acquainted the House, that he had received from Lord Charles James Fox Russell the following letter:—

said, he had given Notice of his intention to ask Questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with reference to the manufacture of 81-ton guns and the application of the "Woolwich system" of rifling and projectiles to the 35-ton gun. He did not mean to enter into the scientific bearings of the question, but the system of rifling called the "Woolwich system," which was in reality French, had met with great opposition from very many able artilleryists. They were not satisfied that it was the right system. Experiments had been tried to test this in 1865 and 1866 with some large 7-inch guns, and as the result of experience it had been abandoned with all those guns which entered into the competition. But for all the larger guns, in which there was no competition whatever, this vicious system was retained. He therefore wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out the trials between the larger guns rifled on the present system. It was the fact that many of the larger guns had not proved at all satisfactory, and several of them had been returned as unserviceable. He wanted to know not only that the guns were to be rifled on a plan which was safe, but also that the shot fired from them should be made in such a manner that they would not break up in the gun. At present, the gunner never knew whether the inner tube of the gun would or would not crack, or whether the projectile would leave the gun in one piece or several. He begged to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to manufacture any more 81-ton Guns; whether any 35-ton Gun had been tested to destruction, or what experiments of an exhaustive nature have been carried out with such a result as to satisfy the War Department with the application of the "Woolwich system" of rifling and projectiles to this size of Gun; whether the work done by the present 35-ton Gun is so superior to that done by the 25-ton Gun as to warrant the advisability of building still larger Guns on the same principle; and, whether the Ordnance Department are now prepared to supply the Naval Service with shell calculated to withstand with safety the battering charges of the 18-ton and heavier Guns? The subject was one of great importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory answer.

, in rising to call attention to the present exceptional position of the country as regarded the manufacture of muzzle-loading ordnance, a system abandoned by the Continental Powers of Europe, said, in his opinion, they had displayed extraordinary courage, or rather hardihood, in thus defying the general opinion of those Powers. As a financial question, it was a matter of some importance, for it was proposed that year to expend £200,000 in the manufacture of guns, and the estimate for projectiles was £100,000. A large sum would be spent on the carriages of those guns, and also in adapting the fortifications to them. The latter could no doubt be adapted for breech-loading guns; but if we changed the system, the former amounts, in a great degree, would have been wasted. It was 14 years since we commenced the manufacture of rifled cannon, and our fortresses were not yet entirely armed with rifled pieces. If, therefore, we introduced breech-loading instead of muzzle-loading guns, it would take 14 years to replace the present guns with new and more advanced pieces of ordnance; and, in the end, probably £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 would be found to have been thrown away. But apart from financial considerations, we should incur great danger should we go to war with inferior guns, and find ourselves at as great a disadvantage as the French were in relation to the Prussians in the late war. There was an immense preponderance of opinion against us on this subject. Russia had devoted herself entirely to the adoption of breech-loaders. Having tried muzzle-loading guns on their own plan, and pronounced them a failure, the Russians, since 1866, had adopted the breech-loading principle. Since 1864 the Prussian Artillery had been partially armed with breech-loading guns; but at first muzzle-loading, smooth-bore guns were retained for one-third of the force. Immediately after Sadowa, however, it was reported that muzzle-loading, smooth-bore guns were useless, and that they were an encumbrance which was not compensated for by their power in action; and since then the Prussians had used breech-loading guns exclusively. Austria had, until lately, used both kinds of guns in her navy and for coast defence, with, however, a preponderance of breech-loaders, and now it had determined to exclude muzzle-loaders, and last year, in a panic, it experimented on a field-gun made by Krupp, which was a little better than the Prussian gun. The results of the practice were extraordinary, for it was found that the gun of which Austria hitherto had been proud, made only one-seventh of the number of hits at a target which were made by the new gun at 5,000 paces; one-eighth at 3,000 paces, and one-fourth at 2,000 paces; and the conclusion was arrived at that Austria would be helpless if it were opposed to Prussian breech-loading artillery. Turkey was influenced in her adherence to muzzle-loading guns by her extensive relations with England, and it had been said