore, the amount of money the country had to pay was much greater than the three and a half millions he had mentioned. Now, again, it was not his purpose to argue whether that part of Mr. Cardwell's policy was wise or unwise; he only stated it was an intrinsic part of his policy, that it was deliberately sanctioned by the House of Commons, and on that sanction an enor-
  1464
  mous expenditure had taken place. And, again, he pointed out that that immense expenditure of money had been entrusted to the War Office to administer, that it had been left by the country to the War Office to carry out the principle involved in the Localisation of the Forces Act. Lord Wantage's Committee took a strong view on this subject, and in Paragraph 41 they gave their opinion as follows:—
  "From their inquiry into this subject, the Committee have arrived at the conclusion that, regarded as a machinery for reaching men likely to, or inclined to, enlist into the Army, the present system, when thoroughly carried out, is probably the most suitable that can at present be devised to meet our requirements. In some districts it has been either misunderstood or administered without energy and intelligence; but in many cases it has been most thoroughly applied. Its main defects appear to be a certain want of elasticity in adapting special means to the requirements of special districts, and a tendency to over-centralisation of detail."
  He asserted that to anybody who read the evidence that was given before the Committee that paragraph in the Report was nothing like sufficiently emphatic. He did not think the House would credit the state of things that was disclosed in the evidence with regard to that part of the administration of the War Office. It was quite true that in some districts great energy was found to exist, and the officer in charge of the recruiting showed great power of resource and great ability, with the result that recruiting was good and in a satisfactory condition, but that was entirely owing to the individual activity of the officers in authority in those districts, and had nothing to do with the system of the War Office. Would it be believed that it came out in evidence that the War Office had never supplied to a single district a map of its district? Officer after officer who came before the Committee was asked what was the population of his recruiting area? —he did not know; how many villages were there in his district?—he did not know; where did the recruits come from?—he did not know. It was no exaggeration to say the state of affairs disclosed in some districts showed complete apathy, an absolute want of any sort of energy or zeal; and no wonder, because, so far as the Committee could elicit, there was absolutely no provision on the part of the War

  1465
  Office to superintend the work in these recruiting districts. It was even rather doubtful who was responsible. It was found out in evidence that the Inspector General of Recruiting had not been down to any district to inspect it for a long period, and altogether the real state of affairs was that the money having been spent, the War Office never paid the slightest attention to see whether the officers did their work. He was quite aware a different state of things existed at the present moment, that the Inspector General of Recruiting had effected a perfect revolution in his office, but that was owing to the fact that this evidence was brought forward by the Wantage Committee, so that the Inspector General knew the weak points of his office; but this was no excuse for the War Office, who had been entrusted with the administration of this vast 'machinery and this vast expenditure; it was no excuse for not taking reasonable precautions to see that the country got its value out of that machinery and money. It was also a fact that the Committee were unable to elicit that any difference was made in the future prospects between an enthusiastic officer, successful in recruiting, and an apathetic officer who allowed a good recruiting district to become a bad one. The Committee went so far as to make a variety of suggestions in connection with recruiting. They might be bad, or they might be good; some were obvious, and some had been adopted, but it was a, slur on the administration of the War Office that it should be left with the Committee to make these suggestions. He thought he had shown that in two very important features of Mr. Cardwell's military policy the War Office had not carried out that policy, and although the country supposed it was being administered by the War Office, it had not in any sense been so administered. Now he came to the second point he proposed to make good, that the War Office had neglected to make any provision against some very important and wholly certain contingencies. The House had heard a good deal about having two Army Corps ready for active service. He did not propose to say a single word about those. There was a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether they existed or whether they were wanted. After provision for
  1466
  garrisoning our Empire abroad and the defence of these Islands, he supposed it would be universally admitted that the most certainly recurring of all duties of the Army was taking part in small wars. The last 20 years had furnished numbers of examples of wars that were called small wars which were of varying importance. He took it that no one would deny that one of the primary duties of our Army was to be prepared for small expeditions. At the present moment, however, absolutely no provision was made for these emergencies —he meant that there was no force, how-ever small, in this country ready to take part in a little war. Lord Wantage's Committee reported on this subject. In. paragraph 13 of their Report they pointed out how there had been increasing pressure on the Home battalions for India and the Army abroad, and they went on to say that these various causes
  "have forced the authorities to depart in practice from those principles of the organisation of 1872 which provided that a certain force at home should be kept in a tit condition for active service, and that Home battalions should not be regarded merely as recruiting agencies for battalions serving abroad,"
  Sir Arthur Haliburton in his Report put the point in stronger language. In paragraph 104 he says—
  "Unquestionably, after the expiration of some 10 years, when battalions had produced a reserve, and their ranks contained fewer old, and many young soldiers, the measures necessary to provide for small wars, for which the Reserve was not available, should have been considered and settled."
  Here, again, the permanent Under Secretary said this extremely important point of Army organisation should have been "considered and settled," and yet after 21 years since the Report of the Committee of 1872 this point is not yet "considered and settled." He goes on to say—
  "Apparently we drifted into the position of thinking that because a number of battalions were kept on a higher establishment than the rest of the Home Army, therefore they could provide for this service as well as for ordinary foreign reliefs. This was clearly an error; the battalions on the higher establishments are in reality as inefficient for active service, without their reserves, as are those on the lower establishment. Raising them to a higher establishment only commences two years before they go abroad, with the result that, during that period, their ranks are filled with an. unusually large proportion of recruits of under 20 years of age, and under one year's service."

  1467
  Now, was it tolerable that the country should have entrusted the administration to the War Office, and then he told by this public official that this all important point had not been considered and settled? The House knew hardly what provision was made against this contingency. There was not a single battalion of the Line in England that could be sent on a small expedition. The Adjutant General, in his evidence, explained that if six or eight battalions were suddenly wanted for an expedition they would be taken from Gibraltar and Malta. But when they had left, what would be the plight of Gibraltar and Malta? They would have to be garrisoned by battalions of recruits from this country, battalions that were not fit to do any fighting work, or any work that deserved the name of service. If rumour spoke correctly the garrisons at Gibraltar and at Malta had already been materially weakened, and he thought that was a matter on which the House had not been sufficiently informed, and which he was confident they ought to know. As a makeshift, and in order to equalise the battalions at home with those abroad, several battalions, he thought three, had been sent out to Malta and Gibraltar and treated as if they were in England, that is, as if on Home service. That was to say, these garrisons would be called upon in the trooping season to send drafts to their battalions in India, receiving in place of them two or three hundred perfectly raw recruits from the depot, who although they would become admirable soldiers in a few years, were then unfit to take part in garrison service when the conditions were not so healthy as at home. Was it not an unworthy makeshift to pretend to equalise the battalion abroad with those at home by sending battalions which had no business to be sent there, and with men in such battalions who were physically unfit to go to such stations? Another matter in which the War Office had largely failed to make provision against certain contingencies was the question of drafts. The necessities of regiments for drafts could be accurately foreseen; the War Office had materials for knowing what drafts would be wanted, but instead of making provision for supplying these drafts, they had often actually checked recruiting for the very battalions from which drafts were shortly going to be taken.
  1468
  What did Sir Arthur Haliburton say on the subject? He said—
  "As it was known in 1888 that, owing to increases in the Army, and to other exceptional circumstances which occurred in 1883 to 1886, an unusually large number of men would go to the Reserve from certain regiments in the period of 1890 to 1893, and that unusually large drafts would consequently be required from those corps in that period, it was unfortunate that any measures calculated, even temporarily, to reduce the supply of recruits, should have been adopted. In view of the impending exceptional demand for drafts, steps should rather have been taken, either to mitigate the demand or to stimulate recruiting, and the establishments of the battalions concerned should have been temporarily increased above their ordinary strength, so that when the demand for exceptional drafts arose it could have been promptly and satisfactorily met."
  He would give another quotation from Sir Arthur Haliburton, who had a happy knack of hitting the weak points of the War Office—
  "When a merchant has liabilities maturing at a given date, he takes care to have funds ready to redeem them, and there seems to be no reason why similar foresight should not be observed in meeting the requirements of the Army."
  Yes, but the War Office not only took no steps to meet these liabilities, but on more than one occasion they took steps to make these liabilities, when they fell due, more difficult to meet. Sir Arthur Haliburton stated that, with reference to the equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad, the short service system could not be continued as at present administered, and in the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for 1892 great stress was laid on this point. The Inspector General said about the preparation of drafts—
  "As we are not allowed to exceed the numbers voted by Parliament, the result is that we are obliged to check the recruiting when recruits are most freely offering, and this with the knowledge that we shall want men later on when they are harder to obtain. This disability to recruit forces upon us the obligation to commence the drill season with the battalions at home, depleted by the drafts despatched to complete the battalions abroad to the requisite establishments. To recruit effectively, we ought to recruit at a given rate throughout the year; but to do this we must at one period be permitted to recruit in anticipation of the waste which can be foreseen in the immediate future."
  He should have thought it was absolutely elementary that the officers responsible for having drafts ready should be allowed to recruit in anticipation of these liabilities, and to meet any emergency that might arise. The general condition of

  1469
  affairs in the Home Army produced by maladministration of the War Office had become serious. The point he should endeavour to establish was that the ranks of the Home Army contained a great number of boys, who were paid what were supposed to be men's wages, and that they were wholly useless for the purpose of service at home or abroad. When he said service he meant not ordinary parade, but the work a trained soldier was supposed to do. Although they were of admirable character and would in a few years make good soldiers, he contended that now the country was maintaining tens of thousands of boys, who were receiving men's pay and who were for the purposes for which the Army was supported wholly useless; and if he could show that, he said in the first place it was a great waste of public money to maintain these boys for work they could not perform, and in the second place that proper provision for national defence had not been made. In paragraph 3 of the Wantage Report there were given the opinions of the present Adjutant General, the late Adjutant General, Sir Evelyn Wood, and the Commander-in-Chief, who spoke in strong terms of the condition of the battalions at home. He would quote the words of the present Adjutant General from the evidence that officer gave a year ago. He said—
  "At the present moment I may say that we have not a single Infantry battalion effective at home."
  And Sir Evelyn Wood said—
  "The Home battalion is now only a nursery."
  And he went on to say that such was the juvenile condition of the Aldershot Division that he did not dare exercise it in service marching order; that was, he did not dare put on their back the weight soldiers were supposed to carry. The remark the Committee made upon this was to the following effect:—
  "It is true that, as pointed out by the officers whose evidence is quoted above, it was not contemplated, under the organisation adopted in 1872, that battalions at home should be efficient for active service without being completed from the Army Reserve; but the Committee are in complete accord with them in believing that it was never intended that the Infantry at home should be reduced to the condition described above."
  And then the Report went on—
  "The Committee feel it their duty to point out clearly that men who are too young to be
  1470
  sent on even peace service abroad, and who, in the words of the General Officer commanding at Aldershot, cannot do a day's service even in England,' ought not to be classed as effective soldiers.".
  It was objected to that by Sir Arthur Haliburton that statistics proved the contrary, and showed that the battalions at home were, on the whole, in a satisfactory condition; and some other critics had gone on to say that even if they were not in a satisfactory condition it did not matter, because we had the Army Reserve. With all respect to Sir Arthur Haliburton or any other distinguished public servant, or any Member of that House, he thought it was carrying faith in statistics too far, when statistics were to be placed against the opinions of four such competent soldiers as the present and the late Adjutant Generals Sir Evelyn Wood and the Commander-in-Chief. But it was not a question of the opinion of these distinguished officers, or of statistics, but a question of ocular demonstration. Any Member who went down to Aldershot would see battalions of extremely nice-lookiug boys, but who were totally and absolutely unfit to do a day's hard work in marching order even in England, and the idea of using them in any campaign either in England or abroad was obviously absurd. Now he came to the objection that it did not matter, and that we had the Reserve to fall back upon. But before he came to that he would point out to the House that he had not said one word about what were called the "special" men who were specially enlisted. Some specials were quite as good as many who were not "specials," and even better. But when they had a standard of five feet four inches in height, no doubt any men or boys below that standard were obviously physically weak. It was not, however, only those who were taken "specially," but there were thousands of those who were not taken specially, and who were just up to the standard, who were absolutely unfitted for the work the country expected them to perform. In paragraph 116 of Sir Arthur Haliburton's Report it was stated—
  "Officers forget that this ungrateful and unpleasant duty of supply drafts to the sister battalion abroad is an essential element in the existing Army organisation, and that, provided each battalion, when it has done this, preserves

  1471
  a sufficient, cadre on to which to graft its Reserve it is thoroughly efficient for the most important duties required of it."
  He was quite prepared to accept that definition, and he could show that each battalion had not left a sufficient cadre. In paragraph 130 of the Report Sir Arthur Haliburton went on to suppose that all the battalions at home had to be raised to war strength, and said—
  "If the whole of the men of less than one year's service were sent to the depot 45,110 Reserve men would be required, and this, allowing 10 per cent. for inefficients, exceeds by 2,742 our total First Class Infantry Reserve, including Section D."
  And again he said—
  "It may become a question of whether the home establishment of the Army will not have to be augmented in order to increase the Reserve."
  He thought so too, if the present condition of affairs was allowed to go on. But what did this mean? Did the House grasp the real meaning of this paragraph in the Report? It meant this: that to complete the 65 home battalions, and to bring them up to war strength, the whole of the Infantry Reserve was required; every single man of the First Class Infantry Reserve was required to complete the home battalion to a war establishment, and then there were not enough, for even then nearly 3,000 additional men would be required. What was the meaning of that? It meant the substitution en bloc of the Reserve for the men with the Colours, not because the men sent back to the depot were men under one year's service. If these men were physically efficient great numbers of them need not be sent to the depôt, and the reason why—in the opinion of every hon. Member who examined these battalions for himself— all these men had to be sent to the depôt was not because they had only one year's service or less, but because, as a rule, they were wholly inefficient for military purposes. They were extremely young. Many thousands did not pretend to be more than 18, and great numbers were much less. A very large proportion were only 17, and when the House remembered that the military authorities did not consider a soldier fit to be sent to India until he was 20 years of age they could judge what use for active service this vast number of men would be if they were sent back to the depôts. For what
  1472
  did the Reserve exist? The men who comprised the Reserve were intended to be used for two purposes. One was to bring up battalions ordered on active service to their proper strength, after sending back to the depot all those not able to go on service; and the other was that the Reserve should be a Reserve in the usually accepted sense of the term, able to supply drafts to those battalions when they were on war service. Now, they found that the condition of the home battalions was such that the whole of the Army Reserve was barely adequate to fulfil only one of the functions for which it existed, and for the purpose of furnishing drafts to battalions on active service there was absolutely nothing left except the same material which was left in the days of the Crimea, that was, young soldiers who were too young to go out on active service. He could not leave this branch of the subject without reminding the House what the present Adjutant General said in his evidence. Sir Redvers Buller said—
  "We are deficient 12,050 Reservists to bring two Army Corps up to our establishment to send abroad,"
  leaving absolutely no Reservists at all, except the Militia Reserve, for the purpose of supplying drafts in time of war. What was it he asked the House to deduce from these facts? He asked the House to deduce that it was not economical administration to support in the battalions at home this vast number of inefficient boys. In the second place, he asked the House to deduce from them that the present system of recruiting and administration was absolutely destructive of the Reserve; and, in the third place, he said emphatically that these results were not necessarily the results of the short service system. If the men now in the line battalions at home were really well developed lads of 18 even, there would be no necessity to send such vast numbers of them back to the depôt. The present lamentable results were due to the maladministration of the recruiting system by the War Office, or were due very largely to that cause, and to their complete want of forethought shown in the matter of drafts. These results were also due to the inadequate terms and conditions of the service that were offered to

  1473
  recruits. The House were aware that this Wantage Committee recommended that the pay of the Army should be increased. He was not going to argue at the present moment whether the recommendation was right or wrong. He himself held the view most distinctly that to obtain a better size of recruits better terms must be offered, and they must offer at least a clear shilling a day. What he did want to urge was, that the present state of discontent which existed in the Army was a thing for which the War Office must be held responsible. It was proved conclusively in the evidence before the Committee that the majority of the soldiers believed when they enlisted— and believed erroneously—that they were going to get a shilling, or nearly a shilling, a day free from any deduction, and that the conditions of service, and the amount received when they got into the Army, were quite different to what they had been led to expect. It was impossible to acquit the War Office altogether of blame in this matter. The pamphlet which was issued was on the whole clear, but the posters were at that time misleading, and the War Office must be held responsible for what those employed in recruiting told the recruits, and there was no doubt that at the present moment the great bulk of the soldiers in the Army found on enlistment that they had been deceived, and he thought no one would be more ready to admit than the present Secretary for War that means should, if possible, be adopted to put an end to such things. All the stoppages which would be made from the soldier's pay should be clearly explained to the recruit, who should be distinctly told the exact conditions under which he entered the service. There were one or two matters which, although trivial, were of great importance to the private soldier, which he regarded as doing him the greatest personal wrong, and in which—to use his unparliamentary language—he regarded himself as being swindled. He did not wish to put the matter too strongly, but he thought that expression was not very wide of the mark with respect to the points he was about to mention. On enlistment he was told that his kit would be supplied to him free, but in a year or eighteen months he was sent to India, to serve his country and to protect
  1474
  India, and yet the moment he embarked he was made to pay for the use of clothes on board ship, and in India he was made to pay for special suits of clothes to use in the Indian climate. So that when he went to serve a generous country it was necessary for him to provide himself with different clothing for that purpose, and to pay the expense of it. He (Lord Wolmer) had heard lately that that had been altered, or was about to be altered. He thought, for the honour of the country, if was time it was altered. He himself had conversed with private soldiers who had come back from India, this charge rankling in their minds during the whole time they were there, and until they returned and after it. While on this question he could not leave out of sight the fact which he was glad to learn from the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War, that he was going to deal with the question of corporals and lance corporals. One of the reasons for the recent insubordination was the incapacity of these men; and the reasons why they were incapable was that it was most difficult to get the best men to accept the positions, because on many occasions men who accepted such positions had not only to do the increased and difficult and unpleasant work, but to be put to increased expense, and yet they did not get the pay—they had the rank only —for eighteen months. The country would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for undertaking to deal with this matter. The last point to which he would draw attention, in connection with the Committee's Report, was one that made no reflection upon either the present Secretary for War or his Predecessor, but it affected the War Office to a very serious extent, and that was the employment of the men of the Army Reserve. An eminent authority had told them that the Army Reserve system depended upon whether Army Reserve men did or did not get employment. If it once came to general public knowledge that the Army Reserve man, apart from his character, could not get respectable work, then the days of the voluntary enlistment were numbered. The Army Reserve stood between the country and compulsory enlistment, as it was certain that the present system of raising the Army could not continue if the Army Reserve men could not

  1475
  get employment. They had a clear indication of that in the evidence given before the Committee, and it produced conviction in the minds of the majority of the Committee that respectable men of that class should be provided with employment. He would point out to the House the duty of the Department in this matter. Until the administration of the late Secretary for War this question—upon which the whole of their military system turned, upon which conscription depended—had been completely ignored. This matter until then —a matter which was absolutely vital— had been completely neglected in the past. He was pleased that action had at last been taken. The late Secretary had taken action, and the House would have fresh in its recollection what he did. He made arrangements with the Post Office—and in that he had the cooperation of the late Postmaster General— and secured that these men should have places in the offices; and then he went to the railway companies, with a like result; but the very success of that movement only showed that for 20 years, although a Committee was appointed, the War Office took no action in the matter. He hoped the matter would not be allowed to drop now, but that the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War would carry on the policy put in train by his Predecessor. Why should not the men who had served the country be preferred for offices that they were capable of filling to men who had acted as footmen and valets, or who had waited at the table of a Minister? Was it not possible that they could obtain the help and co-operation of the municipalities—of the County Councils and of the Town Councils—in the same way as the late Secretary for War had obtained the aid of the railway companies? Could they not approach these bodies on the subject? The present Adjutant General referred to the subject in his Report, stating that in his opinion a very serious state of affairs might arise in recruiting service unless the country ensured that soldiers coming off service should get remunerative employment. He had heard indirectly that the present Secretary of State for War had been acting in the matter. He was informed that he been calling for Reports as to how the question stood in Foreign
  1476
  Armies. He would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these Reports could be laid before the House. He had probably occupied the House at too great length, but he thought he had proved from the evidence brought before the Commission, and from a high official in the War Office, that the War Office was not administering the money entrusted to it by the country for the improvements that were due in the condition of the Army. There was a most extraordinary want of foresight in dealing with drafts in the Home Army; there was the threatened destruction of the Reserve as a result of the policy that was being pursued, and he had shown, he thought, that they should provide for the employment of the Reserve men, as by not discharging this primary duty they ran the risk of which only the good character of the men themselves could save the country from. The men had a genuine grievance as to pay, and then there was the question of stoppages, which demanded the attention of the War Office. He would only make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and that was upon a subject upon which every non-commissioned officer and private felt most acutely, and which should be mentioned as a blot upon the national character. There were still places where the soldier's uniform was not only regarded as an object for insult, but where the soldier himself was treated with insult. There were places where a soldier was still refused admission. He was refused admission into some theatres, and into other places of public resort. He would say nothing of ill-behaved men, but he thought it would be conceded that a soldier had as much right to go into any of these places as had any civilian, as long as he conducted himself and behaved in a respectable manner. The conduct of those who were responsible for these refusals was an insult to the uniform of the Queen, which was the uniform of the nation. Such an insult was passed when the soldier was turned out of a public-house, or out of a hall, or any place of the sort. On this subject he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, who was the guardian of the interests of the private soldier, and he thought the War Office should take this subject up as an insult to the nation.

