asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government are willing to extend to the other Departments of the Civil Service the privileges accorded to the War and Admiralty Departments under the provisions of the Pensions Commutation Act (1869)?

My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the privilege of commutation referred to in his Question was an experiment. It is not at present under contemplation to extend it to the Civil Service.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has authorised the preliminary regulations proposed by the Committee for securing the employment of soldiers in trades; whether he has considered the expediency of appointing, in addition to the non-commissioned officers recom- mended by the Committee, a qualified commissioned officer in every regiment to superintend (so soon as the necessary drills are acquired) the instruction and employment of soldiers in trades on public works and industrial schools in the same manner that instructors of musketry are now nominated; whether his attention has been drawn to the small number of qualified pioneers existing in the Army; whether, considering the great difficulty anticipated by the Committee in the selection of suitable men, it is his intention to offer increased pay to the pioneer force, with the view of bringing that body up to a standard of efficiency equal to the Royal Engineers; and, whether from the experience gained during the last few years, it is now his intention of making the repair of barrack damages and fair wear and tear dilapidations compulsory on the troops inhabiting the various barracks on the Home station, and generally to establish an organised system whereby the spare time of the troops may be utilised, to the public benefit and to their own advantage?

said, in reply, that the preliminary regulations have been authorized, except as regards the position and instruction of the non-commissioned officers in charge of the pioneers. I have approved the appointment of a qualified officer to superintend the workshops and manage the funds. Returns have been called for of the number of artizans who have been tested at their different trades; but the whole of the Returns have not yet been received. I have no proposal before me for increasing the pay of the pioneers. It would not always be practicable to make it compulsory on the troops to repair their own barracks; but it is my desire to turn to the best account the labour of the troops whenever it can be made available.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether a certificated teacher of a mixed school can obtain the grant of ten shillings for infants, provided only there be a separate room and all necessary appliances for an infant school, or is it necessary that there should be a separate certificated teacher as well as a separate room before that ten shilling grant can be obtained?

replied that it was necessary when the 10s. grant was given that there should be a separate room as well as a separate teacher; but in schools where there was no separate room, and where the infant school was a class of a general school, the 8s. grant would be given, and in that case it would not be necessary to have a certificated teacher in that class.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he contemplates the introduction of any measure for the abolition of the purchase system in high political offices, the owners of which are mulcted in considerable sums for Stamps and other fees on their appointments?

Sir, the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I contemplate the introduction of any measure for the abolition of the purchase system in high, political offices, from which he craftily means to draw me into the admission that the purchase system does exist in high political offices. I protest against being drawn into that net, and I will therefore pass over that part of the Question. As to whether I contemplate the abolition of stamps and other fees on appointments to high political offices, I have to say that the abolition of stamps I do not contemplate; but I have been for some time inquiring with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury and other gentlemen into the question of fees, and I do hope I shall be able to do something in that way.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have determined for the future upon giving the appointments of Postmasters of the country Post Offices to pensioners from the Army and Navy; and, if so, whether he would not also consider the claims of pensioners from the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, whether these appointments will remain as now vested in the Treasury or be transferred to the Post Office authorities?

, in reply, said, the question of making an alteration in the mode of appointing postmasters in country offices had been under consideration, but no decision had as yet been arrived at.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that a considerable number of Officers hold Commissions, other than honorary Commissions, simultaneously in the various branches of the auxiliary forces; whether he is aware that a considerable number of Officers on full pay, and borne on the strength of Infantry and Cavalry Regiments of the regular Army, also hold Commissions in the Yeomanry force; if it is desirable, in the interest of the public service, that Officers, whether Commanding Officers of corps or not, should hold more than one Commission at a time, either in the regular Army or in the auxiliary forces; and, if it is his intention to put an end to the practice by calling upon such Officers to elect which force they will serve in, and to resign the Commissions they may hold in the other branches of the service?

replied, that it was intended, within a limited time, to make such provision that two commissions could not be held at the same time by one officer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the fact that the workmen at the Government Factory, Keyham, Devonport, are leaving their employment in large numbers, owing to the low rate of wages; and, if so, what course he proposes to adopt in order to keep up a sufficient supply of skilled labour in that establishment?

replied, that no such representation had been made to the Admiralty. The superintendents of the dockyard, he might add, had been authorized to offer a higher rate of wages in those cases in which a superior class of workmen were required.

asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether any replies to Earl Granville's Circular Despatch of the 14th February 1870, regarding Emigration, have been received other than those from which certain fragments are quoted in the paper termed a Report from Sir Clinton Murdoch to Sir Frederick Rogers of the 5th August 1870, recently laid upon the Table; and when the Despatches on the subject referred to will be laid before this House?

said, in reply, that the Report alluded to was made upon all the despatches then received, the pith of which it contained. But as he understood that some sort of promise of the production of the despatches had been made, and his hon. Friend desired to see them, they should be produced as soon as possible, together with two or three Papers subsequently received.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether offices and other business premises left in charge of a watchman and his wife are subject to the Inhabited House Duty?

, in reply, said, a house would not be liable to the duty under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member.

, in rising to move the following Resolution:—

"That, in order to check the creation of vested interests which would have to be considered in arranging a sound and equitable system of retirement, no appointment should in future be made to honorary colonelcies,"