by a Turkish Pacha that he would not be persuaded even by an angel to take anything that was not manufactured according to "Woolwich fashions; but since then the mother of the Sultan had presented the Army with Krupp guns, and breech-loaders had been exclusively a dopted for their field artillery. Sweden adhered as long as possible to muzzle-loading guns, as best suited to her cast-iron manufacture, but she had now adopted breech-loaders. Belgium had been in favour of the breech-loading system for a long time. France had had breech-loading heavy guns for some time; but she went into the last war with her field artillery armed with muzzle-loading guns; and the return of the war showed that 10 percent of wounded Prussians and 25 per cent of wounded Frenchmen were wounded by artillery fire, so that the Prussian guns were twice and a-half as effective as the French guns. That was the material effect, and, of course, the moral effect would be great among men who knew they were losing 50 men for every 20 they disabled. Italy had oscillated, but he believed now had adopted breechloaders. Spain followed the example of France until the last war, when both sides, Carlists and Alfonsists, found muzzle-loading guns useless, and adopted breech-loaders. "Whatever arm they might adhere to in time of peace, each of these countries, when it entered into war, or found danger imminent, changed to the breech-loading system. Some people might say that such a subject would be better dealt with by a Scientific Committee. He (Captain Nolan) was not of that opinion, because the House of Commons had always displayed great power in comparing opinions; he thought, therefore, that they were fully qualified to deal with this subject. Scientific reports, moreover, had already been made in the case of other European nations, and it was on the strength of those reports that the system of breechloaders had been generally adopted. It might be said that Holland still had some muzzle-loaders, but her principal gun for coast defence was a breechloader. The United States was practically without an artillery system, and during the Civil War both sides used chiefly smooth-bore guns; but its Government had lately directed Captain Simpson, a naval officer, to inquire into the different systems of Europe; he had carefully studied the English method, devoting one of the two large volumes of his report to English Artillery; and he had reported strongly and decisively in favour of breech-loading. China, Japan, and Brazil followed our example, because they bought their guns in England without making independent experiments. Practically, we stood alone, in face of the military opinion of Europe, and also in face of the opinion of our own civil engineers, as expressed a few weeks ago at a meeting of their Institute, when all the speakers expressed a decided preference for the breech-loading principle, and the President stated further that Sir Joseph Whitworth and Sir William Armstrong were both in favour of it. As to our military authorities, unfortunately they made experiments and Reports while the question was in process of solution, and while Europe was divided in opinion, and if there were further reference to these authorities, it would be hard for them to go back on their previously-expressed opinions. For all these reasons, and because the question was so important, it was one for the decision of the Cabinet, who would not be free from responsibility if we suffered from an adherence to the muzzle-loading system after all other countries had decided I against it. Before entering upon the I question of the relative superiority of the breech-loader and the muzzle-loader, it was necessary to clear the subject from extraneous considerations, such as the proper material of a gun and the nature of the projectile employed. When rifle guns were first introduced, each country had its own views as to the best metal. Prussia was in favour of steel guns. Sweden and the United States preferred their cast iron, which was better than that made elsewhere; while Great Britain, which was more celebrated for its wrought iron, tried to manufacture its guns from that material. It was then found that wrought-iron guns were not to be relied upon, and, eventually, only two metals were used—steel, or a mixture, as in this country, of wrought-iron with a certain proportion of steel. The performances of the projectiles employed, such as the number of men they might kill or the depth of iron plates they went through, were equally extraneous to the point at issue, because either breech or muzzle-loading guns might be made to show very destructive effects. The only superiority which he now claimed for breech-loading guns in regard to projectiles was in the absence of windage. The great superiority of breech-loading guns was in the diminished exposure of the men. He might illustrate that by referring to what happened when a sportsman had to fire at wild game from behind a bank. If after firing once, he wanted to try for another shot, he would have great difficulty in hiding himself from the game when he had to use a long and clumsy ramrod. So, in an engagement, three or four men had to stand in front of a muzzle-loader to load, ram down the shot, &c, and while they were thus serving the gun more men would always be shot than in serving a breech-loader. Perhaps in an