  1477
  It might be said the right hon. Gentleman had no power, but he appealed to him to make it a cardinal feature of the policy of the War Office to guard the honour of the Army, and to take up every case of this kind. If he did this, this conduct would cease, these insults would cease, and the honour of the nation would be preserved.
  GENERAL SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, the noble Lord, in the Motion which he has brought before the House, has drawn attention to defects in our military system of the most serious kind, and, I venture to think, has in his speech brought out very forcibly the necessity for introducing reforms into the administration under which such an un satisfactory result should be possible. Sir, the Resolution moved by the noble Lord, to which the House is asked to subscribe, is to the effect that the present system of military administration fails to secure either due economy in peace or efficiency for national defence. In the remarks which, with the indulgence of House, I shall submit to it in support of that Motion, I will endeavour to make good both these propositions. The facts which I shall adduce in support of them are not new ones. The House and the country have already had repeated warnings that the military administration is in a state of inefficiency, at once dangerous and extravagant—warnings proceeding from high and indisputable authority. To go back no further than the year 1887, in that year the strong Commission, presided over by Sir Fitz-James Stephen, made a Report on the system of ordnance administration, which is a scathing exposure of mismanagement in that most important branch of the Service, and generally of the War Office administration. In the following year, in 1888, a still more authoritative Commission, presided over by the Marquess of Hartington, and comprising the late Mr. Smith, the present Secretary for War, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington,the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston, and other persons of standing and experience, was appointed to inquire into the still larger question of the whole system of our military administration; and their Report, presented in the following year, constituted a still graver indictment of our military system. It is true that the Commission was not
  1478
  quite unanimous in the constructive part of their Report; that is, in their recommendations as to the particular organisation to replace that which they found existing. Even in this respect, however, the differences of opinion among the Members'arose only on details—important details no doubt, but, still, only details. At any rate, they were unanimous in their judgment that, whatever might be the best remedy to apply, the present state of things was radically vicious and defective and constituted a grave danger to the country, calling for immediate remedy, and, if we consider that the Commission comprised three former Secretaries of State for War, that they were thus in a measure sitting in judgment on themselves as well as on their successor in the office, my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for War. Anyone reading between the lines of their Report, and bearing in mind also that in some respects they were treading on delicate ground—anyone reading the Report by these lights must come to the conclusion that it was an unqualified and alarming denunciation of our military system. And yet from this—the most important State Paper in connection with the military affairs of our country which has ever appeared— absolutely nothing resulted. There was a desultory Debate in this House on the subject, as to which it may be said that 'the attention of the House was diverted to insignificant side issues, and the subject was allowed to drop. None of the reforms proposed by the Commission have been carried out, nor has any appreciable effort been made to act upon them, while one of the measures which was in course of being carried out while the Commission was sitting, and to which they particularly objected, has been persisted in, with the result that things have gone from bad to worse. Such being the result of an inquiry conducted by the highest authorities with its vivid exposure of our defects and differences, one may well almost despair of arousing the House and the country to interest themselves about the matter. Nothing, indeed, in this connection is more striking than the contrast exhibited between the interest which the people of all Continental countries take about their military affairs and the intimate knowledge they possess of them, and the indifference on the sub-

  1479
  ject displayed by almost all classes in this country. The reason for this remarkable contrast is not far to seek. The Frenchman or the German knows that the very existence of his country depends on the efficiency of his Army, while his liability to military service must naturally give him a very close and lively interest in all the conditions of military life. We in our island home are, happily, not in the same critical state; but surely our circumstances do not justify our total inattention and indifference to these things. If we are not liable to sudden invasion on our own shores, still we have enormous interests all over the globe which we may be called upon to defend at any moment, while our whole trade and prosperity rest on a complex and artificial basis such as has never been found before in any country in the world. We have had abundant warnings that, in these days, the outbreak of war may be sudden and its issue tremendous, and, if our Army is a small one compared with the colossal Armies of Continental nations, surely that is all the more reason why its organisation should be as efficient as it can be made. And, apart from any question of danger, surely we are not justified in neglecting considerations of economy. While professing as we do to be a practical, businesslike people, the great comparative costliness of our Army is surely a reason why we should insist on getting full value for our money, as we certainly do not at present. But one reason for the apathy of the House and the public on this subject is, no doubt, the complacency with which the responsible heads of our Military Administration, and the Government generally, are accustomed to display when these grave charges are brought against them. The country feels that it pays handsomely for its Army, doing so under the belief— not an irrational belief—that the sums which it so generously grants shall be applied to the best advantage; and if it sees that those who are responsible for the management of our military affairs make light of these complaints and warnings, it not unnaturally assumes that these are over-charged. Surely, it may say, things cannot be so bad as they are represented to be, or successive and responsible Ministers would not be satisfied with such a state of things, but would set about reforming them. But yet Ministers
  1480
  have no right to be satisfied, or to rest complacently with folded hands. Not that I would be understood to imply that no reforms have been carried out. The Army has not been standing still, although its progress towards efficiency has not kept pace with that of other nations, and I am very far from wishing to undervalue the useful work in many directions which has been accomplished by successive Secretaries of State, and especially by my right hon. Friend at the head of the War Department of the late Government; but, in fact, isolated measures here and there are quite insufficient to meet the case; the system of War Office administration is, and always has been, radically faulty in principle, and can never work properly until based on the sound principles which govern the conduct of the administration of every other Army in the world. And instead of any improvement having been achieved in this the first essential respect, things have been going from bad to worse, as Lord Hartington's Commission point out. The responsibility for the present state of things can be charged on neither Party. This is in no sense a Party question, each Party has succeeded to the charge of a system inherently faulty from the first; and looking to the practical side of political life, to the stress and strain of office, and how particular views for the future are constantly obscured by the present needs which arise to be dealt with from day to day; considering the frequent changes in the tenure of the high posts; considering also the greater attractions which other posts in the Government offer to the ablest men in each Party, it is not surprising that no man of genius should have been found at the War Office with discernment to grasp clearly the necessities for reform, and with firmness of character and strength of will to enforce and carry out his conception. However that may be, a state of things has come about which, as I shall endeavour to show, calls for the most serious attention of this House and the country. The truth is, as I have said, that a false start was made at the outset—by the outset. I mean the time after the Crimean War, when the War Department was first created. Up to that time there had been no War Department,

  1481
  and the first necessary step in the creation of one central responsible authority for Army administration was obviously the abolition of the separate Ordnance Department, which had not only charge of ordnance matters, but also the command of the regiments of Artillery and Engineers, and to place all that business as well as the Commander-in-Chief and the whole administration of the Army under the Secretary of State. It was a necessary and a primary condition of the case that the Secretary of State should be made the supreme and responsible head of the Army; but when establishing that supreme responsibility, the fatal mistake was made of abolishing the responsibility of the heads of all the different Departments of the Army for their respective duties. The heads of these Departments —the Ordnance, Transport, Fortifications, and so forth—were retained, and retained their high-sounding titles; but they were divested of all responsibility; they were transformed into mere office subordinates of the Secretary of State, and have so continued ever since; and to this radical mistake—to this blindness of perception of the essential principles of administration, and the excessive centralisation of authority much—indeed, almost all— of the subsequent confusion and maladministration at the War Office is due. Now, I would venture to lay down this axiom: that sound administration is essentially based on maintaining a recognised chain of responsibility throughout all grades of the Service. accompanied by a corresponding devolution of authority. For example, take a great Railway Company. The possibility of its working at all as an effective machine depends on the large devolution of authority to each of the heads of the departments and making them responsible for the business of their respective departments. What would be thought of the management of a Railway Company in which every matter of business, down to the most detailed item, was carried out in the name of the Chairman and Board of Directors? in which the heads of the departments—the locomotive department, the traffic department, or any other—never ventured to issue an order in his own name, and professed to be merely a subordinate conveying the
  1482
  orders of the Chairman and the Board? Yet this is precisely what has been from the first the system established by the Secretary of State; the responsibility of everybody else has been merged in that of the Secretary of State, who becomes nominally responsible for everything and is virtually responsible for nothing. Every head of a Department at the War Office issues every order in the name of the Secretary of State, and under his authority; whether a thing is done by his own advice or without it never appears in the record; to all intents and purposes he is merely a clerk with a high-sounding title, acting under the direct orders and inspiration of his superior. And to further accentuate this, every Departmental Authority outside the War Office, whether in the Transport, Ordnance, or any other branch, does not address the head of his Department at the War Office, but the Under Secretary of State, to whom he applies for the orders of the Secretary of State upon every case down to the most minute and trifling details. And if such be the overgrown centralisation within the War Office, the condition of impotence to which the Departments outside that office is reduced is more monstrous still. There are highly-paid officials all over the country and all over the world serving under the War Office Department, but the whole business of the Army is gathered up, and centralised in, the War Office itself. No one outside the War Office has any authority whatever. Here you have at once a sufficient explanation of the overgrown office establishments to be found within that building. A further mistake made at the outset was the abolition of official correspondence within the office. This may, perhaps, seem a small matter, but it is really one of far-reaching consequence. The intention was well meant — to reduce correspondence; but it has been the cause and source, in reality, of much of the confusion, delay, and waste of time which now takes place, and of the destruction of any sense of responsibility on the part of those concerned, which the rest of the system might have left them. When any matter has to be taken in hand, a Minute Paper, as it is called, is set going, and every official concerned is invited to record his opinion on it. Each man writes something or other on the Paper, and passes it

  1483
  cm to some other official, and so the ball thus set rolling may go on rolling round and round the Department indefinitely, till at last such a mass of correspondence is collected that when it reaches the Secretary of State it is often difficult to determine what is the issue involved and whose opinion it is that is to be taken, and what it is on which an Order has to be passed. An incidental point in the matter is that there is nothing to prevent any one person keeping this Minute Paper as long as he likes, and the Minute Paper may be mislaid for weeks or months—it is no one's particular business to pursue its course or to bring it to a conclusion. I need hardly say, also, that it offers a facile temptation to procrastination, because, if there is any doubt as to what it means, there is nothing easier than to set it in circulation again with fresh opinions. Uultimately, if the case gets as far as the Secretary of State, he initials it, and becomes responsible for the Order, but how and by whose advice he passes it there is only this mass of undigested notes to show. I have now to mention what has been the most disastrous measure of all. In every other Army a broad distinction is drawn between the command of the troops and the supply of their equipment. By equipment I mean everything connected with the troops apart from their drill and discipline; that is, their clothing, arms, food, housing, and also their pay— the finance and accounts of the Army. All these services would together make up what is technically styled "supply," and in every Army in the world which deserves the name (except in our own) the conduct of these two branches of Army administration — command and supply — is kept absolutely distinct. The command and discipline of troops is quite sufficient to occupy the energies of the best man available. But those who are concerned with the command have nothing to do with the provision and equipment, or supply, or with the disbursement of money. Supply is kept absolutely distinct, and requires its special staff of administrators. The disastrous mistake I have referred to was this: that this broad distinction has been lost sight of. Two or three years ago the Department of Supply was swept away, the office of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance was abolished, and
  1484
  the duties which had been dealt with in his branch were distributed throughout the War Department. And as part of this re-organisation, as it was called, came the most lamentable change of all, whereby the nominal charge of the supply of the Army, which hitherto had been placed under what might be called a non-military branch of the War Office, was placed under the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant General. The idea which prompted this curious, not to say ridiculous, arrangement was no doubt a specious one—that military men should look after military business. Yes, but which military men? The discipline of the Army, including in the Army all that involves its preparation for war and its higher training, is amply sufficient in every Army to engage the undivided energies of the ablest soldiers to be found. As it is now, the Commander-in-Chief is not only responsible for the discipline and efficiency of the Army in the accepted sense, he has also become nominally responsible for everything connected with equipment—the Ordnance Factories and the clothing alone excepted—forall equipment, including buildings, fortifications, commissariat, transport, and everything connected with Army supply. Down to the very smallest details, everything is now done in the name of the Commander-in-Chief and under his direct orders, passing through the Adjutant General, to whom all other heads of the Departments are made subordinate. This is the state of things Lord Hartington's Commission found just established. They said in paragraph 60 of their Report—
  "In the first place, it appears to us to involve an excessive centralisation of responsibility in the petson of the Commander-in-Chief, on whom the whole executive command, administration, and supply of the Army now devolve. He is, in fact, the only officer who has any direct responsibility to the Secretary of State."
  In paragraph 61 they said—
  "We believe that such a centralisation of power and responsibility in the office of the Commander - in - Chief must necessarily tend to weaken the sense of responsibility of the other heads of Departments, and thus to diminish their efficiency."
  Then in paragraph 73, they said—
  "Further changes are, however, in our opinion, required in the administration of the War Office. We consider that a definite and direct responsibility to the Secretary of State should be placed upon the heads

  1485
  of Departments for their several administration, as is the case with the Naval Lords at the Admiralty. Under the present system, as we have pointed out (paragraph 57), the only real responsibility appears to rest on the Commander-in-Chief, who alone would be accountable to the Secretary of State, even for such a matter as the defective design of a Navy gun. We do not find that this centralisation of responsibility exists in the administration of the Armies of any other great Powers of Europe, and we consider that it cannot conduce to efficiency. The professional officers administering Departments at the War Office should therefore be made directly responsible to the Secretary of State for the efficiency of those Departments and for the economical expenditure of the sums annually allotted to them."
  The Commission might have added that, apart from such a system being fatal to responsibilities, there is this further result: the loss of all effective criticism, upon the effective working of this Department. If the troops are ill-found, or ill-fed, or ill-armed, or ill-housed, it is to the Commander-in-Chief as safeguarding the interests of the troops, that the Secretary of State should look to have the evils brought to light. But now the Commander-in-Chief has become directly responsible himself for everything in this respect. You will find that down to the smallest point of detail, the number of bricks in the thickness of a barrack wall, the number of spokes in the wheel of a waggon—in everything, no matter how insignificant, the order is said to be that of His Royal Highness. Now, I should explain this. This distinction, which is so absolutely essential, and was always insisted on by the Duke of Wellington, was until lately observed in the administration of our own Army. Under Lord Northbrook's Committee of 1870 the War Office was divided into a Military Department, a Supply Department, and a Finance Department. The Committee recommended that of the three branches, one should be personally under the Commander-in-Chief, who should command the troops;another under a new officer, who was to be called a Surveyor General of Ordnance, and the third under a finance official. That recommendation was carried out; but a few years later the original scheme was departed from, and the office of Surveyor General became a Parliamentary one, and some younger Member of the Ministry was appointed to it. The idea was that in this way the Secretary of of State should be assisted in his
  1486
  official duties, but clearly there was a misconception in that, because, if you are to maintain the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament, you cannot have a subordinate officer under him who is also responsible to Parliament. The evidence given before successive Commissions has shown that the position of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance was really that of an irresponsible subordinate. The Surveyors General of the Ordnance appointed were Sir H. Storks, from 1870 to 1874; Lord Eustace Cecil, from 1874 to 1880; Sir John Adye, from 1880 to 1882. Afterwards a succession of Parliamentary officials with no special experience were appointed—altogether seven persons in 16 years—only two possessing "the qualifications which were in the mind of those who originally established the office." The whole purport of the Report is that the Secretary of State's nominal responsibility for everything becomes a mere matter of form, from his having no strong professional advisers on technical matters. And this position is weakened rather than strengthened by the position of Surveyor General, who is, by his own admission, the mere Parliamentary exponent of his Department on matters relating to the Ordnance, on which he does not profess to have opinions of his own. The remedy proposed by Sir J. FitzJames Stephen's Commission was the re-creation of a Master General of Ordnance altogether separate from the Secretary of State. Opinions may be given for or against that proposal, but the facts incontestibly established that there is an entire want of responsibility, and that the administration of the War Department as regards supply needed to be strengthened. It is a grotesque commentary on the case that the ink with which the Report was written was hardly dry when what little remained of the Department of the Surveyor General, which was already greatly attenuated, was abolished, and all the Departments of Supply were placed under the Commander-in-Chief. No doubt the intention was a good one. It was thought that "he who drives fat oxen should himself be fat." No doubt the Secretary of State had in view the fact that Secretaries of State succeed each other very quickly to office, and that by placing these duties

  1487
  on the Commander-in-Chief there would he greater continuity and permanence in the work than there was before. The result was that another sham was introduced. You now have the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief responsible for everything. Dealing with the position of the Surveyor General as a Parliamentary official, the Report of Sir, J. FitzJames Stephen's Commission, in paragraph 53, said—
  "It appears from this that as matters stand at present, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance not only cannot advise the Secretary of State, as it was intended he should do, but is himself in the hands of his own subordinates, at least as much as the Secretary of State. The inherent weakness of the position of the Secretary of State is increased by the inherent weakness of his principal subordinate, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. It is, indeed, surprising that worse results have not ensued from so very weak an organisation."
  In evidence before Lord Hartingtons' Commission the Surveyor General said that he was merely a superior clerk. Sir J. FitzJames Stephen's Commission, in their Summary and Conclusions, paragraphs 192 and 509, said—
  "The great defects of the existing system are three: First, it has no definite object; secondly, it has no efficient head; thirdly, it has no properly, organised method of dealing with technical questions which arise as to the construction or purchase of warlike stores. In other words, it requires more system, more publicity, more vigour in administration, and more special knowledge in Council.
  509. The general results of our inquiry are as follows:—
  We think that the system on which patterns of warlike stores are procured and passed into Your Majesty's Service is defective in the following particulars:—

  (a.) That the powers of the Secretary of State are so great that no single person can be expected to exercise them efficiently, especially when regard is had to the uncertainty of his tenure of office, and his presumable deficiency in special knowledge.

  (b.) The same observations apply in a less degree to the Surveyor General of the Ordnance.

  (c.) The Secretary of State and the Surveyor General of the Ordnance are practically in the hands of their subordinates, and this destroys all real responsibility and all effective superintendence.

  (d.) The present system is directed to no definite object; it is regulated by no definite rules; it makes no regular stated provision either for the proper supply and manufacture of warlike stores, or for enforcing the responsibility of those General Sir G. Chesney
  1488
  who fail to make them properly, or for ascertaining the fact that they are made improperly. It is to these defects in the system that we attribute most of the matters complained of."