said, that during the last six months no question had so deeply interested the country as a comparison of our own military arrangements with those of Prussia. It was constantly asked how she was able to produce results so great at so small a cost. In endeavouring to supply an answer to that question he would point out that Prussia had only 150 generals for an Army of 300,000 men. Of these 150 generals every one was on active service, having a definite duty always to perform, and continuing an active general only so long as he performed that duty. There were 13 generals of districts, 28 generals of division, 4 generals inspectors of cavalry, 52 generals of infantry brigade, 27 generals of cavalry brigade, 13 generals of artillery brigade; the total number, as he had stated, being 150, whose pay and allowances amounted to £100,000 a-year for an Army of 300,000. When any of those generals retired he went on the pension list, and there were 473 generals on that list, at a cost of £120,000, or in other words, there were altogether 623 generals in the Prussian service, the charge for whom was £220,000. Now, what was the state of the case in the English Army. We had on full-pay and receiving pay as colonels of regiments 199 generals, on retired full-pay 177, on unattached or half-pay 204, or a total of 580. It was very difficult, so delusive were the Estimates, to ascertain the exact cost of this staff of generals; but, as nearly as he could ascertain it, he found it to be as follows:—For those employed on Staff pay £25,000; for honorary colonelcies, £162,500; salaries, including those paid at the Horse Guards and under other heads, £15,000; full-pay of general officers, £72,800; distinguished services, £9,000; generals of Royal Ar- tillery and Engineers, £36,000; and the unattached half-pay paid to officers of the rank of general, £51,000; making a total annual cost of £371,000. The result was that, while the Prussian Army on a peace establishment consisted of 300,000 men, with 150 generals, or 1 to every 2,000, our peace establishment consisted of 133,000 men, with 43 generals employed on active service, or 1 to every 3,300. Our expenditure, as compared to the Prussian expenditure, was as 5 to 3, and the service obtained from the generals was as 5 to 19. Each general employed cost the Prussians £1,467, while in the English service each general employed cost £9,275, the active and retired being calculated in both cases. The real cause of the great expenditure upon this head in the British service was that there was no fixed establishment of generals in proportion to the real wants of the service. In our immense list it was difficult to say of a single officer whether he was an active or a retired servant of the public. Two great principles appeared to have been lost sight of, the one being that rank should always mean service, and that a man when promoted to the rank of general should, at the same time, be appointed to discharge a certain share of the duties distributed over a certain number of general officers. The next principle lost sight of was that everybody should be paid either in the shape of salary for what he was doing, or in the shape of a pension for what he had done. When unable to perform the functions of a general the officer holding that rank should be retired on a pension, which ought never to be increased or diminished. At present there were 839 colonels and lieutenant-colonels on our lists. It was said that the purchase system quickened promotion; but the youngest of those colonels would have from 20 to 25 years to wait before he could become a major general. Then there was a practice in operation of promoting to unattached rank on half-pay, so that some officers not only got a salary for doing nothing, but they actually received promotion while they were doing nothing. The Commander-in-Chief was not to blame in the matter, for he had no choice; the Duke of Cambridge had himself stated that the immense unattached list had been greatly swelled in order to compensate poor officers who could not purchase promotion, while as to the richer officers who could afford to purchase, the Duke of Wellington had distinctly defended the system, observing that as a man who reached the rank of colonel could not sell out, his money was sunk in the service, and would be lost to himself and his family for ever. The Government had brought in a Bill to abolish purchase in the Army; but declined to name the amount of the retirement. He did not question the wisdom of this course; but maintained that, before proceeding further with that Purchase Bill the Government were bound to state whether they intended to utilize the present means of retirement. About £500,000 a-year went in retirement already, and one of the largest of the items which made up the sum was caused by these honorary colonelcies. The institution of these honorary colonelcies dated from the time when noblemen, attached to the Hanoverian dynasty, kept up regiments in the character of territorial magnates. The colonels of those regiments contracted to pay their men, and to supply them with clothing and equipment, on consideration of receiving a certain lump sum from the public Exchequer. Any person who had read Horace Walpole's letters would be aware that some of those regiments were very nice jobs. In 1707 the Army regulations, in rather clumsy language, stated—

"The sole responsibility of the colonel for the pay and equipment of his regiment is the principle of military finance, who is held responsible in his fortune and his character for the discharge of his duty in providing the supplies of his regiment."

Now, he believed that the public opinion at present was tending towards the view that the military officer in command should be responsible for the finance and commissariat of his command; but he should have no pecuniary interest in the matter. His responsibility should be that of an administrator, not of a contractor. The colonel who received the lump sum from the Exchequer found it necessary to have an Army agent in London, and the men who were the present Army agents were simply the successors of those first agents who were the confidential men of the territorial magnates. The matter had been inquired into several times, and in 1854 Lord Herbert gave the colonels a fixed sum, but continued their responsibility for the cloth- ing; but in the next year that was taken away by Lord Palmerston, who left the colonelcies pure, unadulterated, and unmitigated sinecures. In the bad early days there used to exist a system of rewarding public servants with pensions on the Civil List, and by sinecure appointments; but there was now a regulated system of pensions in proportion to the length of service and amount of salary. This equitable and impartial system had not penetrated to the Army. There were 10 colonels at £2,200 a-year, 2 at £2,000 a-year each; 4 at £1,800 each; 28 at £1,350; and the remainder at £1,000 each; the total cost—leaving aside the payments to colonels-commandant of the Artillery and Engineers—being upwards of £160,000 a-year, and in many cases these colonelcies were far from being pensions in the right sense of the word. At least £25,000 or £26,000 a-year of the money was given in payment to officers who were now receiving salaries from the Crown. The Commander-in-Chief—and in all the cases he mentioned he wished to be understood as speaking without the slightest personal motive—received £4,000 a-year and a colonelcy of £2,200; the Adjutant General had £2,000 a-year with a colonelcy of £1,000; and the Military Secretary, whose office was a great abuse, would receive under the new arrangements £1,500 a-year in place of £2,000, and a colonelcy of £1,000. Either the salaries of those officials were sufficient for the duties imposed upon them, or they were not. If they were sufficient there was no need for the colonelcies in addition, and if the salaries were insufficient they ought to be increased by being raised in amount, and not by the addition of colonelcies. The late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers) had established a system of pensions in the Navy which had worked very well. That right hon. Gentleman had fixed the pensions of admirals at £850 per annum, of vice admirals at £725, and of rear admirals at £600; and these pensions had been sufficient to tempt 8 admirals out of 20, 8 vice admirals out of 24, and 20 rear admirals out of 48 to accept retirement, reducing the list of admirals from 92 to 58. Pensions on this scale, therefore, were fairly sufficient for men in that rank of life and that standard of expense. In the Ordnance Corps the colonel-commandant received £994; the pay of a general officer was £600. The prizes for Marines were something over £700 a-year, and the ordinary prizes for other corps were £600 a-year; 700 was, therefore, a fair average pension for a general officer. That was at the rate of twice or three times the sum consumed every year by one man. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) said the other evening—

"I desire to disclaim on my own part any defence of the system of honorary colonelcies, for I think, the system is not a good one, and might very easily be improved."—[3Hansard, cciv. 1888.]