engagement between two ships or two batteries not more than 30 or 40 additional men would thus be shot, and that might not be thought a large number; but the moral effect of losing the most skilled and the bravest men by exposure to fire would be great and of a cumulative nature, and, in the long run, men would not do their work so well when they were exposed as when they served under the cover of a breech-loading gun. A muzzle-loader was loaded in one position and fired in another, and the same amount of cover could not be secured for both, except by adopting Major Moncrieff's invention, which no doubt made it as safe during loading as in firing. The fact, therefore, that the men were more exposed to destruction in serving muzzle-loading guns was the main reason why Continental nations had adopted the breech-loader. The question then arose as to which gun lasted the longest. The life of a gun must be measured by the number of charges it would fire, and these must not be what were called ordinary or full charges, but battering charges, which alone could be effective in active service, so far as armour-piercing guns were concerned. In reference to the point a Committee had reported that the difference of recoil, when two descriptions of charge were alternately employed, caused serious delay in loading, and they directed the use of the battering charge only in actual war. Then came the question, what number of battering charges could be safely allowed, and in regard to that point, the latest order which had been issued was, that guns over 10-inch were not to fire more than 100 battery charges without being sent to be re-examined. That appeared to him to be a small number of rounds, and in the case of a vessel sent abroad the limit would soon be reached. This great wear and tear of the muzzle-loader was caused by the erosion, and because the projectile could not exactly fit the gun. Now, foreign Governments had taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain the relative endurance of the two systems of guns, and there were some important experiments made at Tesel, in 1868, bearing upon this subject. The Prussians sent over for a 9-inch gun, and tried a 9¼-inch gun against it. The first result was that the English gun beat the Prussian gun. The Prussians then altered the projectile and the powder charge of their piece, then the armour-piercing performances of both guns became practically equal—the Germans claiming a slight superiority. But what was the real result of this experiment? This fact was established, that the German gun possessed far the greater endurance. This question of endurance was one of great importance. The English muzzle-loader fired 200 or 250 rounds, then becoming unserviceable, while the Prussian gun fired 600 rounds, so that the Prussian gun lasted three times as long. Austria had also made a similar experiment expressly to check the last-mentioned result, by which it appeared that the English muzzle-loader at the 111th round became unserviceable, but the Austrian gun remained good. With reference to the Navy, he could not undertake to speak authoritatively, in the presence of so many naval officers. Here the question of relative speed became specially important, and he would not on this much debated point claim now a superiority for the breech-loader, although his own opinion was even here in its favour, but as with keepers in cover shooting, great skill and practice were necessary to load muzzle-loaders fast, while fair proficiency with the breech-loader was more easily attained. With the want of protection, however, to which he had already referred, the skilled men might very soon fall in action, and then the superiority so claimed would cease to exist. Captain Simpson, in speaking of the reasons for the adoption of the muzzle-loading gun by this country, said, that the Armstrong breechloader having been found to fail, it was given up, and then arose a prejudiced belief that as we had failed in a solution of the problem, the problem must be necessarily incapable of solution. No efforts were made to adopt the system prevailing abroad, although the English mind was ready to embark in the breech-loading system. The Government, he added, committed itself entirely to the muzzle-loading system; the plant at Woolwich was adapted to the sole manufacture of that system of gun, and it would now require an immense superiority in the breech-loader to induce them to adopt that system. He (Captain Nolan) believed that other causes operated to bring about the present state of things. As people believed that the fact that the muzzle-loader had been adopted was in itself a proof of its being a better gun, he would point out that there were four causes which had induced England to adopt the system of muzzle-loading. In the first place, England had been accustomed for a short time, some four or five years ago, to use a very strong description of powder, thereby committing a mistake, as was now admitted. The consequence was that we had short guns, and by that had lost some of the benefits we might otherwise have obtained. A different powder was now used, and we could employ long guns which obviously demanded a breech-loading arrangement much more than the shorter pieces. Again, the kind of breech-loader first adopted was one where the breech piece had to be lifted every time out of the gun