  This, then, is the system: the Secretary of State responsible not for keeping others to their work, but nominally from doing it. Real and effective responsibility is to be found, nowhere. Add to this a most cumbersome method of correspondence of a piece with everything else and successive centralisation of all authority within the War Office, and you have a state of things unexampled in this country or in any country. It is, in truth, "confusion worse confounded." It is bad enough in peace time, in which the thing hardly gets along. The public hears of delays, for example, in the supply of guns, of rifles, and munition, and they are told when they inquire about the thing that it is due to the difficulty of coming to a decision and the complex nature of the problems involved. It is really due to the total want of any specific responsibility on the part of any one person for the proper conduct of business; and if the machine hardly works in peace time, in case of war a breakdown is inevitable. Now, to turn to the way in which an Army ought to be administered. I might refer to the German Army or to the French Army or to the Austrian Army, for in all the principle is the same. I would take the case of the Indian Army, if the House will bear with me for a few minutes longer, and will endeavour to place before it as briefly as I can the system pursued there. It is just the same in principle with that of any Continental Army. It is not claimed for the Indian Army administration that it is the work of any genius, it has, in fact, grown out of necessity. The Indian Army has to be kept in a state of constant readiness for war; the Indian Military Administration is constantly practised in the business of conducting campaigns and expeditions, and it is obliged, therefore, to have a system which will work, and which does work, in perfect efficiency. Sometimes a General in command of a force may prove unequal to his position, and the policy which has governed military operations may no doubt be open to question, but the machine always works with perfect success and without any friction; and

  1489
  that system was established from the first on a sound principle, and has been so maintained. In the first place, a distinction between the command of the Army and the supply has always been maintained; the Commander-in-Chief and the Staff under him have nothing to do with equipment or finance or disbursement of money; secondly, every head of the Department of Supply is specifically responsible for the business of his own Department. The head of the whole business is the Military Department of the Government of India, which corresponds to the War Office Department in this country. The Commander-in-Chief is a member of the Viceroy's Council, which is just as if the Commander-in-Chief at home were a member of the Cabinet, but qua Commander-in-Chief, he is under the Military Department, and his office is a branch of it. The heads of the Ordnance, Commissariat, and Clothing Departments, with some minor heads, as the Remount, form also branches of it; the Departments of Pay Finance, and Accounts form another branch. The next step is that responsibility is established throughout by correspondence being conducted by official and formal letters. There is, of course, the usual interchange of Minute's and of personal opinions, but business begins and ends in each case with an official letter. There is the letter of the person or authority who makes the proposal; there is the final letter of the Government of India passing orders upon it, and plainly showing whether the proposal is approved or disapproved or modified; and if the recommendations of the recommending officer are set aside, the reasons are recorded, and responsibility can always be traced to the right source. I will just observe by the way that this system of rigid official correspondence has arisen possibly, to a certain extent, through accident; that is to say, the Indian Government is under an obligation to report all its proceedings to the Secretary of State in London, and this involves the necessity of their business being conducted in this way. The supplementary Minutes which form the basis of the orders passed are confidential, but the official correspondence containing authoritative statements goes on from first to last. To this happy accident—if it can be so called—may be ascribed the success of the system, in that responsi-
  1490
  bility throughout is perfectly recognised and acted upon. If, for example, the troops should be supplied with indifferent provisions on a campaign, or if the ammunition should run short—though I cannot recollect any case of its ever having done so—it is always possible to ascertain who is to blame, by whom the stores were supplied, or whether the Government itself has interfered with the action of the Commissariat offices. So with regard to the ammunition—whether the scale supplied has been that by the Commander-in-Chief or has been curtailed. But in the system carried on by the War Office—if such it can be called— if some gentleman forgets to pack the medicines, or the ammunition is put at the bottom of the transport under the reserve stock of hay, in all probability it will be found that this is the outcome of some voluminous Minute Paper, which has been handed about in the office and to which the Secretary of State has eventually put his own initials. Now, it is not to be supposed from this that the Commander-in-Chief in India has nothing to say to supply. He has the first say in everything practically; every proposal for altering the equipment is initiated by him. It may be the outcome of discussion in the Viceroy's Council, or in any other way; but the proposal always takes the form of an official letter from the Adjutant General to the Military Department, recommending the change. It is then referred to the head of the Department of Supply, Ordnance, or Commissariat, or whoever it may be, for his opinion; and after that discussion conies the final order of the Government, either approving or disapproving, or modifying, as the case may be. So in the still more important case of an Expedition. If an Expedition or Campaign is determined upon, the Commander-in-Chief is formally requested to form a proposal for carrying it out. This is done in an official letter, setting out the troops he would recommend to employ, the scale of ammunition, clothing, and everything else connected with the Expedition. This is then formally approved in an official letter from the Government, making such modifications as may be thought necessary. There may be, of course, any amount of personal discussion upon this, but the final document is the official order of the War Department of the Government.

  1491
  for which they are responsible. Then a copy of this order is communicated officially to all the Heads of the Department, and they issue this order in their own name, and are responsible for the necessary detailed orders to their respective Departments for carrying out the same. It will be observed, therefore, that the Commander-in-Chief is virtually the author and source of all military measures. It is he who, besides commanding the troops, really controls their armament, their equipment in all respects, their housing, and, in fact, every arrangement connected with them. No building connected with the troops is put in execution until it has been formally approved by him, or, if disapproved without the reasons for over-riding his opinion being officially recorded, and it may be said without exaggeration that the Commander-in-Chief has much greater influence and authority than the Commander-in-Chief at home. But I need hardly point out the essential difference between the two ways of doing business —between the Commander-in-Chief recommending that a gun or a transport waggon or a barrack should be of a particular pattern, and the execution of the order being committed to the trained head of the Department concerned, to be carried out under his responsibility, and the system which obtains here, under which the Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be a responsible executive authority for carrying out himself all these works in all their details. I would further invite the attention of the House to this important point: that in India the Commander-in-Chief is the potent critic if anything goes wrong. Suppose that in peace time the troops are badly clothed, or badly housed, it is from the Commander-in-Chief that the Government first hears of it, and then the departmental officers concerned are put on their defence to explain or account for the defect. So on a campaign; if provisions or equipment are faulty, it is the Commander-in-Chief who, getting the report from the officers of the staff, brings the matter to light, and it is this form of criticism—which the House may be sure is very freely and very fully exercised—which constitutes the most effective check against any departmental inefficiency. But here at home this form of criticism is absolutely non-existent, be-
  1492
  cause, under the ridiculous system that obtains at home, the Commander-in-Chief and Adjutant General have made themselves responsible for all these Executive details. I will not dwell here on the vigour and the promptitude which this method of procedure admits of. As an illustration, I will merely say that just before I left India the Government had just carried out three important Expeditions simultaneously—an Expedition to the Black Mountains and the North-West Frontier; an Expedition to put down a sudden rising of the troops in the Meranzai country further south; and the Expedition to suppress the revolt at Manipur. There were thus three considerable military operations going on simultaneously, and between 30,000 and 40,000 men had to be set in motion with all their supply and transport, and in each case over a most difficult and inhospitable country. Yet under the system there obtaining, of establishing the responsibility of the heads of the Services concerned and giving them—as to a certain extent has been given—wide devolution of authority, I do not hesitate to say that business, as far as regards the mere military details, gave the Government of India less trouble and correspondence than will be found to take place here in order to carry out a review in Hyde Park. As for attempting to carry on a war under the present system, it is difficult to conceive of the state of confusion and the delays and waste of money which must arise if the breaking out of war should come on us before we have set our military house in order. And assuredly it cannot lead to economy in peace. Where there is no specific responsibility there must be waste. For instance: '1 he War Office Department, including the Pay Department, consists of something like 1,300 superior officers and clerks, and costs, I think, very nearly £300,000 a year, and audit has to be done all over again by the Treasury. And yet this does not lead to any effective control over the combatant branch. First, as an illustration of economical management, I may refer to the very efficient Military Body known as the Punjaub Frontier Force. It is, in effect, a small Army of itself, consisting of 15 regiments of Cavalry and Infantry, and 4 batteries of Artillery. It com-

  1493
  prises altogether about 14,000 men, and is posted along the North West Frontier of India over something like 500 miles of ground. This force is, and has been for the last 40 years, commanded by a Colonel, with the temporary rank of Brigadier General, and one Staff officer. There are no departmental officers at all—Commissariat, Transport, or any other. The regiments keep their own transport; the combatant officers pay the men; the whole business is conducted in this way, and its efficiency has been proved indisputably by 40 years of warfare. It will be said that this is entirely a force of native troops. Well, I will turn to the Lahore district of the Bengal Army. This has altogether about 16,000 men, and is commanded by a major-general, with one aide-de-camp and two executive Staff officers. In the Umballa district there are 6,200 men, mainly British troops; also a colonel and two Staff officers. For the Aldershot division there are seven generals, including the principal medical officer and seven aides-de-camp. But no one will take exception to the Aldershot division in particular, as it is the one practical place for soldiering in the United Kingdom. If we turn to our colonial stations we find a truly surprising state of things. For example, at the Cape there are a garrison battery of Artillery, a detachment of Horse Artillery, one company of Royal Engineers, and one and a-half detachments of Infantry. To command this enormous force there is provided a lieutenant general, an assistant military secretary, an aide-decamp, two Staff officers, or a total staff of five officers. At Cyprus there is a major general, a Staff officer to command four companies of Infantry. At the Mauritius there are one company of Royal Artillery, two companies of Asiatic Artillery— whatever that may be—a detachment of Royal Engineers, and again four companies of Infantry. For this force there is a colonel on the Staff with the rank of major general, and of course a Staff officer. In Jamaica there are one company of Garrison Artillery, one and a-half companies of Engineers (African), three companies of British Infantry, and six companies of a West India regiment, to command which there are a colonel on the Staff, with rank of major general and a Staff officer. Barbadoes
  1494
  has pretty much the same strength of garrison and the same Staff. Again, I would say, compare this with what is found necessary in India. Take, for example, Sealkot, where there are a regiment of British Infantry, a regiment of British Dragoons, a regiment of Native Cavalry, two regiments of Native Infantry, and two brigades of Artillery. The whole form a strong brigade, a force of far more than the strength of six of these wretched little detachments put together, commanded by a colonel, with a Staff officer called a station officer, and no aide-de-camp. Well, Sir, no one would object to these little colonial commands if they formed useful training for higher posts, but it is obvious that they are nothing of the kind. Four companies of Infantry do not make a garrison fit for more than a major to command, leave alone a general officer. There is absolutely nothing military about the position from a military point of view. These major generals are, from a military point of view, simply rotting, and it is not too much to say that a man who has held one of these commands for five years becomes absolutely unfitted for any higher employment. And yet while money is wasted in this way, camps of instructions—the very life and soul of the Army—are year after year refused for want of money, and there is no range provided in England, except at Dartmoor, where you can fire off a field gun. I could pursue these details right through the items. To take the Engineers for example: A colonel of Engineers at Exeter doing duty which could be quite as well done—much better done—by a subaltern. The same at Brighton, where there is absolutely nothing to do. Let the traveller go to Kurrachee, for example. He will find there fortifications being carried out on a large scale and of a new type, the whole under the exclusive management of a captain of Engineers. At Bombay he finds a very large fortress in course of construction and nearly approaching to completion, the responsible officer at the head being a major of Engineers. He goes to Aden, where there has just been finished what is, in a military point of view, an admirable fortress, with works admirably carried out under the direction of a captain of Engineers. He arrives

  1495
  at Portsmouth to find three colonels of Engineers, although there is nothing going on of any importance. Well, Sir, if these eccentricities are to be met with in broad daylight, so to speak, I think the House will draw the necessary conclusion that there is also room for economy in every branch of the Estimates, especially in that overgrown rabbit warren—the War Office itself. I submit that the case which has been put before the House, that the present system does not conduce to economy in peace time, has been sufficiently established. I have endeavoured to put the case as simply as possible; No heroic action is necessary. The House is merely called on to record an opinion, which will, however, undoubtedly strengthen the hands of the Minister of War, and have & most potent effect. What is needed is a return to sound principles, to a proper distribution of duties till lately recognised, but latterly lost sight of, and the introduction of rational method of procedure which should establish responsibility through every branch of the Department. The first thing to be done, in my opinion, is to remove from the Commander-in-Chief the heterogeneous duties now cast upon him. Looking at the fact that the Secretary of State is frequently changed, and that, as a rule, he has not on entering office special experience, there should be a permanent head of the Department of Supply, and the office of SurveyorGeneral,or something akin to it, should be re-created, charged with control of all branches of it. And this office should not be Parliamentary. The effect of its being made Parliamentary, in the first place, weakens the position of the Secretary of State, who is and must be responsible for everything; secondly, the duty is too important to be dealt with by a junior Member of a Government. Lastly, there should be a strong financial department, and the Financial Secretary should not be in Parliament for the reasons I have given in the case of the permanent head of supply. Parliamentary aid to the Secretary of State can be obtained by the appointment of an additional Under Secretary. The system of correspondence should be reformed. The Secretary of State and three chief officials —namely, the Commander-in-Chief, the
  1496
  head of supply branch, and the Financial Secretary, should form a Council, and their proceedings should be formal, and, if necessary, available in case of any public inquiry. A greater degree of publicity should be given to their proceedings; for example, each head of a Department should make an Annual Report, to be laid before Parliament. This would strengthen the position of Secretary of State. There need be no fear of permanent officials over-asserting themselves, and the fear entertained of publicity, to my mind, is unfounded. I consider there is great value to be attached to publicity. It creates increased interest in what is done, and has a tendency to prevent rash charges. I have now put my case before the House. I have drawn attention to the grave disclosures already published, and I have submitted to the House my views of the causes of these defects, and the nature of the remedy to be applied. The House is not asked to apply an heroic remedy or to undertake any great inquiry, but only to express an opinion, which, in my view, will be most effective. I would appeal to hon. Members, as men of business and as custodians of the Public Purse and Representatives of the taxpayer, to put a stop to a system, perforce, in the last degree wasteful and extravagant. A system such as I have described is bound to be productive of waste and extravagance in peace time. And it has to be remembered that while an Army is maintained for war, peace is happily the normal condition of the country, and surely it is in the strongest degree incumbent on us to require that the Army shall be administered with due regard to economy, and on common-sense, business-like lines. As to the still more weighty consideration, whether the present state of things can possibly supply an adequate system of defence, such a handling of the military resources of the country as will secure that they shall be applied to the best advantage in the event of any great emergency— speaking with the experience of a long life spent in the Public Service and having had unusual opportunities of practical acquaintance with this particular branch of it, and speaking with a full sense of the responsibility involved—I desire to express my opinion that the present state of our military administra-

  1497
  tion is full of danger to the country. I do not mean to imply that I fear such an overthrow as has befallen France and Germany. From a catastrophe of that sort our Fleet will save us. But we have to remember that we are guardians of an Empire and a commerce which are the admiration and the envy of the world, and which are vulnerable at every point. And what I do think is to be feared is that if, with our Army administration in its present elastic condition, we should be drawn into a war we should sustain a blow and loss of credit due to our reckless indifference, it might require great efforts to recover. We should win, though, in time, no doubt. The courage and stubbornness of the race would pull us through in the long run, but only at a grievous cost in blood and treasure, wasted from reckless want of foresight. I 'would therefore very respectfully, but very earnestly, urge upon the House to take the first step towards putting an end to this extravagant, this discreditable, this dangerous state of things, by adopting the Resolution which has now been submitted to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the present system of Military administration fails to secure either due economy in time of peace or efficiency for National defence,"—(Viscount Wolmer,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)said, he claimed the indulgence which the House always extended to a new Member making his maiden speech, and promised to trespass on its attention only for a short time. He thought the attention of the country should be fixed on the condition of the Army, as shown by Lord Wantage's Report, the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and also by the Army Estimates. He thought that Lord Wantage's Report showed a most serious state of affairs existing in the Army, which could not be too often brought under the notice of the country. That Report showed that there were not sufficient recruits obtainable; that the recruits which were obtained were not of a sufficiently good quality to maintain the
  1498
  Home Army in a proper state of efficiency; and that the Home Army was really only a mere nursery and recruiting depot for the Army in India. The Report of Lord Wantage's Committee pointed out that this state of affairs was mainly due to the fact that the inducements offered to young men to enter the Army were not sufficient to supply soldiers to keep the battalions at home up to the proper standard of efficiency, and at the same time provide the necessary drafts for the Army in India. There was a deficiency of 1,400 men during the recruiting season, and were it not for the special measures and makeshifts adopted that deficiency would have amounted to 3,200. It was a very serious thing to think that makeshifts should have to be resorted to from time to time in order to maintain the Indian Army in a state to discharge its duties in time of peace, and he was afraid that if other conditions prevailed there would arise a drain, which the Army at home would not be able to supply. The evidence given by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was very important. As an officer in the Army, who had the honour of being inspected by the Commander-in-Chief, he could bear testimony to the searching character of the inspections made by His Royal Highness, and to the fact that His Royal Highness was not sparing in his terms of censure of the neglect of any officer. For these reasons he thought the evidence of the Commander-in-Chief was deserving of great weight, when he stated that the Army at home was inefficient, and that not one of the battalions was in a proper state to take the field without being reinforced by the Reserves. The Adjutant General declared that not one single Infantry battalion was efficient at home, and the Commander at Aldershot, who had unrivalled opportunities to judging of the condition of the Army, said that the home battalions were only a nursery for the Army in India, and that the soldiers were not fit to go through even the ordinary fatigue of the field-day. The Commander of the Forces in Ireland stated that when the drafts for India had been provided the home battalions were like a lemon out of which the juice had been squeezed. The only exception to these descriptions was the Guards. As one who had had the honour of serving for a few years in the Guards, he could, in

  1499
  every way, endorse what had been said about these regiments; their drill, their general efficiency, and their fitness for the discharge of any duty they might be called upon to perform. The Report of Lord Wantage's Committee said that the only alternative, apparently, to some great expenditure, in order to increase the efficiency of the Army, was conscription. "Conscription" was a word very few of them would venture to.use when addressing their constituents, for it was not a pleasant word to British audiences, and they would have to adopt some other system than the conscription for maintaining the efficiency of the Army at home and in India. He was sorry that Lord Wantage's Committee did not also inquire into the condition of the Militia. He thought that in the Militia they had a very strong force to fall back upon. He knew that officers and men in the Regular Army were rather inclined to sneer at the Militia; but his experience—for he had also served 10 or 12 years in a Militia regiment—was that as a reserve force we could look to the Militia with great confidence. The men in the Militia might not be drilled with the same efficiency as the men in the Regular Forces, and their appearance was not so good, which was perhaps mainly due to the clothing supplied them; but they were a fine body of men; they were of greater age than the men in the Line regiments; they were hardened by their labour for their bread during the portion of the year they were not in training, and they could do a better day's work in marching than a Line regiment could perform. The Army at home was maintained almost entirely for the purpose of providing drafts for the Army in India; but the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee pointed out the extraordinary fact that only about 20 per cent. of the soldiers serving in the ranks at home were fit to be sent out to India. Some of the men were near the end of their service; others were too young, and others again were not suitable for India from a medical point of view. The Report explained the youth of the soldiers by saying that the inducements offered by the service did not attract those who were capable of earning a man's wages in the labour market, and only attracted immature lads who were unable to earn a man's wages. Lads of 15 or 16 years
  1500
  of age were enlisted in some instances' though they were supposed to be older' and they had to spend one or two years in the ranks at home before they were fit to pass even the lenient medical examination for service in India. He asked the House to consider the enormous expense of that system. An effective soldier cost the country £55 12s. a year, and we had to spend that sum on every one of the men for one or two years before they could give a day's work. He could hardly believe his eyes when he read the figures given by the Inspector General of Recruiting of the invalids in the Army. In 1892 the number of men under two years' service amounted to 56,204, and out of this number 798 were discharged invalided. These figures were most startling, he thought. A soldier's life ought to be the healthiest of lives. The food was good, or ought to be good, for the country would not tolerate bad or insufficient rations being supplied to its soldiers; the discipline, the exercise, the warmth and comfort of the barracks ought to make the health of the men good; but instead of that a large proportion were invalided after two years' service. He reckoned that these invalid soldiers cost the country a vast sum every year, for which no value was returned. The people thought a good deal of this expenditure of money. In Scotland, at least, they thought the Army was a good deal too costly. He also honestly believed it was too costly, and he thought that means should be adopted to maintain an efficient Army at a less expenditure of money. He did not think the Secretary for War could as with a fairy's wand change all this at once; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the various suggestions which had been made for relieving the country of this great burden. He knew that the officers of the Army—and he believed the men also—had confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, and believed he would do his best for the service; and he would take the opportunity of saying that whenever he asked a question on military affairs the right hon. Gentleman always gave him a civil answer, which was not invariably his experience when he asked questions in the discharge of his duty to his constituents. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do some-