That from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, when translated into language used by Gentlemen below the Gangway, was that its history and origin proved it be an ancient and indefensible abuse of the first order. He might be allowed to state how he thought the establishment of generals should be constituted. At the very outside we should have 60 generals in active service. We did not want 40. In such an Army as ours even 60 generals could not be empoyed. We should have no supplementary generals; but when new duties arose an officer should be promoted for them, for, in administrative matters, one man appointed on promotion was worth two taken off the redundant list. Sixty generals at £1,000 a-year, consolidated pay and allowances, would, be more than adequate for the whole service. Suppose there were 180 retired generals—and no one should be allowed to retire until he had had gone through the duties of a general—at the rate of £700 a-year, that would amount to £186,000 a-year, instead of £371,000. So that on the generals alone three-fourths of the money required for abolishing purchase would be saved. Now, in organization, if any good was to be done the matter should be taken in hand at once. He hoped, therefore, the Government would ascertain forthwith how many generals were really wanted, and then select those who by age and abilities ought to be on the active list, rigorously and in the most determined manner insisting that all the others should be considered retired. Nothing would give greater confidence to the country than that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) should come down to the House and say he found so many generals could be saved, and that he would not employ one single man more. The House must be aware that a large number of general officers had sacrificed their regulation prices for a great many years to put themselves in a position eventually to succeed to these honorary colonelcies, and the course which ought to be taken with them was plain. There should be adopted, as at the Admiralty, a substantial system of pensions equal to the expectation each might have to an honorary colonelcy. Each should succeed to a pension as an honorary colonelcy fell vacant, and they should be allowed to commute their hopes for money down. These reforms would require determination, and even audacity, but the occasion was no common one. It was necessary that Parliament and the Government should rise to it. Let them take the opportunity of abolishing purchase to arrange the active and retired list on a rational and economical basis. He hoped the Government would declare that the morbid growth which had accumulated around purchase for two centuries should cease, and the country would see them through it. He entreated the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he committed himself to the principle that it was better in the interests of the Exchequer and the public to tempt men into a service by distant, large, uncertain prizes, rather than by ascertained, well-regulated, and moderate pensions. If that were the opinion of the Cabinet they had better at once reverse the policy of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and establish 80 or 100 post captaincies of £2,000 or £1,500 a-year each, giving all the best of them to the Lords of the Admiralty. He hoped, to obviate the necessity for a Division, the right hon. Gentleman would assure the House that he would fix a working establishment of generals, and arrange a sound and equitable system of retirement, as an earnest to the country that he was going to deal in a searching and courageous spirit with our unmanageable and unintelligible Army expenditure. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he would not follow his hon. Friend in the history he had given of these honorary colonelcies, which, no doubt, was both correct and concise. It was a great mistake to suppose, as he had himself at one time imagined, that honorary colonelcies were given as the reward of distinguished services. In fact, in two instances honorary colonelcies were held by officers who had not even war medals. The proper system was that rewards for distinguished service should come before the House in the shape of Votes in the Estimates, and not of appointment by the Horse Guards, over which the House had no control.

In addressing the House the other evening I stated that when the question of retirement came to be considered, there was a sum of more than £500,000 already paid in the form of retirement, which would have to enter into the consideration that would have to be given to the subject, and that of that sum a considerable amount was paid in honorary colonelcies. In many of the remarks of my hon. Friend I entirely agree; and I am not at all disposed, any more than the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) who preceded me in the office I have the honour to hold, to enter upon a defence of the system of honorary colonelcies. I quite agree in the doctrine that has been laid down that any payment of a sum of money which is received for the service of the State should have the form of either pay or pension; and it is as a pension that the payment to an honorary colonel should in general be regarded. It is the change of the ordinary pay of a general officer from a sum of not quite £500, to a sum, except in certain cases of larger amount, of £1,000. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion said these honorary colonelcies were not given for distinguished service; but that is certainly not according to my experience, for I do not think that during the time I have had the honour to be in office a single appointment of this kind has been made in which the recipient has not been a very distinguished officer. There is, of course, something to be said for not having a uniform scale of pensions and retirement, and for having the power of selection, so that distinguished and gallant service in the field may have its special reward. That, however, need not be accomplished by the particular mode which is now adopted; and it is a very fair subject for consideration, whether that mode ought to be adopted, or whether there are not other and better modes which can be adopted for accomplishing the same ends. I think it is also most desirable to consider whether the present scale of establishment of general officers is the scale which ought to be established, whether it is established on right principles, or whether, on the contrary, it would not be better to adopt the plan by which service as a general should be made the mode of arriving at the rank of general. The system of retirement is a subject of the greatest possible difficulty. It has been a great subject of consideration in the Navy; and when the purchase system is abolished it will be a subject of the greatest care and interest with regard to the Army. In times of peace, of the officers who constitute the officers of the Army a very large proportion—about one-sixth—will usually be over 60 years of age. It therefore follows, as a matter of course, that in some mode or other you have to make a provision for those who have given you their youth, their strength, and the best portion of their life, and who have arrived at a period when they are no longer capable of active exertions, and when it is no longer suitable that they should be employed in the junior ranks of the service, and, of course, you have not, in the higher ranks of the service, anything like a sufficient number of offices to find occupation for them. Therefore, either by pension or retirement, or in some other way, you have to make provision for a large proportion of men in the service who are most advanced in life. The present establishment of general officers was fixed after an inquiry by two Royal Commissions, the last of which reported about 12 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs wished that I should accomplish what is necessary in about two months; but I wish to do it well, upon sound principles, and in such a way as will give satisfaction to the House and to the service. In the first place, I think we had better dispose of the ques- tion of purchase, because this matter is very much connected with the question. The truth is that when an officer arrives at a certain period of service—namely, when he holds the highest regimental commission—he is obliged to make his choice between one of two things. If he desires to realize the large sum of money which the regulation and the over-regulation prices produce, he must retire from the service by the sale of his commission; if, on the other hand, he seeks to obtain the prizes of the profession, which are given to general officers, then he forfeits his money; and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) told us the other evening, it is the best officers very often who forfeit their money. In dealing, then, with this whole question of rewards to general officers, it is absolutely necessary to consider the vested interests, not only of those who are now regimental officers, but the vested interests of those who, being general officers, have forfeited their money by avoiding the sale of their commissions, in the hope of obtaining a share in the rewards that are at present assigned to general officers. Now, when you are dealing liberally with the vested interests of those who are retiring by the sale of their commissions, it would be a misfortune and a mistake if you were to fail to do liberal justice also to those who have not availed themselves of the opportunity of selling their commissions, who have not retired, but who have gone on as general officers in the expectation of receiving the customary rewards of the service. Having, therefore, the same object in view as my hon. Friend, it appears to me that it would be premature for the House to come to the proposed conclusion on the subject. The whole question is so large, and requires to be dealt with with so much care and circumspection, that I think it would be prudent in the House to keep its own hands free, and to leave the hands of the Government free for a thorough investigation of the subject. I assure the hon. Member if I oppose his Motion it is not that I have the smallest desire to avoid going into the matter in the completest manner possible; it is, on the contrary, because I desire that what is to be done shall be done with complete knowledge, and with the most complete regard for the interest of the public and of the gallant officers concerned. On these grounds I recommend my hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a Division, and not to ask the House to commit itself on the subject. Bearing in mind that we are abolishing purchase, and that we are making the most liberal contribution for the purpose of dealing equitably with the interests of those who sell, we should be extremely careful not by any hasty measure to anticipate the conclusion at which we should arrive, or, in the smallest degree, to prejudice the interests of those who have not sold their commissions, but have waited in order to obtain the highest rank in their profession.