  1501
  thing to improve the service in the Militia. The Inspector General of Recruiting bore testimony in his Report to the fact that the Militia, as a recruiting ground for the Army, was very effective indeed; that the recruits thus obtained were exceedingly good, and that their numbers had been largely increased. According to the Returns the number of men in the Militia was 113,000, and they had supplied 16,000 recruits to the Line in one year. These recruits were far better than the recruits picked up in the street by the recruiting sergeant. But the Militia was not used to its full extent as a recruiting ground for the Army. He believed that a few concessions would do a great deal towards improving the efficiency of the Militia, and increasing the number of recruits which pass from it to the Army. Lord Wantage's Committee suggested that a list should be prepared of efficient volunteers who would be willing to serve in the Army in the event of a small war; and he thought that if a small payment was given to Militiamen to induce them to go into the Army it would be the means of greatly increasing the forces available in the time of war. He considered the time for the training of the Militia was longer than employers of labour liked to spare their men, and perhaps it would be well to shorten it. Then he did not think the time of training was properly employed, and if there was a better system of drilling the results would be more satisfactory. There was, as a rule, in every case a very efficient permanent staff; but its members had too much to do to give proper attention to the drilling of the men, and he thought some arrangement should be made by which sergeants should be sent out from Line regiments to assist the non-commissioned officers of Militia regiments in the work of drilling during the period of training. To place the Army in a state of greater efficiency was of vital importance to the country; and the next thing was to get that efficiency at the least cost, and he thought he had pointed out how that might be attained.
  COLONEL C. W. MURRAYsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had seconded the Motion had so fully discussed the question of administration of the Army that he would not follow him into that field. But as the
  1502
  Committee of Lord Wantage had been mentioned in the Motion, he desired to say a few words to the House on that question. The main points placed before the Committee for discussion and report were: (1) the conditions of recruiting and inducements to recruit; (2) terms and conditions of service with the Colours and reserve; (3) advantages on discharge. Recruiting appeared to have been last year very good, but they could not rely upon that exceptional state of things, and should still consider the inducements to gain recruits. It was recommended in the Annual Recruiting Report by the Inspector General, as well as by the Wantage Committee, that power should be given to recruit in anticipation of the waste which could be foreseen in the immediate future, to prevent in good recruiting times the check caused when the establishment authorised by Parliament was reached. Would this be done? There was no recommendation to this effect brought forward by the War Minister as yet, but he hoped it might be done later. There appeared to be a large number of special recruits. These, as the House knew, were boys not up to the standard of 5 feet 4 inches in height and 33 inches in chest. This was small enough, but it appeared that in 1890 about one-fourth of the whole number of recruits were specials; in 1891 rather more than one-third of the whole number; in 1892 about one-third. This was unsatisfactory. He had seen such weakly lads break down on active service almost before the campaign began. He considered that, besides inducements to join, inducements should be held out to the taxpayer to pay willingly for what he received, and that he should be sure of having a good and serviceable soldier. That was not the case here. The Inspector General says a large proportion are unfit for some time after enlistment to bear the strain of a soldier's life. That proportion may be diminished by increased vigilance in scrutiny of returns of specials furnished weekly by approving officers. This increased vigilance should at once be practised. It was worth considering whether it was advisable to go on paying a man's wages to this class, or whether it was not better to enlist them as specials at less pay, and keep them developing until they were fit to take their place in the ranks, the

  1503
  money saved by this to go as an inducement to a better class to join as men fit for work. The behaviour of the class of recruits now obtained for the Army was better than formerly. There were not the same habits of drink and crime, and punishments were less. There was some minor insubordination traceable to youth, and also to the youth of the younger non-commissioned officers. It had been stated by many of those who gave evidence before the Committee that, "as a rule, our regiments at home are useless for service." That had been the result also of his experience of a great many of the young men who went abroad on active service. There had been a tendency to catch the recruit by plausible statements, and afterwards not altogether to keep to the spirit of the agreement. The soldier should know exactly what his pay was to be, and vexatious deductions, especially for food, which he only really found out after enlistment, should be abolished. In the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War it was stated that—
  "Measures have been adopted to equalise the number of stations of Infantry at home and on foreign service,"
  but no mention was made of the establishments. This was a very essential part of the organisation of 1872. The Memorandum goes on to to say that—
  "Even what has been done will be at once disturbed by the dispatch of extra battalions to Egypt."
  This was exactly the thing which was required to be avoided. It took place in 1877, five years after the establishment of the organisation, and had never been restored. Now the right hon. Gentleman told them that the equality had been re-established, and in the same sentence that it was again disturbed. The territorial system of 1872 had not been carried out in its integrity. At the time of the Report of the Wantage Committee there were 11 more battalions abroad than at home. For the present year it appeared that there would be three battalions of Infantry abroad in excess of those at home. But the establishments which were originally intended to be the same would now still be very disproportionate. At home the Infantry would number 57,000, and abroad over 74,000. This was a great disproportion out of the number at home, only it was found that only about
  1504
  20 to 30 per cent. were available for drafts, in consequence of various causes; one special cause being that a very large number were under age. In this matter of drafts to fill up the gaps in the forces abroad there seemed to be a yearly increasing deficiency. They should by some means have sufficient men to be sent out yearly. At present there was a constant struggle to make up the deficiency, with the result of leaving the regiments at home in a state almost of collapse and inanition. Another point in the territorial question was, that it should be carried out to the extent of quartering regiments in their own territory, to enable them to be more in connection with the various county branches of Militia and Volunteers. At present most regiments never went near their territorial districts from the time they come from abroad to the time they go back, and were never seen by the battalions of Militia and Volunteers. A very successful experiment was made with a Welsh regiment, and it was stated that a sensible increase of recruiting took place. This was strongly recommended by the Inspector General of Recruiting, and he should be glad to hear that the Military Authorities proposed to continue the practice in the same form. There was a point connected with the Reserve which he thought had never been sufficiently attended to. The training of the Reserve men, when there was any at all, was entirely sufficient to enable them to take their place again in the ranks. Everything in military affairs changed so rapidly. The Reserve man came back and found a new drill, new rifle, and everything new. All Reserve men should be obliged to join some force in which they could receive training in drill and shooting. The Volunteers would perhaps be convenient for this. He entirely disapproved of the present system of giving a large accumulation of pay to the soldier on leaving the Colours, and then requiring of him the impossible task of paying it back if he rejoined. He considered that whatever pay or gratuity was accumulated for the benefit of the soldier should be treated in the manner of gratuity or pension; if it was pay, then it should be added to by the State in proportion to the time he continued to serve in the Reserve after leaving the active Army, a small sum being given to him on

  1505
  leaving the colours to start him in life. It was a great advantage to a man to have learned a trade in the Army. It would have a good effect on discipline, and prevent men from wasting their time in public-houses, and would be a vast advantage in after life, giving the man a chance of gaining a livelihood. Reserve men of the best character should be employed as much as possible in Government posts. This was very strongly recommended by the Wantage Committee, and the Inspector General for Recruiting in his Report strongly recommended it.
  "There would be no difficulty in obtaining the requisite quantity of recruits, and of greatly improved quality. If the plan followed in Germany were established here the recruiting difficulty would disappear, and with it the disinclination of the middle and lower classes to allow sons to select the Army as a profession."
  The Secretary of State for War lately, in answer to a question, stated that as far as he was aware only 13 appointments under Government had been given during 1892 to discharged and reserved soldiers. As more than 16,000 went to the Army Reserve on completion of service, this seemed a very small proportion, and he should be glad to know that every effort was made to give Government employment to discharged soldiers of the best character. It was a matter for great regret that the present Government should not consider themselves in a position to carry out any of the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee, except of increasing the pay of lance corporals. Lance corporals and bombardiers were a useful body, but did not make an Army. The late Government were evidently in earnest in wishing to place the Army in a proper state— the Committee was a War Office one— and had matters of great importance to discuss and report upon. It was hoped that, as in the Navy under the late Administration, great improvements would be effected. But, unfortunately for the Army, the Government that appointed the Committee went out of Office, and now it appeared that, like a Royal Commission on the Army which preceded it, it was to be shelved, or perhaps to be made to wait until the late Government should return to Office and reconsider it. The right hon. Gentleman stated that financial considerations would prevent the present Government from
  1506
  taking many steps at present towards carrying out the recommendations. But what was the object of having a Committee sitting at great expense and taking evidence? Was it not because there were known to be important considerations to be attended to, and he felt sure that the country, if it required an Army at all, desired that that Army should be efficient, and in a condition to do any duty required of it. The cost of placing the Army in a perfect state as regarded number and efficiency would be a very small item compared with the amount demanded from the British taxpayer to start the Prime Minister's useless scheme of Irish Government, and he would recommend to the right hon. Gentleman's careful consideration, although he was afraid his recommendation would not receive that consideration, whether the money would not be better spent in making our Army good enough to do justice to a great nation and sustain our Imperial position than in establishing a sham Government in Ireland.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)said that, although he was a very new Member of the House, he had been a witness of what had taken place on the Army Estimates on many previous occasions, and he must say he regretted that the position which had been taken up in the past seemed likely to be continued in the future, and that absolutely no public interest was likely to be taken in this great question of the maintenance of the Army, on which they were asked to vote no less than £20,000,000 sterling. It had been established, he should think, to the satisfaction of every hon. Member who had heard the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Oxford, that from the logical point of view they could not, in the nature of things, with their present organisation have a good Army. He was now going to try and show that, as a matter of fact, they had not got a good Army. He thought this was emphatically a question for the Imperial Parliament. They had precedents in this question of great value. There was no doubt that matters at the Admiralty were now very satisfactory, and that they might well be able to entrust their maritime efence to them; but they could not have the same confidence in regard to the War Office in its present condition.

  1507
  It was an essential and desirable thing that the House of Commons should have cognisance of this matter. Something could be done by the House of Commons; everything had been done in the case of the Navy by the House of Commons. Let them take their minds back five or six years, and consider what was the then condition of the Navy. He would ask the House to remember that, owing to the pressure which was brought to bear in this House, and by those who were instrumental in forming the opinion of Members, the Navy was absolutely revolutionised, and that £11,000,000 sterling were asked for and voted in a single 12 months to enable the Navy to go to sea, in case of war. Therefore, it was right to put what pressure they could today upon the War Office. Three times within recent memory Parliament had charged Commissions to inform it of the state of the Army. There was a Commission under Mr. Justice Stephen; there was one under Lord Hartington; and a Committee under Lord Wantage; and those Commissions had, without exception, one and all reported that the condition of the Army was as bad as it could possibly be. They presumed that the Army for which they paid so many millions was an Army which was capable of doing something. He would ask whether the War Office had provided them with the means of contemplating the possibility of a great Continental war? The answer was given as follows in the Report of Lord Hartington's Commission:—
  "There does not appear to exist sufficient provision by either Service for the wants of the other; little or no attempt has ever been made to establish settled and regular intercommunication or relations between the Services; no combined plan of operations for the defence of the Empire in any given contingency has ever been worked out or decided upon."
  Having failed to provide for war on a large scale, had the War Office made any adequate preparation for war on a small scale? Here was another statement, a statement made last year in the evidence given before Lord Wantage's Committee:—
  "The provision of expeditionary battalions to be sent abroad in case of a small war was a point which certainly was not worked out by Lord Cardwell's Committee, and no plan that I know of has been worked out by any Committee, or by the War Office, with a view to meet that emergency."
  1508
  Unless the Secretary of State for War could tell them that the War Office had entirely altered the state of things, unless he could give them some plan to provide for the contingency of a general war or a small war, the War Office had failed in the purpose for which it existed. He had seen something of foreign Armies, and he asserted, without hesitation, that in the modern sense of the word, as it was understood by experts of other countries, our Army was not an Army. He contended that Parliament, with these grave facts before them, was bound imperatively to demand from Ministers of the Crown an account of the money with which they were entrusted. He advised hon. Members to visit from time to time our military establishments, and see for themselves the state of things which prevailed. He now came to another serious matter which the House might well take into consideration. They did not get proper information in these matters; there was a hole-and-corner system pursued at the War Office which was not pursued at the Admiralty. Every fact was given them by the Admiralty, but the facts were withheld from them by the War Office. But those facts were really public property everywhere except in this country. He would give an example of one or two of the things he meant. He was sure the Secretary of State for War would not object if he referred to a matter which had occurred during the last two or three days. A day or two ago he put down a question on the Notice Paper to the Secretary for War regarding the number of 9-pounder muzzle-loading guns which were now in the hands of the Field Artillery. These guns were of an entirely obsolete type and were out-ranged and out-classed by nearly every gun in the Russian Service. The reply that he received from the right hon. Gentleman was that it was undesirable either that such a question should be put or answered. He could not help pointing out that such Returns were printed and circulated every single month throughout the year, and, as a matter of fact, the figures on this matter were published by himself in the very last edition of a small pamphlet he had written on this subject last year, and the figures were still substantially correct. We had at this moment in India nearly 200 of these

  1509
  obsolete 9-pounder muzzle-loading guns with the field batteries. What was the remedy for this state of things? There was only one remedy for it, and that was to get rid of these useless guns, and to replace them with modern 12-pounder guns. These new guns could be obtained in 12 months. So grotesque was the condition of things that at this moment at Woolwich, our only school for the instruction of Artillery officers, they positively had not got enough guns to supply an experimental battery for the instruction of cadets, but every single gun used for instruction purposes was of an obsolete type. The same state of things once prevailed on the gunnery training ships at Plymouth and Portsmouth, but it had been remedied and guns provided for the Navy of the most modern type. Meanwhile, at Woolwich there was only one of the new guns, and that of a discarded pattern, and the cadets were compelled to practise with the old 9-pounder. He contended that monthly Returns ought to be published which would give information with regard to gnus in use in the Service. He had tried, but had failed, to get Returns which would show the actual state of the Service battalions and Service batteries at Aldershot. He was able to get them by personal research last year, and had he had time he might possibly have done so this year. He wanted the House to understand that when they saw these battalions and batteries put down as having some 1,200 men in the First or Second Army Corps, that was, if he might say so, a fraud on the public. One Infantry battalion which he had in his mind, and forming part of the First Army Corps, stood on the list as being 1,100 men answering the roll call, and the country believed that all these men were ready for service. What was the fact? This very battalion was asked to furnish a draft of 200 men fit to go to India, and out of 1,100 men they had not 200 men fit to go to India, and they could only send 180 men. That was not an unfair example of battalion after battalion, and he wanted to know how many men in our battalions were disqualified at the present moment under the rules existing for the regulation of the Army from proceeding to India when they were ordered to go, and when such a Return was given a re-
  1510
  markable state of things would be found to exist. These facts showed that the War Office had not done its duty in this matter; they had been misled by the War Office; they were not getting proper information, and were not getting value for the money which they spent. Lastly, he wished to say a few words about the grievances of the men. These grievances had been known for a long time. It did not require a Commission to tell them that the men were underfed, and one of the first things that ought to be done was to provide a proper meal after the afternoon meal for every soldier in the Army. Another thing that was well known without any Commission being necessary was that boys, on enlisting, were misled by the recruiting sergeants; and that these boys were physically unfit to undertake, not merely the labours of a campaign, but the ordinary daily routine of barrack life. The medical officers' returns showed the disastrous effect upon the young soldiers of a nine miles' march on a warm summer's day. If they wanted to get proper men for the Army, they must pay them properly, treat them properly, and feed them properly. Some other prospect than the workhouse must be given the men after they have left the Service, and it was a humiliating thing to have to say that at present that was the only prospect before many of these men. Only the other day he got a Return showing that 160 discharged soldiers passed through one casual ward alone in the course of a year, and what was going on in the case of one casual ward was going on in the case of many. The people of the country took a very deep interest in these military questions, as he knew from experience by addressing civilian audiences, and he could not repress a feeling of shame when at a large meeting he addressed in the East of London the other day, he found there was scarcely a man in the whole of that audience who did not speak in terms of absolute scorn and abhorrence of the career of men who were compelled to enter the Army. Until some step was taken to remedy the grievances of the men, to treat them properly, and to make the Army popular, this feeling with which the Army was regarded by many people would not be got rid of. One step in the direction of reform which the authorities might at

  1511
  once take was by improving the condition of many of the recruiting stations. One of the most important recruiting stations in the country was St. George's Barracks within a few hundred yards of that House, and its condition was simply a disgrace. To enter it one must go through an avenue of slums, and they could not put a man in a more humiliating position who was taking this important step in life by joining the Army, when they compelled him to go through such a place. Many other recruiting stations were also in a similarly unattractive state, and he would suggest that this, at any rate, was a matter which might be remedied almost immediately. He contended that the War Office had failed in its primary duties for which it was created, and that until it was shown it had taken steps to fulfil those primary duties it stood condemned. There were some obvious things which could be done without waiting, by the ordinary administrative process, and there were other things which would demand the countenance and assistance of a willing House of Commons, which he was perfectly certain would in the future, as in the past, never be withheld from any Government who came down to the House and said they desired to have these things in the interests of the Army and of the country.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Mr. Speaker, to anyone who like myself or like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has had to deal with many of the subjects mentioned in the course of the Debate to-night the prospects are sufficiently appalling, for even in the small number of speeches delivered we have had speeches so full of matter and so full of suggestion that it is almost impossible for anyone like myself to attempt to deal even with a small part without trespassing to a somewhat serious extent on the attention of this House. But, Sir, it seems to me it is right I should rise at this stage of our proceedings, because I can, at any rate, bring to bear upon our discussion to-night some practical experience of very recent date with regard to the many subjects that have, been brought under our consideration. Now, Sir, the Motion that has been made in the Committee to-night by my noble Friend relates to two subjects. It deals with the cost of the Army, and it deals
  1512
  with its efficiency. I ask leave to say two or three words upon each of these before I go into the details of the various subjects which have been brought forward to-night. Now with regard to the cost of the Army, I do not suppose that anybody in my position, or in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, would deny that the cost of the Army is very large. I am quite sure that everybody who has filled the position I have had the honour to fill would desire to reduce it to the utmost extent consistent with its efficiency. And I am bound to say, after very careful consideration of all the circumstances concerning attempts at economy, that although I think there are some economies that might be effected in our Army system, little by little, yet I cannot but doubt that there are other subjects, such for instance as the enormously increased attention being paid to the condition of the soldier in all parts of the world, which must inevitably add to our expenditure almost as much as the most careful economy can take from it. I have great experience of this subject, because I had the honour of serving upon the Committee appointed by this House, and of which my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington was the Chairman. We examined every branch of our subject. We spent two years in that investigation, and the witnesses that were called were certainly not witnesses favourable to any existing administration of the Army. They were called by my noble Friend himself on his own responsibility as the witnesses he thought most able to render assistance to the Committee, and I bear my willing testimony to the services that were rendered by that Committee, because I think they did lay the ground for various useful reforms, and for some reduction of expenditure in various departments. But nobody who was on that Committee can doubt also that there were suggested to us in the course of that investigation various directions in which our expenditure was inadequate, and the ultimate result of that Committee undoubtedly was that although we out off small sums in various directions it led to much larger expenditure in others, and the result to the Exchequer was an increased charge. I am afraid also I draw the same experience from