I very much agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, for I think it would be premature, in the position in which we now stand, and considering the extensive plans that have been submitted to us and the country, to commit the House to any decision on the subject raised by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan). I cannot help hoping that the hon. Gentleman himself will be of opinion that there is sound reason in what has been urged by my right hon. Friend opposite. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, as to what ought to be our future establishment of general officers, I am not disposed to say that the establishment does not require revision and reconsideration. But, on the other hand, I do not approve of independent Members of the House, by their own motion and their own will, presuming to prescribe what ought to be that establishment. That is exactly one of the duties which devolve upon the Executive, which ought to propose to the House what is the establishment which the interests of the country require; and then it is for the House to exercise its judgment, and decide whether it concurs in the views of the Government. I am not inclined to follow the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, or the right hon. Gentleman, into the question of retirement. It is the largest and most difficult of the questions which must be considered by the House, in consequence of the plans which the Government have brought forward; and there can be no doubt that when we come to consider the proposal of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this retirement question, we shall have to consider the imposition upon the country of a very large addition to the present cost of the British Army. I did not follow the statements of the hon. Gentleman quite accurately with regard to what his ideas were as to the cost of retirement which would be involved in the plans of the Government; and particularly I did not quite understand either his view, or the view of my right hon. Friend opposite, as to the large amount—I think they said £500,000—which would be available hereafter towards the expense of retirement. I apprehend the ton. Gentleman to have referred in that statement to the present cost of honorary colonelcies. [Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes.] But the cost of these honorary colonelcies is not the payment made to general officers. However, that and every other form of service must be considered; and I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that which I think the House cannot call in question for a moment, that good faith must be observed with these gentlemen.

I think if the right hon. Baronet had attended to me he would have known that I went into the question, and showed how good faith ought to be observed.

The hon. Gentleman did not go into it in any way to convince me that such a sum would be saved to the country, or available for the retirement which must come upon us. But the point most prominently brought forward by the hon. Member in his Motion and in his speech is, whether or not the system of honorary colonelcies should continue. There I am bound to say I do not agree in the opinion that they should continue. I have always thought that system an anomaly, and a most objectionable mode of paying for the services of officers. A senior officer is receiving what certainly must be regarded, under the circumstances, as very limited compensation for his services and money. He is paid £450 a-year, and yet when a general officer who holds an honorary colonelcy succeeds, he suddenly comes in for £1,000 a-year. That ought to be revised; and it is evident that the matter will not escape the notice of Her Majesty's Government. But it would be premature to commit the House to any decision upon the subject at present, and I trust the hon. Member will not press his Motion.

stated that when a late Government was in office, he moved for Returns in regard to honorary colonelcies, and the Returns were unopposed by General Peel; but when he (Sir John Trelawny) found that they would take three months' labour of one clerk to prepare, he hesitated to cause so much expense. From that hour to this he had regretted his hesitation; because, had such Returns been presented, the House would have been able to see what services had been rendered by the officers who had received those high rewards. Before the Irish Church Bill was passed a Resolution was adopted by the House prohibiting the filling up of certain appointments becoming vacant in the Church. This was an analogous case, for by delaying the filling up of honorary colonelcies they would pave the way for the reform in the Army which the Secretary of State was prepared to carry out. He did not agree in the view of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), that Members below the Gangway were presumptuous in bringing Motions of this kind before the House. It could hardly be presumptuous to protect the taxpayer, who, after all, counted for something. When he saw that right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Table were agreed in opposing such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, he was at once "wide awake," at once suspecting that there was an abuse somewhere. He, therefore, was prepared to support his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.

said, he had some difficulty in supporting the proposition for the abolition of purchase, because it was unaccompanied by any statement on the part of the Government as to the system which they intended to substitute for it. When the House was called upon to vote so many millions for the abolition of purchase it ought to know what it was about to do. Returns which he had obtained, embracing the period from the Peace of 1815, up to the present time, showed the curious fact that the longer they remained at peace, the greater became the number of admirals, generals, and officers; whereas, one would naturally have expected an opposite result. In 1815, at the close of a war of 22 years, we had 658 general officers. These were gradually diminished till, in 1850, there were only 326; but in 1870, after 55 years of peace, they had increased to 580. In 1815 we had 319 colonels and lieutenant-colonels; in 1870 the number had increased to 525 on full-pay, while the number on half-pay had increased from 57 in 1815 to 324 in 1870. In the Navy, at the close of the war, 1816, there were 242 admirals; these were reduced by 1846 to 153; but in 1870 the number had risen to 303. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would not press the House to vote for the abolition of purchase until he was prepared with a substitute for that system. He did not see why the changes proposed by the right hon. Gentleman could not be made in two months as well as in two years. When they came to the details of organization he had no doubt it would be found that many officers were inadequately paid. According to his opinion every man should be adequately paid, and he did not think that the present pay of officers would be, under the circumstances of the new arrangements, such as they were entitled to receive. But the number of officers might be very much reduced, for we had nearly double the number in proportion to rank and file that was sufficient for the Prussian armies. Prussia had been held up as a nation that managed her military affairs better than other nations, and of that she had given good evidence in the late war. Why, then, should we have twice as many officers to the rank and file that Prussia had? Under these circumstances, he recommended the Secretary of State to review his determination.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) would force his Motion to a Division, because by that the House of Commons would show the hon. Member and the country that they valued the services of distinguished officers. Appointments to honorary colonelcies were not worth £1,000, as the hon. Gentleman represented; for officers of the Line obtaining them had already £450 a-year, and, in some cases, £550, all of which was given up on obtaining the £1,000 a-year, the pay of a colonel of a regiment. The hon. Gentleman, while "stumping" the provinces, had received great ovations, and had not allowed any- body to answer his speeches; and the consequence was that he now came down to the House and dictated to Her Majesty's Government the mode in which they were to carry out this scheme. Instead of merely puting a Motion before the House, the hon. Gentleman told the Government they must act within two months. The hon. Member had fallen into one or two inaccuracies. He had included in his list of generals a number of generals who had retired on full-pay. Most, if not all of them, never were generals at all. They were colonels who had been allowed to retire with the honorary rank of generals, and therefore their appointments had nothing to do with the real list of generals. The hon. Gentleman said the Military Secretary always received his appointment in addition to the colonelcy of a regiment. Now, to his (Colonel Stuart Knox's) own knowledge, the present Military Secretary did not obtain the colonelcy of a regiment until the lapse of some years after he had received his appointment of Military Secretary; and therefore it was evident that both appointments were not necessary. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for having plainly stated that officers who had decided not to sell their commissions were entitled to the appointments under discussion; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether colonels who in the future did not sell, but went in under the new system to be generals, would not have the same right.

said, he could not accept any representations of his views on this question, unless they were expressed in the words he had himself used.

observed that the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had distinctly laid down the principle that the vested interests of these officers must receive consideration. He (Mr. Whitwell) thoroughly approved the step taken by the Government to reform the Army. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had long considered the necessity of reforming the Army, and that the Army Bill was not the product of a panic, but a measure which the right hon. Gentleman thought the interests of the country required. It would, in his opinion, be a great advantage if the list of generals were so mo- dified that it should contain the names only of such as were fit to command an Army; or, in other words, that those only should remain on the active list in whom the country had confidence. He hoped that the Government would come to the conclusion that no more honorary colonelcies should be filled up.

said, the Return which had been presented to the House was calculated to mislead those who did not belong to the profession, and he wondered that neither of his gallant Friends on the Treasury Bench had risen to correct the error into which many hon. Members had naturally fallen. It was only right that when hon. Members took up a Return in good faith, and were misled by it, some of the military Members of the Government should set them right. Many of the 150 general officers who were described in the Return as having retired on full pay he apprehended to be regimental lieutenant-colonels, with the brevet rank of colonel, but who had retired on the full-pay of the lower rank, the step of honorary rank as general officers having been given in order to induce them to retire from the service upon the smaller rate of pay.

objected to the Vote, on the ground that it was contrary to the understanding come to last year that the sum should be taken in a lump.

said, he was not aware of any such understanding; but he would withdraw the Vote in its totality.

said, he wished to call attention to the large amount of Supplementary Estimates presented by the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had on several occasions laid great stress on the fact that the late Government had found it necessary to produce Supplementary Estimates. In 1868–9 a Supplementary Estimate for £171,000 had been brought forward, and when the present Government came into office they added to it £130,000, making the whole £300,000. The late Government were subjected to very severe strictures on this account; but the next year there was a Supplementary Estimate presented of nearly £200,000 in July, and in March last year another for £170,000. In July last there was another Supplementary Estimate of £50,000, and now there was another of £211,000. He hoped if hon. Gentlemen opposite ever crossed the floor of the House they would in Opposition remember what they had done when on the Treasury Bench.

observed that £50,200 of the sum to be voted was for the relief of Paris, in which they must all cordially concur.

(1.) £5,800, Portland Harbour (Supplementary sum).

(2.) £9,500, Public Record Repository, Acquisition of Lands (Supplementary sum).

(3.) £3,819, British Consulate and Embassy Houses, Constantinople, &c. (Supplementary sum).

expressed a hope that the Government would continue to rent accommodation for the Embassy rather than incur the great expense of attempting to re-build what had been burnt down.

observed, that law charges were very heavy at all times. He did not know why, considering what was voted last year, these should be asked for.

said, these charges had been very carefully looked into. They had been occasioned by the prosecutions for bribery at Norwich, Beverley, and Bridgwater.

contended that where bribery was proved to have extensively prevailed, the municipality should be amerced in the amount which the investigation cost.

said, the expense of the Commissions was already thrown on the locality; but these were expenses incurred by the Solicitor to the Treasury.

held it was time that a special Committee sat upon the question of diminishing these law charges, and of determining how they could do with less law.

Yes; and more justice.

said, these law charges were monstrous altogether. This year we were paying £2,000 more than last year, and no Fenian prosecutions had taken place in Ireland that he was aware of.

said, that the Vote included spring assizes that were unusually heavy and protracted, and that ought to have been included in the Estimate for the preceding year.

said, he thought an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting a recent purchase of pictures would be acceptable.

said, the money was asked for on account of the purchase for the National Gallery of a collection of pictures made by the late Sir Robert Peel 50 years ago. The collection consisted of 77 pictures and 18 drawings, by Rubens, Vandyck, and others; it included eight pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds; but the majority of the works were the masterpieces of the most eminent artists of the Dutch school. Among the pictures were the celebrated one of John Knox preaching, and the equally celebrated "Chapeau de Paille." All the pictures had been originally chosen with great care, taste, and judgment; the collection was in excellent order; and it was unique and complete in itself as a representation of the Dutch school. The collection had been carefully examined by two competent gentlemen, Mr. Richmond and Mr. Boxall, who reported that it was well worth the money, and he hoped that it would be no further expense to the country. The Committee were aware that the Trustees of the National Gallery had been allowed £10,000 a-year to spend in pictures; but this year £8,000 was unexpended, as was £8,500 in the preceding year; in three or four years about £20,000 of these annual Votes had been re-paid into the Exchequer, and it was now intended to stop the annual Vote for the present until, by these savings, and the amount of the annual Vote, the present purchase had been paid for. He did not mean to say that the Trustees would wholly refuse to buy any work of great merit that was offered them; indeed, they would take the responsibility of doing that if it were necessary, and of asking the House afterwards to approve their conduct; but they would endeavour to defray the cost of this collection by the annual subscription of £10,000, believing that, by this purchase, they had done better for the public than they could have done by the expenditure of an equal amount spread over a number of years.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of impugning the merits of the pictures, as he believed they were quite worth the money. But the House was on the eve of discussing increased Estimates; it was about to expend a large sum of money on very doubtful objects, and in the face of such an amount of pauperism as now existed he held they had no right to waste the public funds in this extravagant manner. It was a great mistake to spend money on such luxuries, seeing that we forgot that we had ceased to be either a great or a rich country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might smile; but that was not far from the truth. It would be no consolation to those of our countrymen who feared invasion, or to a starving mechanic who could not find bread for his children, to say that we must have fine pictures. The whole proceeding was most unjustifiable, and if he could get any support from hon. Members opposite he should divide against this Vote.