  1513
  what I hear in this House. We have a good deal of economy in the abstract, but we hear very little of it as applied to particular instances, and my experience in this House has been that, whereas hundreds of speeches are made in which it is urged that expenditure should be curtailed in one direction or another, there is, perhaps, one speech in which the slightest suggestion is made towards diminishing the expenditure in the Army in the particular direction in which one might hope some reduction might be made. I should like to say that I have listened, and I am sure the House has listened, with great satisfaction and interest to the first speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford. He has a very distinguished record in India, and we were glad to hear the efficient manner in which he contributed to our Debates. His main suggestion for the reduction of expenditure is a reduction in the Staff and the number of officers employed. I have always felt, for my own part, that the Staff was larger than might be actually necessary, and it would be a great thing if some proportion of that Staff were reduced. But I have always been met face to face with the fact—and everybody will have to be met face to face with the fact— that we have to provide officers not only for our very small Army, but for the Army we could mobilise if we had to defend the country. We should have to put in the field 500,000 or 600,000 men, and nobody can doubt that the demand on the officers of the Army in such a time would even be largely in excess of the number of officers we possess at the present moment. I have always thought we had an excessive number of General Officers, and I have taken my share in endeavouring to reduce that number. But with regard to the officers below the rank of General, I am certain that we do require a very much larger number than can be suggested by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is of primary importance that we should not unduly reduce the number of officers in this country, or when the time comes for a general mobilisation of the forces we shall find ourselves short of the number we require. I think my hon. and gallant Friend in his attempts to find a direction for economy was not happy. He mentioned the case of Aden. I know a
  1514
  great deal about that, and I do not think in the course of my connection with the War Office I ever came across a grosser case of the expenditure of money, far above anything from which money ought to have been spent, than the manner in which by the Indian Public Works Department the defences at Aden were carried out. I pass from the question of cost to that of efficiency. Is the House prepared to say for one moment that the Army at the present time is not efficient? Now let me examine details. Does anybody dispute that the Army in India is efficient? The Army in India is composed of men thoroughly qualified for the object with which they are raised, and there never was a time in the history of India when the Army in that country was in all respects more efficient for military purposes than it is at the present time. I come now to the Army at home, and I venture to say that there also the Army in this country is more efficient and more thoroughly suitable for warlike purposes than ever it was in the history of this country. I do not want to trouble the House by quoting authorities in defence of that proposition, but I should like to quote one single witness. We have heard quoted to-night the authority of Lord Wolseley. And what does Lord Wolesley say about the efficiency of the Army at the present time? This is what he says—
  "Of this there can be no doubt, that since the Peninsular War we have never had so strong or so efficient an Army. Looking at it as a military machine, it has never been so fit for quick conversion into a fighting army in the field, and never before has this country been in a better position to resist invasion."
  I think there can be no stronger testimony to the position of the Army, which I assert is at the present time in a more efficient condition than ever it was before. The state of recruiting cannot be described as otherwise than satisfactory, and my noble Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer) in his speech was a little behind the date in many of the details he brought forward. Let some of those who have studied the condition of the Army be good enough to read the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting. That Report is in all respects eminently satisfactory. I should like to say one word before I go on about the Inspector General of Recruiting. I had the honour of appoint

  1515
  ing him. He at once directed his attention towards the very grave matters with which he had to deal, and he submitted proposals to Lord Wantage's Committee, of which that Committee approved almost without examining them further. Those proposals have been carried out. We have had during the past year the most energetic Inspector General of Recruiting, and the result of the efforts he has made has been the vast improvement which I am about to record. I am not going for a moment to defend the past history of recruiting. I did not try to defend it last year, but, on the contrary, I said all the evidence before us proved that the recruiting system had been very bad indeed, and great reforms were required in it. Those reforms have been made, and now what is it the Inspector General of Recruiting says? He tells us in his Report for last year that the recruiting for the Cavalry was very brisk, and the minimum age was raised from 18 to 19. He also tells us that whereas the Royal Artillery was previous to that time short of men, it is now, in almost every respect, over its standard. I can say upon my own authority, and upon the authority of men more competent to judge, that the Guards have never been in a more satisfactory condition—at any rate not for the last 20 years. Their recruiting is excellent, they have raised the standard to 5 feet 9 inches, and everyone who knows what the Guards are would acknowledge that they are an admirable type of men for the purposes for which they are required. One hon. Member has asked why the Members of the House do not go and look for themselves at the men of the Regular Army. If hon. Gentlemen will only do so they will be perfectly satisfied, and they will see that the men of the Regular Army are far better than they have been for many years past. The Inspector General reports that, whereas in 1890 we only raised 19,000 men, last year we raised from 25,000 to 26,000. Though some of the men were under the standard at the time, yet they were all of them as good as could possibly be required for the Regular Army. I do not think, then, any one can doubt that our Army is at present in a more satisfactory condition than it has been for a long time past. As to the other elements of the case, our Army at the present moment is better
  1516
  armed and better equipped than it has ever been before. We mobilize it in a manner in which it could never be mobilized before. We have a scheme of mobilization which can be acted upon, if there was any danger, to-morrow. Garrisons can be provided and established at a very short notice; and then again, a question of importance, the relations between the Army and the Navy, which sometimes have been a cause of difficulty, are now of a most cordial character. I believe that the co-operation of the Army and the Navy was never more satisfactory. I do not suggest that there are not reforms yet to be made. On the contrary, I have never held any other language, because I have never disguised from the House that other reforms ought to be made. But there is one great difficulty besotting the War Office, than which there is no greater. The fluctuations of public opinion from one time to another make the task of the War Office very difficult. At one time every one is for spending money upon the Army, at another every one is for cutting down the expenses. If we could only make up our minds as to the amount of force required for the defence of the country and for operations abroad, and if in season and out of season we stuck to it without regard to the fluctuation of public opinion, we should advance more than we have done. And now I come to deal with some of the reforms which have been suggested. The first is with regard to the higher administration of the Army. Well, I do not deny that the Staff at Headquarters must appear to many people who have not looked thoroughly into the matter an expensive Staff. No one will deny that our position in this country is enormously complicated by various considerations— first of all, by the control which the Treasury and this House exercise over Army matters, a control which I am bound to say creates increased expenditure, and which is complicated by the very peculiar constitution of the office of Commander-in-Chief. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford quoted various Reports; but I can tell him that of all the difficulties with which Secretaries of State has to contend one of the greatest is the enormous number of contradictory recommendations with regard to Army organisation. The

  1517
  moment they get a certain number of men together they find such a variety of recommendations that it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to start from them, and when my hon. and gallant Friend quotes various Reports and says that nothing has been done he is probably speaking without any precise knowledge of what actually has been done. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Commission. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Commission was appointed to inquire into suggestions and possible corruptions in the Ordnance Department, but they reported upon other matters without having examined witnesses. Even the Secretary of State was not examined. If very much weight is to be attached to the recommendations of that Commission other witnesses ought to have been examined. But there is Lord Morley's Committee also, and I attach great weight to the Report of Lord Morley's Committee. Is my hon. and gallant Friend not aware that, in consequence of the Report of that Committee, we separated inspection from manufacture, and that the result, as can be shown by abundant evidence, has been most satisfactory? The weapons supplied to the Army were at one time defective, but they are at present very much better weapons. The division of the Vote for Stores has also been carried out. The result has been the establishment of separate responsibility for the Navy as well as separate responsibility for the Army as regards the stores supplied, and while there have been some difficulties of administration these have been got over. But, to return to the question of the higher administration, my hon. and gallant Friend said that in 1888 various changes have been made of which he disapproved. One of the changes made was this—I am using my own words—
  "We propose to hand over to the Military Departments, subject only to the financial control and supervision of the Secretary of State, the administration of all the executive duties of the Army and headquarters. We hope to fix upon each military head of Departments full responsibility for that branch of the Service which he controls."
  This proposal, which was actually carried out, was based upon experience. I found hat some alteration in the administration
  1518
  was absolutely necessary, and at the time it was made it was generally approved. In the House it met with universal acceptance, and when it was examined into a few years later by the Commission over which Lord Hartington presided it was also generally approved of by that Commission. I do not gather that there is any great objection to it now. I am satisfied that under it very great advancement has been made. No complaint is now made of the weapons supplied to the Army, or of the manner in which the Supply Departments generally are managed. Why was this? Because, under the old system, the Civil Department administered the Transport, Supply, and Control Departments of the Army, and then when war came they had to stand aside and the Military Authorities had to take up those matters. My belief was that the Military Authorities ought to have control in time of peace as well as in time of war, and that they ought to be able to train their officers in time of peace for the duties they would have to perform in time of war. This was the basis of the steps which I took at that time, and I believe that those steps were not only the best at that time, but that no other organisation would possibly have worked under the existing constitution of the office of Commander-in-Chief. Then as to Lord Hartington's Commission, various quotations have been made from the Report of that Commission to show the various changes that ought to be made. I think I am ent tled in my own defence to refer to the paragraph in that Report which points out that the Commission recommends that many of those changes, if not all of them, could only be carried out when there is a vacancy in the post of Commander-in-Chief. I accepted that recommendation in the spirit as well as in the letter. It was, however, impossible to carry out the recommendation without calling upon the Commander-in-Chief to retire. I was not prepared to-take that step, and I did not believe the Army was willing that I should do so. I believed then, as I believe now, the present Commander-in-Chief retains the confidence of the Army, and I was certainly not prepared to call upon him to retire in order that certain changes in administration might be introduced, which cannot be introduced while he

  1519
  holds that office. The Commission recommended that when a vacancy occurred in the office of Commander-in-Chief that office should be abolished; they proposed that there should be a Chief of the Staff, and they also suggested that there should be a Council of five military members to assist and advise the Secretary of State. Even upon that subject there has been a good deal of difference. The right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State, who was a member of the Commission, differs upon the main proposal of the Commission, for he is not in favour of the appointment of a Chief of the Staff at all, and he would further reduce the Council of the Secretary of State by that member. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford was not in favour of any such Council at all; he would limit the advisers of the Secretary of State to two military members and one financial member—three altogether—but he would not urge the appointment of a Chief of the Staff at all. For my part, I am of opinion that the foundation of any reform that is to be effected in our Army system after the retirement of the present Commander-in-Chief is the creation of a Chief of the Staff, and I have done my best in regard to that proposal. The present Adjutant General of the Army is practically in many respects Chief of the Staff of the Army, but he ought to be made so in name, and not only in office. The first thing that ought to be done, if the opportunity arises, is to carry out the recommendation of Lord Hartington's Commission, and to create a real Chief of the Staff. He was aware that the present Secretary of State objected on the ground that a Chief of the Staff, whose duties were in practice to make plans of operations, would not in this country have enough to do. I admit the force of the objection, and I think that the Chief of the Staff might still have some executive duties. Having carefully considered this subject, I think that the proposal of a Chief of the Staff holds the field, and that, whatever other changes we may introduce into our War Department, our first duty is to establish an efficient Chief of the Staff. In 1887 the real difficulty which confronted me was this —there was no one military authority responsible for all the military efficiency
  1520
  of the Army. Take, for instance, the defence of the ports. In the case of the ports there were separate authorities responsible, first of all for the armament; secondly, for the works; and, thirdly, for the garrison; and the result was that there was no harmonious co-operation which enabled any complete scheme to be carried out with efficiency and proper effect. I tried to secure that there should be one military authority responsible for the carrying out of every scheme in every necessary respect, but at that time the only person properly responsible was the Secretary of State, and that official came and went. What I was anxious to see was that the military heads of departments should be working harmoniously towards a common object. Let us take the case of the coaling stations. When I came into Office I found that, though there had been a certain amount of money voted for the purpose of defending the coaling stations, no plan had been prepared for the purpose of providing for the garrisons of those stations, nor had there even been a suggestion made that money would be wanted for the purpose of barracks to house the garrisons. My belief at that time was this—that the best means of remedying this defect was to place the responsibility on one military head and to insist that any scheme which was brought forward—such as that for the defence of the coaling stations—should at the same time make provision not only for the armament, but for everything else subsidiary to it, and to take care that every one was informed of the necessity of formulating a complete scheme in order to make that defence successful. Unless an attempt is made to maintain some supreme military authority, having the main duty of harmonious co-operation between all the Departments of the War Office, it will be found, with changing Secretaries of State, that no scheme will lead to really satisfactory results in the administration of the War Office. It has been suggested that the military advisers of the Secretary of State should be allowed to publish their recommendations to the Secretary of State. Well, I am bound to say in regard to that, that, difficult as the position of that Official is at the present time, it would become absolutely intolerable were such a

  1521
  suggestion given effect to. If we allow the Military Authorities under the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament their opinions on any question, it would be impossible for any Secretary of State to carry out the business of his Office for any length of time. It is also suggested that the financial control at present exercised is not satisfactory. I agree with that. I am of opinion that the result of the present control is to save shillings and spend pounds. I should like to see the system reformed from top to bottom, and I am sorry that the Commission presided over by Lord Hartington did not take upon itself the duty of revising it. I am sure that if an opportunity had been afforded of giving evidence as to the manner in which that system worked the Commission would have recommended drastic changes, resulting in a great alteration of the present system of financial control, and giving more control to the War Office. There are one or two other subjects touched upon by my noble Friend. With regard to Lord Wantage's Committee, he said that they recommended that the number of the battalions at home and abroad should be equalised. I cordially agreed with that recommendation. It has been pointed out that the recommendation has not been strictly observed. But an attempt was made to meet the difficulty not by increasing the cadres, but by adding to the number of men in each battalion. Mr. Childers fixed the number of men in the Infantry battalions at 450, the lowest figure ever reached; the late Government raised them to 700 or 710, at which figure they have been maintained for some years past. I quite admit that that does not meet our difficulty. I am, for my own part, anxious that steps should be taken for the purpose of redressing the balance between the battalions at home and abroad, and I rejoice to see that, although temporarily disturbed by the despatch of battalions to Egypt, the Secretary of State has taken steps which will tend clearly in the direction of the equalisation of the battalions at home and abroad. Then my noble Friend touched on the question of recruiting, and said that in past years there had been bad work in the Recruiting Department. I do not dispute that for a moment. I
  1522
  think the evidence taken before Lord Wantage's Committee shows that the recruiting was not equal to the demands made on it, and that it fell short of what the Recruiting Department ought to be. There has been great activity under the present Inspector General of Recruiting, and I think the result proves that, at any rate, the Inspector General is alive to what ought to be done. Then it is said that the Home battalions are not, at the present time, in a satisfactory condition, and a number of distinguished authorities have been quoted in support of that statement. But these distinguished authorities, and everybody who has ever been connected with the administration of the Army, knows very well that the Home battalions are not, and never have been, regarded as efficient for service abroad without being reinforced from the Reserve.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I never said they were.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am glad to hear my noble Friend say that. The battalions, with the Reserves, are sufficient for every service they have to perform. I am glad to find that my noble Friend concurs in that. Under the short service system, you have to rely upon the Reserve to qualify the home battalions for foreign service. We have now got to the happy condition in which we have 80,000 men in the Reserve, and we are entitled to rely, and we do rely, on that Reserve to fill up the gaps in the regiments when they are required to go abroad. That is exactly what is done by every Foreign Power. Our system, after all, is similar to the systems in France and Germany, relying, as we do upon drawing on our Reserves to qualify the battalions for foreign service, and no one can deny that England has to rely less upon her Reserves than any foreign country.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: What is the age of the men?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I say we have to rely less on our Reserves than either France or Germany, and we have a larger number of seasoned men in our battalions than either France or Germany; and this comparison holds good if made

  1523
  with the normal condition of our Infantry battalions at the most unfavourable time of the year. It is a curious thing that whereas here, in England, a normal Infantry battalion has no less than 245 men of over three years' service and under 21, Germany has only 59, and France has only 23. Therefore, you cannot doubt that our battalions, whatever else you may say of them, have got a very much larger proportion of seasoned men than those of either France or Germany. Of men between two and three years' service we have practically as many as Germany, but we have a few less than France. Taking it as a whole, nobody can doubt that we have as good a proportion of really seasoned men as any foreign country. The noble Lord will argue against that that we have in our battalions a large number of men of immature age, but so have France and Germany. When the battalions are sent to war, these men have to be taken out of the battalion and sent to special training before they can be allowed to go to the front. That is what we have to do, and if we maintain that result while, at the same time, we are supplying these tremendous drafts for the battalions abroad, I say our system of short service cannot be said to have broken down. I am not. disposed to argue that in every detail the system is complete. It is for the Secretary for War to say whether he can find in the Report of the Wantage Committee any suggestion calculated to improve the short service system; but I am entitled to say that I find in the Report confirmation, not only in words but in facts brought forward, that, upon the whole, the short service system holds the field, and that we can put our battalions in the field in a better state of preparation for war than France and Germany. My noble Friend has also raised a question of pay, and has urged that the proposal with regard to increase of pay which was made by the Committee should be adopted. Well, so far as I am concerned, I am bound to say that the best consideration I have given to the subject leads me to the conclusion that there is no reason for advising the House to sanction an increase. We have got a splendid accession of recruits—-as many as we want in all branches of the Service, and this does not seem
  1524
  to be a right and just time, in the interest of the taxpayer, to introduce a system under which the pay of the Army will be increased. We should take every pains to secure the comfort of the soldier, and many steps have been taken of late to add to his comfort. If in any respect there is a deficiency in the matter I should be the first to urge that it should be supplied. The hon. Member for West Belfast says, broadly, that the Army is underfed. I do not think there is any evidence whatever to support that pro position. Our recruits, after joining, improve every day, and in six months become fit for every duty. The question of feeding our Army exercised my mind very considerably, and I appointed a Committee over which the present Adjutant General, Sir Redvers Buller, presided. That Committee examined most carefully into the feeding of the Army and took evidence, and the result of their inquiry was that the present scale was quite adequate to meet the necessities of the case. Some suggestions were made on minor points of detail—in reference to the bread rations, for instance —which have since been adopted, but on the whole they were satisfied that the feeding was sufficient. With regard to the question of clothing, I do not find in the Estimates or the Memorandum of the Secretary of State any reference to it. So far as I was concerned, I was perfectly prepared to accept the Report of the Committee which inquired into this matter. The Committee made certain proposals, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will tell us what he has done in this respect. I have touched now upon the points which I consider most important, and I must say, in conclusion, that while I am of opinion that when the proper time comes there are changes which ought to be made in the higher administration of the Army, as for the Army itself the time has come when it had better be left alone. We have had changes year after year, changes arising out of the fluctuations of public opinion—at one time adding to the expenditure of the year, at another time cutting it down. My opinion is that the Army is now in that state when it had better be left to work out the problems that lie before it without those constant changes that we