said, he was confident, in spite of the diatribe they had just listened to, that the Vote would be supported with acclamation, not only by the House but by the country, as such Votes invariably had been. He had always found the greatest willingness on the part of the House to sanction any outlay recommended by the Ministry for the acquisition of those works of art which were a subject of pleasure to all who viewed them, and of improvement to all who studied them. There were many present who remembered the unanimity with which, the House applauded the purchase of the Due de Blacas collection for the British Museum, and by no section of the House was that transaction more approved of than by the Gentlemen below the Gangway, to whom the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) had been appealing. The hon. Member said this was not the moment to buy pictures; but were pictures to be bought like a hat or a coat, whenever you wanted them? He said this expenditure was waste. This was not waste. There was more waste in one year in building ships that would neither sail, steam, nor fight; more waste in one estimate, the result of panic and of nonsense, than in the estimates of 20 years for the purchase of works of art. These things remained to be a credit and a joy to the nation. They were not bought one year at great expense to be superseded and thrown aside as useless the next year. Every year added to their value, for every year fresh competitors entered the market for their acquisition. Every little town of Belgium, France, and Germany was forming its local museum and its picture gallery, and the advancement of taste and refinement in the products of those countries, was a proof of the good effect of these exhibitions. He hoped the same effects would, by the establishment of similar institutions in England, be produced, for we could not but acknowledge our shortcomings in those articles in which refinement of taste was the great requisite; and he trusted the time would shortly arrive when the representatives of large towns would insist on the superfluities from the central galleries and museums being spread throughout England whenever there was a fitting structure to receive them. It was impossible to overrate the value of the collection just purchased. The National Gallery had not been yet half a century in existence, and yet there were few, if any, collections in any country which embraced so wide, so select, and so fine a class of pictures of the various schools of Italian art, taking them altogether. The National Gallery owed its origin to the purchase of the Angerstein collection in the year 1823; but it could not be said that the systematic acquisition of pictures had commenced till the annual Vote of £10,000 was begun in the year 1855. The credit of this, in some respects, unrivalled collection as regards Italian art is due to the taste, learning, and activity of the late Sir Charles Eastlake, and his successor, Mr. Boxall, by the same high qualities, has added many magnificent specimens to the Gallery. Still, in regard to Dutch pictures there was a great deficiency, which was much regretted and com- plained of by many persons who took a deep interest in this school of art. Now that deficiency was at an end, and we could enter the lists even with the Louvre, as regards our collection of Dutch masters. By this acquisition the gaps had been filled up, the possibility of doing which could hardly have been contemplated within any given period of time, if at all. They had obtained a Terburg of the finest quality, and in the finest condition. They had obtained noble specimens of Metzu, Mieris, Van der Heyden, Wouvermans, De Koning, Ostade, Carl du Jardin, Jan Steen, all of which had previously been wanting. They had also obtained admirable pictures by other masters, already represented. Besides the famous "Chapeau de Paille," by Rubens, alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among the pictures bought was the chef d'œuvre of Hobbema, and two Peter de Hooghes, which would be a joy to all who saw them. Nor were our own English artists omitted. There was the Wilkie mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and several pictures by Reynolds, among which the portrait of Dr. Johnson would stand comparison with the finest works of the Italian pencil. There was an additional interest, too, connected with the collection, for it was the labour of love of one of our greatest English statesmen, and it was gratifying to see that the taste of the amateur was on a par with the sagacity of the Minister, for throughout this large collection there could hardly be named more than two or three pictures which were not of the very highest order of merit, a compliment which could be paid to few private galleries. The hon. Member for Norfolk spoke of lavishing money in making this purchase; but he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) could assure the House that the pictures were bought at a sum considerably below their value; and, apparently, by the arrangements made, the country would not be put to the additional expense of 1s.; and he would convince the House he was justified in making that assertion. When the National Gallery was re-organized—in fact, set on a complete new footing in 1855, a Treasury Minute was passed, defining the duties of all persons connected with the institution. Among other regulations were the following:—

"My Lords propose, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, to insert annually in the Estimate for the Gallery a sum expressly for the purchase of pictures. The sum need not be annually expended, but might accumulate, and thus enable the Trustees and Director to purchase a fine collection at once, if such an opportunity should offer."

The Trustees and Director have acted on this recommendation; and, at this moment, when the opportunity did offer itself, they had surrendered to the Treasury, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a sum of £20,700, which, with the £10,000 which would have come to them in the present year, makes up nearly half of the purchase. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also intimated his intention of not renewing the annual grant for the present, so that, as he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had stated, the whole purchase would be made without taking an extra shilling out of the pocket of the nation. He confessed he should be sorry no longer to see the national Grant on the Estimates; but he was comforted by the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if any fine pictures presented themselves, he would purchase them on the recommendation of the Director. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might rest assured that the Trustees and Director would continue to show the same desire to keep down expenditure as they had ever manifested, and would be as chary of the public money as if it were their own. Before sitting down, he wished to do an act of justice to his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), who had sold these pictures to the nation. He (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had already stated that the collection had been bought on the most reasonable terms. A couple of years ago, Sir Robert Peel would have obtained an infinitely greater sum than they were now voting; and, even at the present moment, he would have got much more than he was willing to accept. But Sir Robert Peel acted with the greatest delicacy and public spirit. He said—"My object is that all these pictures should be kept together; they belonged to my father, and I wish the nation should have them. I have had these pictures valued roughly by a competent person at £80,000; but, taking off the percentage I should have to pay if they were sold by public auction, I offer them at £75,000." It was suggested by me that the Government valuation might not come up to that amount, to which Sir Robert Peel replied that he would not stand out for some thousands, so long as the pictures were bought by the nation, and kept together. The circumstances of this sale were greatly to the credit of the public spirit and disinterestedness of the right hon. Baronet; and, while he congratulated the House and thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the acquisition, he could not refrain from noticing how much the country was indebted to Sir Robert Peel for the completion of this auspicious negotiation.

supported the Vote, believing that the money would be well spent. So far from the poor complaining, he thought these pictures would give the greatest delight to all classes, and would enrich the nation by improving its taste and refining its ideas.

supported the Vote, believing the collection would not only be advantageous to the National Gallery, but to a great number of the working classes, when they had an opportunity of seeing these paintings. He was glad to seethe first budding of economy in the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Bentinck). On Thursday evening he might be able to save the country a much larger sum by joining those who wished to reduce the Estimates.

said, he did not understand the last argument, because the Votes of Thursday evening would be spent on works of usefulness. He did not dispute the value of the pictures, but thought that when there was such an enormous demand for the public money, and such an enormous amount of pauperism, it was not a wise and just mode of expenditure. It was a new fact in natural history to say that they could feed a starving man by showing him pictures.

observed, that there was very little interest felt by the pauper classes of the country in an increase in the Army Estimates. There was a strong feeling in the country that any increase in these Estimates was not only unnecessary but mischievous.

supported the Vote, and wished to see the national collection of pictures increased. It was poor compared with that of other countries.

wished for some explanation of the item of £83 for the conveyance of distinguished persons.

drew attention to the item of £2,421 16s. 3d. for the preparation of a plan and model in connection with the proposed Thames Embankment site of the New Courts of Justice. It was rather hard that when the site definitely fixed upon for erecting those buildings was the one that had been originally chosen that the country should be put to this expense to satisfy the fancy of the right hon. Gentleman who had been the predecessor of the First Commissioner of Works in Office. The expense ought to come out of the fund which was appropriated towards the erection of the New Courts of Justice and not out of the public money.

observed, that it would be impossible to take the course suggested, because the Act of Parliament decided that the Courts should be built on a particular site, and that the funds should be applied to the purchase of the land and the erection of the buildings. The funds thus appropriated could not be applied to anything relating to the construction of the Courts on another site. A Committee was appointed by the unanimous vote of the House to consider whether some more economical method could not be devised in order to get rid of the enormous expenditure which was threatened, and it became necessary to have an architect in attendance on the Committee and to have plans and models constructed. An inquiry of that nature was always extremely expensive, and this item represented the actual expenditure incurred in that investigation, which had at last resulted in the saving of £1,500,000 to the country.

said, he did not regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as satisfactory. The item was not incurred in order to prevent a greater expenditure, for the Committee had nothing to do with cutting down the estimates for the Courts of Justice.

said, that the cutting down of the estimates was no doubt a subsequent act of the Office of Works; but it was first deemed necessary to appoint the Committee to investigate the subject, and awaken the public mind to the propriety of the reduction.

called attention to the sum of £1,676 paid to Messrs. Freshfield and Co., solicitors, for costs connected with the preparation of the National Debt Bill, the Forgery Bill, and the Statute Law Revision Bill. He wished to know if it was the practice to employ private solicitors to draw up Government Bills when the Government had solicitors of their own to do the work? Unless a satisfactory explanation of this item were given, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,676.

explained that these Bills were prepared by agreement between the Government and the Bank of England as a codification of the law relating to the Bank. The Bank of England paid half the expense, and they were naturally anxious that their own solicitors should be employed in the drawing up of the Bills. The work had been excellently done, and the result was two very valuable pieces of consolidation.

pointed out as matter which called for explanation, an item in connection with an inquest held in consequence of a boiler explosion at Portsmouth, and another in connection with the total eclipse of the sun in August, 1868, and asked whether the sum of £5,212 for the Clerks of Unions and others in Ireland for the preparation of the Return relative to Land Tenure had been paid for a Return moved for by a Member of that House, because if Returns involved such an enormous expenditure he should refrain from moving for the one for which he had given Notice To-morrow.

called attention to the enormous expense incurred by the appointment of Select Committees on public questions, as evidenced by the item of £2,700 for the expenses attending the Committee for the site of the New Courts of Justice.

called attention to the fact that Returns, &c., for the preparation of the Irish Land Bill had cost the country £89,000, and that that item ought to have been provided for in the Estimates of last year.

asked for an explanation of the item of £500 paid as compensation to General La Mothe on account of the Jamaica insurrection. He wished to know if General La Mothe had really any claim on the finances of this country for that compensation?

said, he was not in a position to answer that question now, but he would answer it on another day.

called attention to the item of £858 16s. for the maintenance of the son of the late King of Abyssinia. Such an item ought to have been known to the Government when the Estimates were first submitted to Parliament, and ought then to have been included in them. In addition to that the amount was excessive, for the son of the late King Theodore was only 10 or 11 years old, and a lad of that age could be well provided for at a boarding school for £200 or £300 a-year.

asked for some explanation of an item of £14 10s. for the insignia of Prince Arthur as a Knight of St. Patrick.

asked how the sum of £856 for the education and maintenance of the son of the late King Theodore was arrived at, and contrasted the liberality thus shown to a Prince whose father, at least, had not deserved our gratitude, with the refusal of our Government to vote a single farthing to show proper respect to Prince Kassa, to whose friendship, they had it on the testimony of Lord Napier of Magdala, that the success of our expedition to Abyssinia was very greatly owing. Prince Kassa entertained our Envoys, protected our communications, and provided supplies of food for our troops. He now wished his Envoys to visit England for a political object connected with the civilization of his own country, and, like an Eastern Prince, he desired them to be received when they came here with a moderate amount of hospitality becoming their rank. That, however, was entirely declined, and a Prince to whom we were much indebted was treated with the greatest indignity.

confirmed what had just been said of the importance of Prince Kassa's services to the Abyssinian Expedition, and stated that that Prince wished to send two Envoys to this country with a letter and a present to the Queen. The Envoys had been detained in Egypt since last October, and they were told that they might send the present, but that they could not come themselves, for we could not make them our guests, although it was said the Pasha of Egypt, with more generosity, had made them his guests during their detention in Egypt. The Prince had sent a message to him (Colonel Sykes), through Colonel Kirkman in his service, that he was willing to give free grants of land to European immigrants in his country for the cultivation of cotton, sugar, and indigo. We had a name and a dignity to maintain in the world, and would be made a by-word by refusing to defray the trifling cost of entertaining at the Clarendon or Claridge's Hotels, of Prince Kassa's two Envoys for a couple of months.

said, he could not concur in the view taken by the last speaker. After the costly and painful experience we had lately had, he thought we had every reason to look with great caution upon anything which might entangle us in transactions with Abyssinian Potentates and Princes. It was very undesirable that the Government should in any way recognize those Abyssinian Envoys, or should hold out the least inducement to Europeans to settle in those barbarous countries, except entirely at their own risk. Turning to another subject, if the Government draughtsmen were not fully employed, he was not convinced that the draughting of the Bills included in that Vote should not have been done by the legal officers of the Crown.