  1525
  have had in the past. I hope we shall soon arrive at a conclusion as to what the country requires as an Army to defend it, and that we shall no longer find one party striving to undo what the other party has done. So far as I am concerned, I shall support any Government that may be in power in their endeavours to make the Army efficient for purposes of national defence.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In the short time that remains before the Secretary of State replies on this Debate I should like to be allowed to criticise briefly the optimistic speech which we have just heard from the late Secretary for War. The debate has drawn forth several interesting speeches, especially those of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford City and the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member for West Belfast spoke from the same point of view from which I shall attempt to speak—namely, that of the civilian and the taxpayer, who want to know whether they get value for the money they spend on the Army. Those of us who have given some time to the study of this question, and who are under the impression that the taxpayer does not get value for the money he spends, can hardly be satisfied with the speech we have just now listened to from the late Secretary for War. He told us pretty much what the hon. Member for West Belfast as a civilian told us—namely, that we have no Army in the modern sense of the word, and yet a sum variously computed at £ 17,000,000 and £20,000,000 spent on the Home Army, and a further sum of £16,000.000 on the Indian Army. The total of £36,000,000 or £37,000,000 is larger than the expenditure of any other nation on its Land Forces. And the question is what return we get for it, whether we get a proper return? The situation may be compressed into a brief phrase. We are a great Military Power when we consider the amount of charge we bear for military purposes, and we are a small Military Power, indeed, when we consider the result in efficiency. What is the answer? That "comparison is impossible." That it is useless to point out that we spend more on defence
  1526
  than does France or Germany, Powers which can take the field with 2,500,000 trained men apiece, properly supplied with cavalry and guns; useless to show that Russia spends only £29,000,00 sterling upon her Army, only £34,000,000 (as compared with £56,000,000 in the British Empire) on defence, and that she keeps up a peace-footing of between 800,000 and 900,000 men, and of 160,000 horses. "Comparison is impossible," we are told, because we have no conscription. Yet of the heterogeneous forces shown on page 8 of our Army Estimates, the numerous Volunteer which figure so largely in the total draw no pay, and the Militia but little pay; while in the countries which possess conscription, each has a whole Army of reengaged non-commissioned officers, who have to be paid sufficiently to make the Army compete with Civil employment, and in whose case conscription does not come into the account. Moreover, the conscription argument applies to the Navy, for Foreign Navies have, and we have not, conscription, yet our Navy is a cheap service which compares favourably with the French Navy. In fact, the conscript argument only affects our regulars; those regulars of whom we can find at home but a single corps properly supplied with cavalry and guns and train, not even the two corps so often promised us, and still less the three corps of the late Secretary of State for War, or the seven of one of his Predecessors. Although we spend upon our Army the enormous sums which my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast had pointed out, we are unable on account of cost to carry out those manœures upon a large scale which are essential to the efficiency of our Army, which are carried out by France with armies of 120,000 men, by Russia with armies of 180,000 and 150,000 in the same year, although Russia spends so much less than we do. The force which we get for our expenditure is to a large extent a sham. Page 8 of the Estimates shows regulars who are a mere depot for our Indian Army, generally composed of undrilled boys, weak in guns and horses and trained Generals. With these it lumps such curious forces as the Channel Islands Militia, although the Channel Islands are not in a condition of defence, and

  1527
  would not be defended against a serious attack, and such forces as the Yeomanry (who are not drilled in time of peace to perform any of the duties which they would have to perform in time of war). We certainly cannot compare our Forces with the Forces of a great Military Power, although we can their cost, and although we shall shortly be in possession of a common frontier with a great Military Power in the neighbourhood of Afghanistan. Can we compare our Forces with those of a small Military Power? The late Secretary of State for War professes to have at home three Army Corps, which he makes up by using Militia, by taking 73 battalions of Regulars, although he only has from 70 to 72, and by counting in to his active Army every gun of his Artillery in the country except two batteries at Athlone. We possess nominally 52 batteries, of which 5 are depot, leaving 47 real batteries, of which 9 are horse batteries. Nine horse batteries and 38 ordinary field batteries to be compared with 8 horse batteries and 54 ordinary field batteries of Roumania. Short as they are of guns and cavalry, the late Secretary of State for War could only make his three Army Corps by using the Militia and the Irish garrisons, and counting 16 ammunition columns which do not exist in fact. We have at home batteries only enough for two Army Corps on a Continental footing, not three, and the mobilisation scheme of the late Secretary of State for War is in fact as unsubstantial, as completely a paper scheme, as that which bears the name of Mr. Gathorne Hardy. If we compare our Army with the smallest in Europe we find a similarity of force but a great difference of expenditure. Roumania turns out four Army Corps and an independent Cavalry Division, 154,000 men in all, for £1,500,000 sterling a year. I have already named her Artillery, which considerably exceeds our own. Switzerland also turns out four Army Corps of about 150,000 men, with a provision for filling up gaps during service in the field, and she has 48 field and two mountain batteries, which all shoot better than does our crack Royal Horse Artillery, and she has the best rifle in the world—all this for under £2,000,000 sterling. For our expenditure of £16,000,000 sterling at home, we can
  1528
  show only almost as many guns as Switzerland or Roumania, and we cannot horse our Cavalry. We spend on defence £38,000,000 in the United Kingdom, £17,000,000 in India (besides expenditure on those strategic railways which we do not bring into account), and £1,500,000 in the Colonies, or over £56,000,000 on defence, and there is no business man who sits within these walls who, if he were given a free hand, could not do it infinitely better for less money. What is the reply? No one has blamed, or wishes to blame, the present Secretary of State. There is room, no doubt, for a far closer and a far more authoritative joint consideration of the problem of naval and military defence than any which was given by the late Government or has been given by the present, but to say this is not to blame the present Secretary of State for War, who, on the whole, has done perhaps more, and is certainly more popular with the Army, than any of his Predecessors. He will hardly contend that the new scheme of mobilisation constitutes a reply. The one essential about mobilisation is rapidity, and this scheme takes people from one end of the-country to another, in the same way as proved fatal to France in 1870, and cannot be pretended to possess that virtue. The only reply that has been made is that the Motion is vague. It is necessary to begin with a vague Motion, as we have to prove to the country that it gets nothing for the enormous cost it bears. We have to upset the present system before we can put a better in its place. But the Secretary of State for War is well aware that we have none of us shrunk from committing ourselves to plans. The gallant General who has seconded the Motion has published his. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) has published his. I have published mine; and different as is the basis from which we have started—-some soldiers and some civilians—-the points of difference are small. We are able to agree among ourselves, and to agree with the Mover of the Resolution of to-day, and, civilian though I am, and approaching the question chiefly from the taxpayers point of view, I find myself in substantial agreement with three such great military

  1529
  names as Lord Roberts, Lord Wolseley, and the gallant Member for Oxford City (Sir G. Chesney), with their immense experience. Lord Wolseley has been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for War. Well, Lord Wolseley has used almost the words of the Motion of to-day, when he said that the country paid for an inferior article a price which would suffice to give it an effective military machine. The first essential is, that a Prime Minister and a Cabinet should take into their own close view, and out of the hands of the Departmental Minister, the consideration of this hugest branch of the National Expenditure, and of what we get for it. Then, turning first to India, where there is the greatest risk of active service against a European foe, we might save money and increase efficiency by unifying the command. It is a mere red herring to draw across the trail to pretend that it is any part of my scheme to insist upon a separate Army. This is a mere contest about words. Those who, in words, most strongly object to the separate Indian Army, like the Generals and the hon. Member for West Belfast, all agree that there must be two terms of enlistment, one for home, and one for foreign service; one with short service and large reserves, and the other with long service, as reserves are almost useless for the conditions of our Indian Army. We cannot wait for war to set these matters right. If the Naval School are justified in thinking invasion to be impossible, if we are to trust wholly to our Navy, then there is room for saving money at home and for modification of our home military system, and our attention should be turned to India and abroad. To my mind, there is some danger in this course of panic, as it might be of vital importance to us to be able to send away the Fleet. But, above all, we should remember that time will not be given to us; that danger in war in these days comes most early; that no Power possesses a perfect system; that our own conditions are peculiar, and that, whatever we do, we must not imitate. It is time that a capable Minister, like the present Secretary of State for War, should insist with the Cabinet of which he is a member on being allowed to deal with this question. He has considerable advantages in
  1530
  dealing with the question. He is extraordinarily popular—extraordinarily, not in the sense that he does not deserve his popularity, but because it is universal. He is popular with the Army of all ranks, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards; he is popular with his colleagues, and with this House; and if ever there was a man who had a chance of distinguishing himself by inaugurating that which is one of the first necessities of the country—namely, a revolutionary scheme of Army reform, it is the right hop. Gentleman.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.): I can hardly offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat on the oration he has delivered upon the Army. The right hon. Baronet ranged over a very wide field. He hardly consented to argue. He dealt very freely in assertion. In his general statements as to the Army he was very profuse and diffuse, and in his admiration for the absence from the Debate of Party animus he really quite forgot to follow in his own discourse the example he so much admired. He indulged in a eulogy—and, I thought, rather an inflated one—of the present Secretary for War; but not a word of eulogy, not even a word of commendation, had he for the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, nor for any other Secretary of War who has belonged to the Tory Party. I quite agree that one should discuss Army questions without displaying Party spirit, but the principle must apply to both Parties if it is to be any good. The right hon. Baronet made some suggestions as to what should be done in the way of Army reform. I do not know whether it is necessary for me in a new Parliament to say that I am not altogether without title to offer some remarks on this question, seeing that I left the late Government on it. I sat on the Departmental Committee on general and military arrangements in 1886, and I had an opportunity of ascertaining many of the facts of the case, and of forming strong opinions on Army expenditure. That was, however, at a period following a long Liberal Administration, and though the Liberal Party may be celebrated for many things by which they have im-

  1531
  proved the condition of the people, no one, not even on that side of the House, will claim that they have ever gained fame or renown for their conduct of military or naval affairs. The right hon. Baronet was no doubt right in much that he said about the cost of the Army, and the unfavourable comparisons which can be drawn between that cost and the cost of Foreign Armies. But it would have been well if the right hon. Baronet and those who agree with him had said all this years ago, when the circumstances were no different from those now prevailing. When I brought before Parliament, at great cost and sacrifice to myself, the opinion which I then maintained, that the expenditure on the Army and Navy was too large, and ought to be reduced, what assistance did I got from that side of the House? None whatever — absolutely none. Where was then the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fervent devotee of economy now, and where was the present Secretary for War, who has just received the eulogies of the right hon. Baronet? Not one word did either of them utter. The cause of economy was left in the hands of a single individual in the Conservative Party—an individual who sacrificed for the cause more than the whole Liberal Party had sacrificed in the course of a long series of years. I merely refer to this question because of the extraordinary attitude which has been adopted by the right hon. Baronet. I pass now to the questions more closely connected with the subject before the House. I have never denied that there are great faults still in our military system, and great defects in our Army. I am very much in accord with the late Secretary for War in holding that the organisation of the Army does call for reform, simplification, and for much larger and more powerful professional management than it now gets. But we must recollect what is the state of things now obtaining in the Army. We have a Commander-in-Chief with unique experience and recognised capacity for the general control, discipline, and command of such an Army as ours, and we might, if we made a sudden change now, when the Army has full confidence in its head, and introduced what I admit I myself have in a written document suggested, it is extremely
  1532
  likely that we should give a wrench to military feeling, which ought, if possible, to be avoided. I have no doubt that some day or other some military or Parliamentary man will be able to accomplish a large reform; but I am not clear that at the present time it would be desirable to attempt it. There is a great defect in our Army in connection with the Military Reserves. I believe that, as far as numbers go, they are satisfactory, as, I believe, they amount to 80,000 men, but it would be delusive to come to a conclusion as to the value of the Reserves by numbers alone. The fact is that the Reserves are totally untrained, and every military officer whose opinion you value will tell you that they would have to be braced up if called upon to serve in the field, simply because they have received no training since they left the Army. Of course that is a very difficult problem, which it would not be right for Parliament to carp with any Administration for not having solved. But, at the same time, until the Reserves are trained they ought not to be counted upon as a military resource. It is also true that the Army is not yet provided with a thoroughly efficient field gun. The Horse Artillery gun has been found somewhat unwieldy in operating rapidly across rough country, and the Military Authorities are face to face with the very difficult question of deciding upon and manufacturing a more efficient and easily managed field gun. That is not so serious a fault, but it is undoubtedly a fault. The right hon. Baronet touched upon another defect when he said there was a deficiency of horses for the Cavalry. I believe it is a fact that the men in the Cavalry are double the number of the horses. I always think that this is very foolish economy. Military opinion is unanimous that Cavalry, at all events, should always be kept up to its full strength, and even if you cannot afford to mount all your men, I think it is better to have a smaller force properly mounted, fully equipped, and ready for active service. The right hon. Baronet ridiculed our scheme of mobilisation. That is a very old subject with him. It is very easy to make jokes about the different schemes for the mobilisation of the Army. It was during a Liberal Administration that the great dream of Military Power

  1533
  was thought to be obtained when seven Army Corps were confidently counted upon by Ministers. Now it is said there are three Army Corps. I agree with the right hon. Baronet in a way. I myself am not quite sure of the accuracy of that calculation, and I doubt whether three Army Corps could be put into the field in full strength. But our Army Corps never profess to exceed in number 20,000 men.
  MB. E. STANHOPE: Oh, yes; 35,000.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In that case my incredulity is rather strengthened. But I have often thought that these Army Corps were rather expressions than realities, and I never quite saw the object of using these particular terms. We understand what a Continental Army Corps means, but no Army Corps in this country could, even if we spent a good deal more, rival in size, in equipment, and in absolute perfection the great Army Corps of the Continent. I think, therefore, it is a great mistake to use that term. What I understand is, that at the present moment it would be easy for us to send to any of our possessions—say Africa or India—within a reasonable time a well-appointed expedition of about 50,000 or 60,000 men. The right hon. Baronet has talked about the cost of the British Army, but the proof that our expenditure is high is to be found in the fact that our expenditure on the Navy is not nearly so large relatively to its strength. When I protested against the military expenditure of this country the Army Estimates were £18,233,000. Since 1886 they have risen to over £20,000,000. A good deal of this, however, I think is by no means normal expenditure. There has been an increase in the cost of keeping the men, and a large sum has been expended on the manufacture of new rifles and upon barrack accommodation. On the whole, I think that the increase in the Army Estimates, though an apparent, has not been of normal increase, and that the normal cost of the Army is much about the same as it was in 1886. So that perhaps, with great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may say
  1534
  that efforts in the cause of economy, even if they go a great length, may not always be altogether wasted; they may be bread thrown upon the waters which after many days may return to us. I pass now to the comparison which the right hon. Baronet has instituted between the European Powers and England. That is a comparison I once made myself, and I thought it a very fine one. I came to the conclusion, however, after I had had more experience, that it would not bear all the examination which I thought it ought to bear. The right hon. Baronet makes much the same mistake as I made six years ago. He put together the expenditure of England and India on naval and military affairs, and says they amount to the enormous sum of £56,000,000. That figure will not bear the slightest examination. It is quite true that we have to spend something like that sum on the Army and Navy in England and the Army in India, but it is wholly illusory to compare lump sums of that kind. For the expenditure on our Navy, which is this year, I think, about £15,000,000, we do undoubtedly obtain the most powerful Fleet in the world, and the relative power of our Fleet when compared with the power of European Fleets does not fall far short of the relative power of the Armies of European Powers compared with our Armies. In that respect, therefore, our expenditure does not compare very badly with that of Foreign Powers. The Army of England, I think, numbers one way and another about 154,000, and when you add the Militia you get a total of something like 250,000 men. I will not talk about the Yeomanry, which the right hon. Gentleman ridiculed. I think I have heard a great many officers, whose experience is vastly greater than that of the right hon. Gentleman, say that under certain circumstances that force might be capable of performing important military duties.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What I said was, that they were trained to perform duties other than those they would have to perform.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As to the increase which has taken place in the expenditure on Foreign Armies, I find from an article which appeared in the Fortnightly Review that

  1535
  in 1891 the cost of the Russian Army was £39,000,000, while the average expenditure for three years before that was £32,000,000.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwas understood to dissent.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I would remind the right hon. Baronet that mere assertion is not sufficient for the purpose of Parliamentary Debate. You must either have a recognised authority on which you make your assertions—
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord will be able to work it out for himself if he will take the value of the rouble, or ask any friend in the City what a rouble is worth.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I will not let the right hon. Baronet drag me into the mysteries of the currency. The article I am referring to is well worthy of being quoted in the House of Commons. From 1888 to 1891 the Russian expenditure increased by £7,000,000. The French expenditure remained stationary at £28,000,000, and the German expenditure remained stationary also. Ours increased from £16,000,000 to £18,000,000, but the increase included a considerable expenditure on barracks and ports. I must really do justice—the necessity for doing so has only of late years dawned upon me—to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who during six years was Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman was attacked first from the Opposition side of the House, and then from the side of the House which was occupied by the supporters of the Government of which he was a Member. The right hon. Gentleman at first resisted too strongly the arguments that were used against him, but after I had sat on the Departmental Committee and increased my experience of military matters, and, moreover, after I had watched, without speaking in this House, the general military administration of my right hon. Friend, I was forced to come to the conclusion that, compared with all previous military administrations, it had been economical, and at the same
  1536
  time the maximum of efficiency had been obtained. It bears out my theory, for which I do not claim originality, that without economy you may never have efficiency. The moment you indulge in un-economical expenditure you indulge in wasteful and useless expenditure. That is an extraordinary fact, to which you will never find any exception. The Commission presided over by the present Duke of Devonshire worked very hard, and sat very long, and, though it is quite clear that the War Office did not act entirely upon the Report of that Commission, it is evident, both from the remarks of my right hon. Friend and from the general conduct of the War Office, that their labours were not wasted. An indirect effect has been produced by the Report, which has, I think, been invaluable. I find that in military affairs it is no good to impatiently expect rapid progress. It is not possible, consistently with our Parliamentary ideas, to make such progress. There are more potent arguments than may appear very clear to the Parliamentary and the public eye. I gathered from the right hon. Baronet that the highest model which he thinks the English Administration can follow is the management of the Army in India. I can quite understand, however, that military arrangements which might be deemed admirably suited for India are totally unsuited for this country. In India you have to keep the Army practically on a war footing; in England you can practically keep it on a peace footing. The whole circumstances of military drill and military life in India are totally different from those which prevail in this country, and I think it is a most dangerous proposition to say you ought to copy, slavishly the system of military management which is in operation in India. I did not quite understand the illustration which the right hon. Baronet gave. I understood one of his illustrations to be that the Army in India ought to be unified under one command. I do not see how that bears on English Army reform, or why, if there is a defect in the Army in India in that respect, it should be applied to England.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg pardon for interrupting the noble Lord. I did not hold up India as a model to us on

  1537
  that point. I mentioned unification as a reform that was desired by everybody in India and thwarted by everybody at home.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Well, I will not go into that because it is a digression from the main subject. I think, however, the House will agree with me that it is foolish to set up the Army in India as a model which we should follow, and to say that it is perfect. We have much that is good in our English military and naval administration, and I will say—if I may say it without provoking the displeasure of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that I think that there has been a very marked improvement during the administration of my right hon. and noble Friends who were at the heads of the Naval and Military Departments during the last Administration. No doubt there are still improvements to be introduced, and I shall watch with interest the career at the War Office of the present Secretary of State, because he has been so free in his criticisms and so prolific of severe, though not ill-natured, remarks while he has been in opposition that Parliament is undoubtedly entitled to expect from him very remarkable performances during his tenure of Office. I will not dwell longer on the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke), except to say that it presented a curious spectacle, such as we have not seen in this House for a very long time—that is to say, a combination of the Jingo and the Radical. There used to be a combination in old days which excited the greatest possible amount of comment—namely, that of Conservative Home Rulers, but the combination presented by the right hon. Baronet is even more puzzling than that. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman goes in his desire to make Great Britain almost a first-class Military Power. Taking into account the state of Europe, which I do not believe to be a warlike or dangerous state, while the expenditure on the Army is high, there has been a considerable, a marked, and an easily-traced improvement in the state of our military resources. If the Government are at all represented by the right hon. Baronet in the views he has expressed, and early reforms are to be
  1538
  effected, you must have quiet Parliamentary times. Parliament cannot give its attention to the great Army question when it is occupied with far more exciting conflicts, and far larger questions. It is perfectly useless to advocate the reforms which the right hon. Baronet advocates on a quiet night like this if the great bulk of the Session is to be absorbed by far larger questions affecting the Constitution of the country. If during the last six years, when the country was quiet and tranquil, we had had the benefit of the assistance and advice of the Party opposite, it is possible that the improvement which I claim as having taken place in the Army and Navy might be more marked than it is. But in the consideration of these dull and quiet subjects the Party opposite take little interest. Other subjects claim their attention, and whatever improvement has been effected in the Military and Naval Services has undoubtedly been the work of that energetic, persevering, but at the same time unostentatious, administration which distinguished, certainly, the two great spending Departments during the late Government. I can quite understand the Secretary of State treating my observations as a matter of ridicule. I do not in the least mind it. I only want to say that the attitude I have taken in the past fully justifies me in assuming my present position on this subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before the right hon. Gentleman speaks, might I intervene with an appeal to the Leader of the House to recollect the pledge he gave—[Cries of "Order!"]—at Question time to-day, that our proceedings were not to be materially prolonged after 12 o'clock; and that he will permit us to hear the necessarily-important reply of the Secretary for War at a time when it will be possible both that he should be reported and that we should be able to discuss his statement.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that this Debate has attained a state of full ripeness for the speech of my right hon. Friend, not in exposition of his policy or his proposals, but his answer to the speech of the noble Lord who has made this Motion. I must confess nothing whatever is more inoppor-