said, the Correspondence on the subject, which was accessible to any hon. Gentleman, fully explained why Messrs. Freshfield and Co. were employed. It was thought that no one was so competent to undertake the preparation of Bills involving so much detail and so much difficulty as the gentlemen who had been so many years employed in connection with the Bank.

said, he was not altogether satisfied with the explanation which had been given of the item for drawing the Bills with reference to the National Debt. No reason had been assigned why the Statute Law Revision Bill should not have been drawn by the Government draughtsmen, and he would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £800 in respect of that Bill.

explained that this Bill also, although described as the Statute Law Revision Bill, formed a part of the work of consolidation of the laws relating to the National Debt.

inquired the meaning of an item of £46, an allowance for "a Congo pirate chief, and rations to him."

said, that he would explain the matter on the Report.

asked for the names of the distinguished persons conveyed by packet; he referred to the Vote for £83 5s. for that purpose.

promised to supply the names on bringing up the Report.

asked upon what grounds this Vote was asked for.

stated that the officers lived in the Embassy house, and on the occasion of the fire they all exerted themselves most zealously to put it out, even at the risk of their lives; but, although they managed to save some of the public property, they lost all their own. Under these circumstances, it would be cruel not to compensate them, in accordance with uniform precedent. It was proposed to grant to each officer some proportion of his estimated loss, but not the whole.

believed that in many cases the Government would be recouped from insurances had not those insurances been stopped from motives of economy. At Shanghai, for instance, the Consulate offices were burnt down only 15 days after the insurance, which was not renewed, had expired. He fully agreed that the officers were entitled to some compensation.

mentioned that last year it was stated that, before the Embassy house at Constantinople was rebuilt, estimates of the expense would be laid on the Table of the House; and he wished to know when those estimates would be in the hands of Members?

said, the estimate would form part of the Civil Service Estimates for the present year. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay), the Government had pursued the course adopted by all owners of large property, and had been their own insurers. In the case of Constantinople, the Treasury consented to make a contribution in aid of the sufferers. It was true that the Consulate offices at Shanghai were uninsured, and were burnt down; but he felt convinced that the premiums which they would have had to pay on property in China and Japan would have exceeded in amount their probable losses by fire.

said, he did not rise to oppose the Vote, which was incurred in what they all regarded as the performance of a duty on the part of the Government. He had only risen because the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baxter), in answering a Question on this subject on a former evening, after stating the quantity of provisions then in course of being sent, had added, that the fact of their being able to send such a quantity would be an answer to the criticisms made with regard to the very great re- duction made in the Government stores. The amount of tons which the hon. Gentleman mentioned to the House as being in our possession amounted to about 17 days' provisions for a fleet of 50,000 men, and he therefore did not think the amount so large when the country expected that there should be at least a year's provisions in store.

said, he had stated that the Government with three days' notice had sent 2,500 tons of provisions and that 1,100 tons more were ready for the purpose, if necessary. He altogether disputed the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there were only 17 days' provisions for 50,000 men in store; but during the Recess the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others had caused great apprehension in the country by charging the Government with having greatly reduced the stores, and he took the opportunity of showing that these statements were utterly unwarrantable.

asked whether the amount mentioned was the total amount sent out?

replied that £48,000 was the value of the naval store contributed by the Admiralty, and the whole was replaced by the purchase department in a week.

said, he would be glad to learn how the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had arrived at the estimate with which he had favoured the Committee—an estimate which credited each seaman with eating something like 7 lb of solid food per day.

said, he had not the figures by him; but he had given them on the strength of an accurate calculation made by Mr. Richards, the late Controller of Victualling. He had himself gone into the figures; but his calculation amounted to 21 days, while Mr. Richards' was 17.

observed, that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had made a similar statement, one which he found had occasioned great merriment at the Treasury.

, in rising to move—

"That when Papers are presented by Command, or in pursuance of an Order of this House, or in answer to an Address, the same shall be laid upon the Table in such a form as to ensure a speedy delivery thereof to Members,"

said: Sir, I will not take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes. The matter which I wish to bring before it is a very simple one, and at first sight may appear very unimportant; but on consideration I think it will be found to deserve immediate attention. Sir, hon. Members, who sit on the Front Benches, and occupy official positions, are not much dependent on Parliamentary Papers for information as to subjects which interest them. They can obtain from their own Departments, or from the Departments of their Colleagues, all, or almost all, the information they require; but unofficial Members, like myself, are altogether dependent on those Returns, and cannot stir a step without them; and therefore it is of the last importance to us that the Papers moved for should be distributed with the utmost possible expedition and regularity. But, Sir, a practice has grown up which retards the distribution of Papers, and make it inconveniently irregular. This practice is, if I may call it by a single name, that of "dummies." What I mean is the practice of laying Papers on the Table of the House in blank, which is done that they may come out during the Recess; and unless they are so laid on the Table and are ordered to be printed, they cannot be circulated. Well, Sir, this practice, which began in an indulgence, has degenerated into an abuse. Those who lay the dummies on the Table, as happens in more serious matters, think they have cleared their consciences by the form, and seem not to care when the Returns themselves are delivered. I support this remark by a statement which I have in my hands, which shows that 15 Papers, moved for last Session, at dates between the 29th of April and the 10th of August, were not delivered till quite recently—that is, between the 10th of February and the 15th of March this Session. But, Sir, I can go a step beyond this, for the statement shows that seven Papers moved for last Session, between the 9th of June and the 10th of August, have not been delivered even yet. But even this is not all. I find there are two Papers which were moved for in the Session of 1868–9, which are still undelivered. It is obvious how much this must embarrass the arrangements even in the Library of the House, for the volumes cannot be bound up till these Papers are delivered. To private Members the inconvenience is very great, as they must either keep their Papers unbound, or leave them in the binders' hands till they are completed. With all deference to the better judgment of the Committee, of which you, Sir, are Chairman, I would suggest that, as a remedy for this abuse, it should be ordered that when Papers are laid on the Table in blank they should be accompanied with a statement of the exact period within which the real Papers will be distributed. I would further suggest that the period should be limited to four months from the end of the Session, so that all the Papers connected with that Session may be bound up at least a month before Parliament meets for the next Session. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.