  1539
  tune than to interrupt this Debate at the present moment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose— [Cries of" Order!"]
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It certainly does not appear altogether unreasonable that, after a Debate which has lasted from 6 o'clock, a Member of the Government, and the principal Member of the Government concerned, should have some opportunity of taking part
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In spite of your pledges!
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the House will not be surprised that I rise to address it under the influence of some natural embarrassment after the very strong words which my right hon. Friend below the Gangway (Sir C. Dilke) made use of, which have been alluded to by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and also after the expressions of a similar nature which various Members have used towards me during the Debate. All I can say is that those expressions have placed upon me a burden of despair, because I am at a loss to understand what I have done to deserve them, and also what I can ever do to justify them. The noble Lord who has just sat down does not require anyone to pronounce an eulogy upon him, because he is quite ready to perform it for himself. The principal part of his speech, so far as I was able to follow it, was to recall to our minds the wonderful efforts he had made during the last Parliament in the interests of military economy.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: General economy.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord implied by an observation across the House that I was rather ridiculing that reference. I was not doing so, because we honoured him for the stand he made on that occasion in defence of opinions he honestly held. But I was a little surprised to find that the noble Lord should go so much out of his way in order to bury the hatchet in that old quarrel and make up matters with his friends around him. I must say that, having had some opportunity of watching the progress of military matters in the House and out of it, I was not aware of
  1540
  any reducing effect on the Army Estimates which the noble Lord was able to produce.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never claimed that I had.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But I am aware of this, that the noble Lord was instrumental in procuring a Select Committee upstairs, which sat upon the Army Estimates and discussed them for one or two years, with the result that in one direction and another large additional charges have been put on the Estimates.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no.
  MR.BRODRICK: There was a considerable reduction.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There may have been a reduction here and there, but the general result was, I will not say any extravagance, but increased expenditure. And I venture to say that that will be the probable result on every occasion when these questions are referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I certainly am right in saying that that Committee recommended a reduction of expenditure.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not say the Committee recommended increased expenditure, but I was speaking of the general outcome of the inquiry. The speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was of a most belligerent character. He complained of the poor Army we have in this country, and he compared it with that of other nations on the Continent. He said we had no Army at all. The right hon. Baronet must remember that, after all, it effects, at all events, one of the most useful purposes for this country. It is the means of furnishing us with an Army in India which is the best and most efficient we have ever had in that possession. It is quite true that the Army is paid for by India; but will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to reckon up and assess the cost which is laid upon this country through the interruption which the calls of India cause in our ordinary military schemes at home? The right

  1541
  hon. Gentleman says that a better return for the purposes of defence could be got for the money in these Estimates by any business man who might be selected for the purpose. Yes, Sir; if the business man had a tabula rasa on which to erect a new system, a more complete and symmetrical system than ours no doubt it would be. But the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, will credit us with all that we suffer in consequence of old traditions, old associations, old prejudices, old vested interests in connection with the Army. These are the causes of a great deal of that extra expense of which so many complaints are made. My right hon. Friend alluded to one great reform which might be effected in India. I am glad to tell him—and I make haste to tell him at once, lest it may be thought it is owing to his speech that it is going to be done—that a Bill is about to be introduced in the other House by the Secretary of State for India for the purpose of doing away with those Presidency commands in India which, I believe, are most prejudicial to the efficiency of the Service in that country. Coming back now to the Motion before the House, I cannot but allude to its extraordinary nature, and as the consequence of that peculiar nature, to the very mixed character which the Debate has assumed. The Motion begins by announcing that it calls attention to the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, and moves that—
  "In the opinion of this House, the present system of military administration fails to secure either due economy in time of peace or efficiency for national defence."
  The first observation which must occur to anyone on reading that Motion is, what in the world has the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee to do with the present system of military administration? It is as if the noble Lord were to say, "To call attention to Tenterden steeple and to move that the Goodwin Sands are a danger to navigation." The noble Lord tried to make out that certain deficiencies were due to the War Office—not to any system in the War Office, but to the War Office itself. He created out of his imagination a wicked entity called the War Office. He said it was owing to this that the battalions at home are weak, that the
  1542
  Reserves are so few, and the cost so great; and he then proceeded to call authorities to prove his case. But who were the authorities that he called? the very officers who constitute this War Office which he attacks; and the very Committee on which he sat and to which he refers was largely composed of gallant officers who are or who have been connected with the administration of the War Office. I dare say that there is some justification for the faults which he finds, in the War Office at least, and that, perhaps, there are some necessary defects in our Army; but I deny that they are due to any particular system of administration in the War Office. They are, I think, the result, perhaps, of the natural errors which we are liable to make when we are feeling our way to the best organisation for an Army such as ours. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Motion dealt with the subject of military administration with an authority and experience which few men in or outside the House could command. I can only say to him that I shall be only too glad to have his help in mending any of the weaknesses or defects in the military administration of the country. I do not think it is necessary to state what my own personal opinions are, because they are on record. As a member of Lord Hartington's Commission, I dissented from my colleagues in regard to one point, and I expressed in my dissentient Report my own opinions in very plain terms. I retain the opinions I then expressed, and, being in office, I shall be glad, if the opportunity arises, to carry them into effect. But the Hartington Commission did not speak of the immediate adoption of its proposals; it contemplated an interval, because it did not wish in any way to disturb existing arrangements so long as we have the advantage of the services of the present Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, I will observe and watch the working of the present system of the War Office with a perfectly open mind, and a mind favourable in the main to the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and certainly to the conclusions of the Hartington Commission. But the present division of responsibility, having been made so recently by my predecessor, and apparently working

  1543
  smoothly and well—I do not say it is the best arrangement that could be made, but at all events it works for the present smoothly and well—I do not think I should be justified, whatever my opinions may be, in proposing any change until an opportunity arises for dealing on a larger scale with the whole question. The most important point of all brought before the Hartington Commission was the then existing want of harmony between the Admiralty and the War Office. I am glad to corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said—that that want of harmony has almost entirely disappeared; that the great questions affecting the defence of these shores and the possessions of the Crown in different parts of the world have been, and are being, settled by the joint counsel of the best officers of both Departments, and that there is really none of that friction which used to be attributed to the two Departments, whether it ever existed to the alleged extent or not. The noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) dealt largely with the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee. That Report has been discussed again and again in this House, although the noble Lord may not have been present, and there has not been a single passage quoted to-night which I have not heard quoted before. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that the late Government, if it had remained in power, would have adopted a number of recommendations made by the Committee, my answer is that the Report was made in January of last year the late Government considered nearly all the recommendations; they formed, I will not say a conclusive judgment upon them, but at all events a first opinion, which they handed over to me, and I have, so far as I have gone, fully confirmed and adopted all the conclusions they arrived at. I hope the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh will not object to my criticising himself and his colleagues or Lord Wantage's Committee; but I must say that the Committee did not cover all the ground that they ought to have covered, because they omitted from their consideration the important element of expense. They neglected to inquire what the cost of their recommendations would be, and the result is that from a Paper laid on the
  1544
  Table of the House last summer it appears that the total charge of those recommendations, if they had all been adopted, would have been £2,000,000 sterling. That is a reason which should make us pause in accepting wholesale the recommendations of the Committee. The noble Lord quoted some strong observations made by Lord Wolseley and other authorities on the subject of Army Corps. Lord Wolseley is often apt to use strong expressions, but I can quote other expressions of Lord Wolseley which form a complete answer to those quoted by the noble Lord. Lord Wolseley has said with regard to the Infantry—
  "I do not know a single battalion ontside the Guards fit to go into the field and fight against any European nation. But that is not necessary, provided that a thoroughly efficient reserve of 80,000 men is maintained. It is not the object to have all the battalions at home ready to go on active service. That would mean an Army without a reserve. I should call such an Army a theoretical Army, such as we had before the Crimean War."
  Again, Sir Evelyn Wood said that the present system was the most satisfactory solution of a difficult problem, and infinitely superior to any system of depot. The noble Lord said one would have to put the whole of the Reserve into the first line of defence. What is the Reserve for but for that purpose? That is what continental nations do, and that is what we have always intended to do. The noble Lord quoted the opinion of Sir Redvers Buller, that there is not enough Reserve to feed two Army Corps. I think it is well to be frank on this subject, and to adhere to the opinions I have often expressed. Before I came into Office I frequently said at the other side of the Table, that I was no believer in Army Corps. What do we want two Army Corps in this country for? Surely not for foreign service. Who is going to send two Army Corps to the Continent? Is there any man in the House who would think of sending an Army Corps on the Continent to engage in a Continental war with one of the great European nations? Such a possibility I dismiss from my mind altogether. What we want our Army for is to garrison India and the Colonies, to defend the shores of this country, and to supply those small special expeditious

  1545
  which are from time to time sent out to the small wars, in which, unfortunately, we are often engaged. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, in his belligerent speech, complained that there are no trained Generals in this country, and no great military manœures at which they could be trained, as there are on the Continent. He said, "Why have we not great manœures? "Has my right hon. Friend forgotten that the enclosed nature of this country, cut up into small fields with hedges and ditches, precluded manœures on a large scale? ["Oh!"] I say you cannot pass great bodies of troops over them without doing considerable damage to the owners and occupiers of property, which the country would not stand for one moment. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh, oh!" but I am well acquainted with the matter, because I was in the War Office when we had great manœures on Dartmoor, Cannock Chase, and Salisbury Plain, which are the only places in this country where manœures to any considerable extent can be held. When hon. Members complain that we have no great manœures, the reply is that this country does not require that sort of experience which is necessary in the case of European countries possessing a co-terminous frontier, and which must be always in a state of readiness, with Army Corps fully equipped to meet any sudden emergency, with trained Generals, and with all the advantages for manœures which we in this country do not possess. But these are not required for our purposes. I would warn the House against being the slave of the Army Corps system, although it is useful as a standard up to which we should work. As to the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee, it is, I think, bettor to reserve my statement as to what I propose to do as regards pay and clothing until we get into Committee. We are asked to give a free ration and to put a stop to the messing stoppage. But does the House know what this would cost the country? It would entail an extra expense on this country of £667,200, and in India of over £313,000, together nearby £1,000,000. I do not deny that it would be a good thing to do this, if it were feasible; but it is not right to say that recruits are deceived as to the con-
  1546
  ditions of service, and are under the impression that there are no stoppages of pay. Since January 1 of last year every recruit is asked, "What led you to make up your mind to enter the Army? "In more than one-half the cases the answer was "The posters," and on those Army posters it is distinctly stated that the rations are bread and meat, and that a deduction is made for groceries and other articles of that kind. It cannot, therefore, be said for one moment that any deception takes place now, though it may have been in the old days. Hon. and gallant Members, who know the British soldier, will agree with me in saying that he is prone, when asked what induced him to enlist, to put such a construction on the terms as to lead to the impression that he believes that he has been misled. I do not think I need delay the House any longer, especially as the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to close the Debate. I have said enough to show why we cannot be precipitate in adopting the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee; but I assure the House that I am most ready to adopt any suggestion, either as to the administration and organisation of the War Office itself, as to the treatment of the soldiers, or as to any other measure which is likely to improve the efficiency of the Army. That is the only object I and those who work with me have in view. We have no preconceived opinions or prejudices, or, if we have, we will not allow them to stand in the way. I thank the many hon. Members for making suggestions, which, though they may not be at once accepted, may be found more practicable in the future.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Major Rasch.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think the Debate, which has been of great interest and conducted with much ability, is a Debate which might now fairly be brought to a close. There has been a full expression of opinion, and I certainly must take the sense of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has not been in the House, and I do not know that it is necessary he should have been, but I may inform him that only two military

  1547
  men have spoken. [A Ministerial cry: "Quite enough."] Some hon. Member says "Quite enough," but I suppose military men may be supposed to have some title to speak on a matter affecting the Army. Not only have only two military men spoken, but the total number of speakers has not exceeded five or six in the course of the whole evening. The speeches have been prolonged, but they have certainly not been unimportant, and the matter contained in those speeches could not well have been compressed into a shorter space. I think we have some right to complain of the action of the Government already. Pledges of a clear kind were given at question time, and those pledges have been broken. Under these circumstances, I do not think the Government should endeavour to exclude from taking part in this Debate on a very important question affecting the Army— the greatest, as far as I know, of the last five years—hon. Gentlemen who have a perfect title to speak.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,): I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely appreciated what the point was that the Leader of the House suggested—namely, that we should conclude only the Debate on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh. But that does not conclude the whole Debates upon the military question. That does not exclude military gentlemen, Members of this House whom we always hear with the greatest respect, from calling attention to questions relating to the Army. All that we ask is that the Amendment should be disposed of, leaving the rest of the discussion on Army Estimates open to the House. I confess I do not think the House will regard that as an unreasonable proposal.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 225.—(Division List, No. 26.)
  Original Question proposed.
  Dr. FARQUHARSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it reasonable, after the Debate that has taken place, that the Question may be
  1548
  now put, but only on the first Question— the Motion of the noble Lord—not upon the whole Question, that I now leave the Chair.
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow at Two of the clock.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 165.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures.

  CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 245.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 134.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the expenses of children sent to Day Industrial Schools in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of Day Industrial Schools in Scotland, and to amend the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 and 1883 (Queen's Recommendation signified), this day, at Two of the o'clock.—(Sir John Hibbert.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after One o'clock.

Preamble
Earl of Ravensworth—Took the Oath.
ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [H.L.]—(No. 19.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEsaid, as this Bill had been passed four times in their Lordships' House without Division (though not without discussion) he would not say more on this occasion, than simply move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a. accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

COINAGE (No. 2) BILL—(No. 28.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Kensington.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a. accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES BILL. (No. 20.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, if he were moving the Second Reading of this Bill in an assembly of lawyers, it would not be necessary to say anything by way of apology or introduction; but as their Lordships were, perhaps, not familiar with the mysteries of English law, and the nice distinctions which had grown up between real and personal property, he would shortly explain the object of the measure and the grounds on which he recommended it to the House.
  1390
  There was one distinction between real and personal property, singular in its application and in its origin, which their Lordships might not be aware of. A man of full age and competent understanding, not under duress or undue influence, but acting of his own free will, might make a gift of personal estate which he could not afterwards revoke or defeat; that was not quite the case with regard to real estate. If a man competent to deal with his property made a gift or settlement by way of gift of real estate he could not indeed revoke it afterwards— that the law did not allow—he could not recall the gift and take back the property, but he might do what was practically the same thing—he might defeat and destroy the gift to any extent he pleased, if he was not ashamed to do so. In parting with the property he might have acted from the highest, the best, and the purest motives; he might have been impelled by the force and pressure of moral obligations which he could not resist; it might have been a provision for a child, a wife, or a parent, but the law paid no regard to such considerations; the law held that those considerations were not valuable; the conveyance was voluntary, and the persons taking under it were mere volunteers; and the author of a voluntary conveyance who had already parted once with his property for nothing might part with it again if he took care to get something for it, and then he might put the price in his own pocket, and disappoint and laugh at the person to whom he had given the property, and from whom he had taken it away, without any amends or recompense. And what was more extraordinary still, he might deal, by way of sale or mortgage, with a person who knew all the circumstances, and who knew that the property was no longer his, and that person might safely take a conveyance of the property, and keep it. The law would hold that he had done nothing wrong in colluding with the author of the voluntary conveyance to defeat his solemn instrument. That was, perhaps, a startling proposition—that one man might honestly sell what was not his, and keep the price, and another, knowing all the circumstances, might honestly help him to rob the owner—a proposition,

  1391
  he should think, puzzling to a lay mind, and to a legal mind not wholly satisfactory; but it was undoubtedly the law. But how did it come to be the law? It was not drawn from any maxim of the Common Law, nor was it derived from any doctrine of equity (anything more inequitable could not be imagined), nor was it to be found in any Act that was, or ever had been, in the Statute Book; it was Judge-made law, pure and simple. There was, too, this singular feature about it: that whereas as regarded Judge-made law generally we knew who the Judge was that made the law or laid down the principle on which it was founded, all that was known in this case was that some Judge, whose name could not be ascertained, at some time which could not be fixed, had discovered that that was the proper construction and true interpretation of an Act of Parliament now 300 years old, which said nothing of the kind. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth two famous Statutes were passed, one for the protection of creditors and the other for the protection of purchasers. With the former this Bill had nothing to do; it did not affect the rights of creditors, whether enforcible by any process of law or arising in bankruptcy. The Statute referred to in the Bill was the Statute for the Protection of Purchasers, 27 Eliz. cap. 4. Though the language was involved, the meaning of that Statute was clear enough. It dealt only with conveyances "meant and intended by the parties that so make the same to be fraudulent and covenous." and declared all conveyances of land "made for the intent and of purpose to defraud and deceive" such persons as purchased the same lands "to be utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect." In order to show the sort of Acts struck at by the Statute, the 3rd section provided that if anybody had the hardihood to maintain, justify, or defend such conveyances he should forfeit one year's rent of the land so conveyed and suffer imprisonment for six mouths. That was the Act upon which so very singular a construction had been placed. But that construction was not accepted at once. From time to time when cases arose of an honest conveyance followed by a conveyance for value intended to defeat it, some Judges said the first con-
  1392
  veyance was honest, and the second fraudulent, and there were two lines of authorities. Ultimately, in 1807, the question came before Lord Ellenborough in the Queen's Bench, and after going through the authorities, he came to the conclusion that the preponderance of authority was in favour of declaring the first conveyance fraudulent and the second honest. From that time that had been held to be the law. But for all that, Judges had not thought the result satisfactory altogether, and had said that was not the construction which they would themselves have placed upon the Act of Parliament; but they had also said that the law had become so fixed that the legislature alone could interfere with it. For example, Sir William Grant, one of our greatest lawyers, observed in one case—
  "I have great difficulty to persuade myself that the words of this Statute warrant, or that the purpose of it requires, such a construction, for it is not easy to conceive that a purchaser can be defrauded by a settlement of which he has notice before he makes the purchase."
  It should be mentioned that in America, where this Statute had been accepted either tacitly or by direct legislation, the construction placed upon it in this country had not been adopted. There it was held that a voluntary conveyance was good against a subsequent conveyance for value when the purchaser had notice of the earlier deed. Enough had been said to explain the purport of this Bill; and, as an instance of the hardship now inflicted by the law, reference might be made to a case before the Privy Council two or three years ago. A lady, possessed of considerable real property, had married, having an illegitimate son by her intended husband. A settlement was made on the wife for life, on the husband for life, and then on the children of the intended marriage, and a fair and reasonable settlement was made by the same instrument upon the illegitimate child and his issue. Some years afterwards, however, the lady changed her mind, and, in collusion with a purchaser, she defeated the interest of her son's children. That case was brought before the Privy Council because there had been decisions in this country which seemed to show that in a case of that kind a fair and honest settlement would be upheld; but, unfortu-

  1393
  nately, in the result the honest settlement was declared fraudulent, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. All he asked was that their Lordships should restore the real meaning of the Act of Elizabeth, not declaring fraudulent perfectly honest conveyances. It was to be regretted that Judges and, in some instances, even Acts of Parliament, should have created constructive and artificial frauds. Surely the fraud was on the part of those who colluded to defeat an honest and fair settlement. He apologised for having trespassed so far on their Lordships' time, but it seemed a serious thing to ask the House to alter a rule of law which had prevailed so long; and he had, therefore, thought it right to explain the grounds on which he asked them to do so. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I certainly do not intend to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. I quite concur in the view of my noble and learned Friend that a change in the law is desirable and necessary. My attention, however, has been directed quite recently to the question whether the rights of creditors in a case of bankruptcy would be completely secured, and whether they might not be interfered with by this Bill. I express no opinion upon it. The matter has come to my attention so recently that I have not had time to consider it; but I know that some of the heads of Public Departments and those before whom bankruptcy matters come, desire that some little time should be given by my noble and learned Lord before the Committee stage for the consideration of that question. He will agree with me that in dealing with a law which has so long existed, it is necessary to carefully consider the provisions of the Bill in order to be quite sure that the result obtained will not go beyond what he intends.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I personally concur with the views which had been so clearly set forth to your Lordships by my noble and learned Friend in presenting this Bill for your acceptance, but I am quite of the opinion which my noble and learned Friend on
  1394
  the Woolsack has expressed, that some little time should be allowed to elapse before the next stage of the Bill is proceeded with, as I should like to have the opportunity of taking the opinion of the Judges in Ireland as to whether the Bill should deal with the Irish kindred Statute, the 10 Chas. I.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he would be most happy to postpone the further consideration of the Bill for such time as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thought right.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read second time accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALE OF GOODS BILL.—(No. 8.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
TRADE UNION PROVIDENT FUNDS BILL.—(No. 21.)
Read the third time (according to Order), and passed.
COUNTY MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked if the Return being prepared by the Home Office relative to appointments of County Magistrates in England and Wales would be laid before Parliament; and in what form it would be presented? He said he had put this question on the Paper in consequence of an answer given in another place that the Report would give full particulars of the political opinions of County Magistrates. As it was difficult to see any connection between the business of Petty Sessions and the performance of political duties, he hoped the Lord Chancellor would be able to inform the House that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place County Magistrates on the rack and to extract from them a statement of their political opinions, and how they had voted at the General Election. That would be so improper a course that he hoped the Home Office did not contemplate insisting upon any such questions or particulars.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Returns which the noble Duke refers to were consented to by Her Majesty's Government in the House of

  1395
  Commons upon the motion of two Members, one sitting on the Government side, and the other on the opposite side of that House. They are the continuation of Returns which have already been granted in previous years, and furnish no novel information. They give the addresses, description or profession, qualification, and there is a heading for remarks, which, as far as I have seen, have reference only to the question of residence or non-residence. That is the entire substance of this Return. The other asks for the date of appointment. Those were the only Returns consented to by the Government, and they are in preparation. I do not think this is a convenient time for entering upon the question of the constitution of the County Benches from a political point of view. I quite agree with the noble Duke that a man's politics does not make him more or less fit to exercise the duties of a Magistrate; but, at the same time, I think there are reasons why it would be desirable if it could be avoided that there should not be a great preponderance of one set of opposing political opinions upon the Bench, because it might be supposed that the composition of a Bench of Magistrates of one particular political opinion had some connection with the decisions given. I do not enter into the question of this preponderance, or the reasons which had led to it, inasmuch as the noble Duke has said it is quite immaterial what are the opinions of those who occupy the Bench; but I thought it right to say there is a point of view from which it does become material, and that if you find the political complexion of the Bench is entirely opposed to the general political views prevailing in any particular part of the country or in any particular county, such a state of things has its disadvantages; and I think everybody would agree that is the case whatever may be the preponderating political views of the Magistrates on the Bench or of the people who differ from them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rather regret that the noble and learned Lord does not see his way to give us at an early period the explanation at which he is glancing, and which I think is very much required in the present state of public opinion on the subject, from rumours which have been going about. Unless I am greatly misinformed,
  1396
  he noble and learned Lord has undertaken in addition to the task of regulating the conscience of the Crown, which we know is his Constitutional prerogative, to regulate the consciences of all the Lord Lieutenants in the country, and he has been pressing them to do what hitherto the more conscientious, and I hope all, Lord Lieutenants have carefully abstained from doing, that is to make appointments on political grounds, and in the direction of the politics which are favoured by the noble and learned Lord. I should be very glad if the noble and learned Lord would break the silence he has observed and let us know how he is exercising these powers which are certainly novel, and which may obviously lead to great abuse. I am afraid his motives will be very much misunderstood; and I doubt very much whether Lord Lieutenants generally will be ready to accept and to submit to this novel discipline to which he has endeavoured to subject them. I am told there are precedents upon which the noble and learned Lord can act for appointing Magistrates of counties without asking for the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenants; but of course if he does that we must expect to see in the county lists one set of Magistrates in a separate list from another: one set of Magistrates appointed by the Lord Lieutenants on the ground of their general competence for the duties they have to fulfil, and another set of Magistrates appointed on the ground of their political opinions. I cannot think that is a desirable result. Of course we know why the difference has arisen. A certain separation took place in the Party opposite, and many Magistrates who had been known as Liberals became known as Liberal-Unionists instead; and if we choose to add the Liberal-Unionists to the Conservatives I have no doubt that would give a large preponderance on the Benches. I am not speaking of what the result of such a state of things would be. My own impression is that Magistrates have always been too careful to keep their judicial duties and their political views much too separate from each other for such a state of things to arise: and I think the noble and learned Lord might very well let well alone. I do not know by what motives he has been actuated, but I repeat that in the public interest

  1397
  information on this subject is to be desired.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought the noble Marquess might have waited for that information without making this attack upon me upon most imperfect and inaccurate information without any notice to me that such an attack was to be made, because that really is what the noble Marquess has done. I did not come into the House prepared with the materials to go fully into the subject on the present occasion, and I can only say if the noble Marquess represents my action with regard to the Lord Lieutenants as it has been represented to him my action has been misrepresented to him, and very grievously misrepresented. I do not propose to go fully into the matter now, but after what the noble Marquess has said perhaps your Lordships will indulge me for a moment. There is nobody who would be less desirous than I should be to introduce unnecessary politics into appointments to the Magisterial Bench, or any other appointments whatsoever; but whether naturally or unnaturally—I think very naturally— there is grievous irritation and discontent existing in many parts of the country from the belief that the Magistrates have been appointed because they belong to one political Party, whilst persons perfectly fit and competent, not competent merely on account of their politics, but competent to fulfil the duties of Magistrates on the Bench have been passed over because their politics have not been of the description required. I am not going into the question of how far that opinion is just or unjust; I think the grounds for it are not as real as many of those who have entered into this subject believe—I do not myself regard them as so real. But one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that this feeling did exist. The noble Marquess has said that it would be in the power of the Lord Chancellor to put anybody he pleased upon the Bench. That is a question I would rather not discuss at the present time, for one would have to go somewhat elaborately into the matter. There is, no doubt, a question as to the manner in which that power has been ordinarily exercised, but I do not think this is a convenient time for going into that question. But, assuming there was that power in the Lord Chancellor to appoint whom he pleased, I desire to
  1398
  say that I did not in the slightest degree desire to dictate to any Lord Lieutenant the appointment of any person whose name would be brought before him. I transmitted to the Lord Lieutenants in certain cases names which had been suggested to me, where there was a great preponderance of any one political opinion upon the Bench, but I left it to the Lord Lieutenant in every case to inquire into the circumstances, and to ascertain whether they were fit persons, and I never suggested that he should recommend to me any one of them if he thought them unfit; on the contrary, I suggested to him that he should only recommend to me such of them as he thought proper. And as my ground for doing so, I called attention to the state of opinion which prevailed upon the subject, and that in my opinion it was not expedient that people should think the magistrates were only taken from one side, even though that view might not be as just as they supposed. Therefore I asked them to take the matter into their consideration, and to consider the claims of those persons who had been suggested to me as fit persons to perform magisterial duties on the Bench, and I left it to them, if they thought fit, to recommend them to me. In some instances this has been done. I am not going into all the cases, but those were the steps I took. The communications I made to the Lord Lieutenants were made in a friendly spirit, and in every case, from their replies to me, were accepted in that spirit. It was not an official communication, and it was not done with any view of dictating to the Lord Lieutenants the action they should take, but simply inviting them, in concert with the Lord Chamberlain, to say whether the Bench could not be so constituted as to give general satisfaction. All I have to say is that it seems to me in doing that I have done nothing wrong. The noble Marquess has said that the preponderance has only come into existence in consequence of a division in the Liberal Party. That is entirely a misapprehension. If, instead of adding the Liberal Unionists to the Conservatives, you add the Liberal Unionists to the Liberals, that preponderance will be still impossible in almost any county in England, and therefore the question of preponderance does not arise in the way the noble Marquess has suggested. I believe

  1399
  that for the most part the state of things has not arisen from any partisan action on the part of the Lord Lieutenants, and I have never suggested that the Lord Lieutenants have purposely put upon the Bench those who were of their own political views. What has certainly appeared to me to be the case is that in certain counties, at all events, the Lord Lieutenants have too generally accepted nominations of the local Benches, and the local Benches I do not believe to have been in all cases as free from political feeling and political bias as the Lord Lieutenants to whom those recommendations have been made. There has prevailed in many counties a sort of co-optation of the magistrates. But the appointment is after all with the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Lieutenant recommends to him; but if the Lord Lieutenant is to be merely a conduit-pipe through whom the local Benches are to nominate the magistrates, that does not appear to me to be a desirable system, and if that view has been communicated to the Lord Lieutenants by any action I have taken, it appears to me it is a very desirable view to convey to them. As I have said, I did not come prepared to enter into a discussion upon this subject. I believe that persons outside this House who are not subject to the same potent influences as the noble Marquess will believe that in these matters I have acted in a friendly spirit towards the Lord Lieutenants, with the view of bringing about as satisfactory a state of things as could be brought about, and, if possible, of satisfying public opinion without any violent change, and it has not been with the motive, as the noble Marquess has insinuated, of placing magistrates of my own political views upon the Bench, because all the Lord Lieutenants have stated that if they had called upon every person whom I suggested they would have put the party I represent in a minority decidedly small.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKdid not wish to continue the discussion upon the more general question, but would ask the noble and learned Lord whether the House was to understand that the Return would have anything to do in any respect with the politics of the magistrates; that in the column for remarks it was not intended that their politics should be
  1400
  stated, but that it was merely the continuation of the old Return? He hoped there was no political intention whatever in the Return now moved for.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt that is so. As far as I know, the Return will be filled up by the authority to whom it is addressed exactly as in the old way. It contains no new heading or statement of politics. No new subject will be contained in the Return. With regard to the question of the politics of the magistrates, in making the statement I did I, of course, had no Return to go by and it was derived from information sent me by those with whom I communicated, and who were dissatisfied with the constitution of the Bench. I do not suppose it was literally accurate, but all I can say is that it was not from any Return, either in existence or in preparation, that I derived the information I have.

IMMIGRATION INQUIRY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked Her Majesty's Government for information as to the nature of the inquiry to be undertaken by the two Commissioners from the Board of Trade recently sent to the United States to examine into immigration in that country; and as to the instructions given to them. He presumed this Board of Trade inquiry had reference to the question of immigration into this country. He had seen a statement that one of the Commissioners was Mr. Burnett, whose name was familiar to the House as Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, than whom it would be impossible to find anyone better qualified to undertake such an inquiry as far as labour was concerned, though possibly in other branches of the subject he might not he so well fitted to act. The other Commissioner, he understood, was Mr. Schloss, whose name probably was not equally so well known, and he wished to be informed whether that gentleman was also in the employ of the Board of Trade, or whether he had been selected for this particular mission on account of some special qualification or fitness? It was difficult to understand what information Her Majesty's Government expected to obtain that was not already accessible in the Reports of various Committees and Commissions,

  1401
  Consular Reports, and other evidence of the kind, and he would ask what the exact Reference of the Commissioners was, and what the nature and scope of the Inquiry was to be. The House and the country regarded the subject as of importance, and it was desirable some information should be given with regard to it.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid the noble Lord had probably seen that a Return had been made in another place of the actual letter of instructions issued to the Commissioners, but, if not, it should of course be placed before the House as an unopposed Return. Possibly the noble Lord merely wished to draw out a short statement of the nature and object of sending out the Commissioners to the United States. A considerable amount of alarm had arisen, shared apparently by the noble Lord, from his remarks in the Draft Report of the Sweating Committee, from the supposed number of destitute aliens who had come to this country in recent years. In the Census of 1891 the total number of foreigners of all kinds in this country, including all possessed of means of their own, or earning a subsistence by trade, was singularly small— under 200,000. This number, however, had not excited alarm; the alarm was due to the increase among the Russian and Polish Jews, who came here in a state of poverty and with habits and customs which were not understood by our people, but their numbers were not so great as some imagined. The average number of Polish and Russian Jews, of Germans and Austrians, who came into the country was nearly 5,000 a year; but the number rose in 1891 to 10,000, though the number in 1892, not yet, however, complete, did not exceed about 7,000. The Board of Trade desired to obtain information from the United States, which had a larger experience, derived from the larger numbers of Russian and Polish Jews entering that country. In 1891 the number of Russian and Polish Jews entering the United States was 100,236,and in 1892 the number was 79,156. As America had tenfold the number of such immigrants that we had, she had tenfold the experience that we had of them. It was therefore desired to find out how these immigrants conducted themselves on their arrival there, and how far they were destitute of the means of living. It was thought that the best way
  1402
  to obtain useful information was to send out Commissioners to make specific inquiries. The existing law…, and proposals which are before Congress, may largely affect the emigration from this country, and the Government desired to know the tendency of feeling in the United States, and what was likely to be its action in the future. There was an influential party, headed by politicians of high repute, including General Walker, one of the highest authorities there, which advocated the total prohibition of immigration into the United States. It was impossible to conceive that that party could succeed in obtaining total prohibition, because a constant stream of immigrants seemed to be essential to the industries of the country. In the New England States one-half the population were immigrants or of foreign birth, and they performed almost all the labour. The immigration into the New England States included 40,000 Canadians annually. The Government desired to know what was likely to be the effect of restrictions upon emigration from this country, and upon emigration from Canada, for these French Canadians already formed one-tenth of the population in the New England States. All the menial labour was performed, and almost all the railways in the United States had been built, by foreigners; nearly all the mines were worked by them; much of the domestic labour was done by them; and he, therefore, could not think the Government there would go so far as total prohibition, which would be very serious to us, as our emigrants to that country numbered 88,000 annually. The United States law already authorised the sending back of immigrants who could not earn their own livelihood, but the numbers so sent back had only been 99 in 1890, 57 in 1891, 170 in 1892. As absolute prohibition or increased restrictive law was likely to have a great influence upon this country, and on Canada especially, it was desirable we should know what had been the restrictions upon foreign immigration, especially that of Russian and Polish Jews, and with regard to-the subject generally. He did not know the official position of Mr. Schloss, but was assured that he was a very competent person to assist in such an inquiry. He was to inquire specially into the laws

  1403
  of the United States and their administration, and Mr. Burnett was to inquire into the economic effect of that portion of the immigration which was of a destitute character from the East of Europe, and from England. The Report was to be ready by July next.
  LORD DE RAMSEYwished to know whether arrangements of last Session were being continued in this country to note the number of immigrants who remained here, and the number who passed through on their way to America; and, also, whether a record is kept of Jews landing in this country, who, we are told, do not come on the rates, they being looked after by the Jewish Boards of Guardians?
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid that these statistics were carefully compiled by Mr. Giffen, and would be found in the last Report on Emigration from the Board of Trade.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that complete inquiries of so extensive a character could not be made, and the results embodied in a Report, by July next. In the meantime, as the matter was one of importance to this country, he should take an opportunity of calling attention to it at a future date.

POLICE PROTECTION TO SHERIFFS IX IRELAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Her Majesty's Government whether they would lay upon the Table copies of the circulars regulating the giving of police protection to Sheriffs in Ireland in operation (1) on 22nd August 1892, (2) on 1st January 1893, and (3) at the present time? He said that, in the discussions which had taken place in that and in the other House, reference had been made to those circulars, and it had been stated by the Government that when they came into Office in August last they found in existence a circular which violated the law. Mr. J. Morley had replaced that by another circular, which undoubtedly fell into the same error, and in due time that again had been succeeded by another. If the Government had confined their statements to what they had done themselves, and what they believed to be the law, the matter might not have assumed a controversial character, but the line
  1404
  taken was to allege that the late Government had violated the law, he supposed in ignorance, and that during the tenure of Office by Mr. A. J. Balfour, and subsequently, there were 720 instances of police protection to illegal seizures. In answer to questions elsewhere that number had dwindled down to 66. Under those circumstances he wished to have the matter placed in a position for further discussion. He was informed by those competent to judge that the circular of the late Government was not open to the charge made against it, but was, on the contrary, entirely within the law. He wished to know whether there was any further reduction on the figures he had given, and whether the Government had decided to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal?
  THE FIRST LORD OK THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I wish the noble and learned Lord had given me notice of his later questions. I am quite unable to answer them without it. With regard to the other, the Government do not think that the mere production of those three circulars would adequately represent the state of the case in reference to recent Sheriffs' seizures; but they will be very happy to lay on the Table of the House all the circulars referring to this matter which have been issued since 1837. That would enable your Lordships to have fully before you the whole facts of the case, and will, I presume, as the Returns asked for would be included, satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, if the noble Earl would show him the list he would say whether it would answer his purpose. Before modifying the question he was going to put, he had thought it more courteous to ask the Government to voluntarily lay on the Table the three circulars themselves, and instead of doing so, the noble Earl told him he might have a bundle of circulars stretching over half a century; but he would state from the list, if furnished, what would answer his purpose.

LUNACY INSPECTORS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Lunacy Inspectors in Ireland had as yet presented their Report for the year 1892

  1405
  to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and, if not, to explain what was the cause of such a long delay. He said the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, under the Queen's Sign Manual, was entrusted with the care, custody, and control of the persons and property of idiots and lunatics in Ireland, and under a variety of Statutes was directly charged with the oversight of property and persons of lunatics in private asylums. Pursuant to statutory requirements the Lunacy Inspectors were bound to furnish the Lord Chancellor in Ireland annually with Reports in reference to such lunatics, and he wished to know whether that requirement had been complied with for 1892, and, if not, the cause of so long a delay. Before leaving Office he received, in June or July, the Report for the previous year, and he understood the Reports would be made with more celerity to meet the dates fixed by Statute. This was not a controversial matter. He was sure the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was as anxious to carry out the duties cast upon him in this melancholy relationship.
  EARL SPENCER: As the noble and learned Lord has said, this is not a controversial matter. Inquiries are being made as to the cause of the delay. I am informed that the Inspectors' Report for 1891 was only presented to the Lord Chancellor in 1893, and that the difficulty arose through a strike of printers. We will inquire further into the matter. Of course the Government are anxious to carry out the provisions of the law with regard to these Returns.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had insisted upon this matter when Lord Chancellor, and as the delay had been so great he would ask the question again on Thursday.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
  Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 27th of February last on the subject of Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session, as desired by this House.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed. (No. 29.)
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter-past Ten o'clock.