before the ammunition could be introduced; and as our guns got heavier it became very awkward to lift the breech piece, and consequently it was found that for large guns this breech-loading system would not answer; but that reason did not act in any other country, because they had only to displace horizontally the breechblock. A further reason arose from our Indian position. In India the simplicity of muzzle-loading guns gave some undoubted advantages, and as muzzle-loading guns and ammunition could alone be manufactured in that country its Government had favoured muzzle-loaders, and it was directly through a Committee on Indian guns that we had first definitely pronounced for muzzle-loading. Another reason might be found in the Feathers decision that the Crown might adopt warlike inventions without compensating the inventors, which had prevented foreigners to a very great extent from introducing their inventions to this country. Prussia acted in very much the same manner with reference to foreign military inventions; but, on the other hand, she had been careful to try the systems in vogue in England. He would press a last reason of the greatest importance on the House. It ought to be borne in mind that, while we had adopted a system as regarded ordnance totally different from that of any other civilized Power, the science of artillery was continually progressing; and it was hard to say what country in Europe did not every year contribute to its advancement. It was therefore of great importance that the Government should consider every improvement, and exercise the greatest vigilance in order that the best system might be adopted, for while it was extremely difficult to introduce into the muzzle-loader the improvements effected from time to time in I the breech-loader, other countries would probably be able to adapt to their breech-loaders improvements originally devised for other breech-loaders. England in this matter had taken up an isolated position and was not able to adopt the improvements of other countries. In fact, we declared ourselves wiser than our neighbours without carefully testing those parts of their systems which we pronounced inferior. At the same time he believed, it was acknowledged that it was a mere question of time as to when we were to take up breech-loading, and therefore in adhering to our present system we were only postponing the evil day and putting off a change, which, when it did come, would, he feared, be a costly one.

hoped that as the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had not favoured the House with a lengthy speech upon the subject he would excuse categorical, answers to his Questions and that the answers would be satisfactory. To the first Question the Answer was, that it was proposed to manufacture more 81-ton guns, and he (Lord Eustace Cecil) believed one of the reasons was, that the Navy would very shortly require these very large guns. To the second Question, the Answer was, that no 35-ton gun had been actually tested to destruction, because it was not deemed necessary to do so; but long exhaustive experiments had been carried on with 35-ton guns, which combined with their experience had satisfied those most competent to judge of the matter that the "Woolwich system" was applicable to that sized gun. To the third Question the Answer was, that the work done by a 35-ton gun was so superior to that done by a 25-ton gun in the opinion of those who presided over the matter, that it was deemed advisable to build still larger guns on the same principle. To the fourth Question the Answer was, that the Ordnance Department had supplied the naval service with shell calculated to withstand 18-ton and heavier guns. As to the subject which the hon. and gallant Member for Gralway (Captain Nolan) had brought forward with his usual knowledge and ability on these matters, he thought he might remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was hardly ripe for discussion in the House of Commons. Opinion was very much divided, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself had admitted, upon these matters, though no doubt there was a certain amount of foreign scientific opinion in favour of his view. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) was talking now of English scientific opinion. He must remind the hon. and gallant Member that that was not the first time that we as a nation had embarked in a breech-loading system. We adopted in, he believed, 1858, the Armstrong breech-loading system. That system was very carefully tested, and after a considerable amount of trial it was gradually abandoned both by the Artillery and the Navy, and no breech-loading guns were manufactured after 1868. He need not enter into the defects of the Armstrong principle. It would take too long to enter into very minute detail with that subject; but he might say it was very carefully considered by a number of scientific Committees. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was a member of a scientific corps, would not throw any doubt on the value of the Reports of those Committees, because the officers who sat on them were of the highest experience and ability, and were as competent to give an opinion as any gentleman, whether of civil or military experience, in the country. The first Committee, which reported in 1864, was the Ordnance Select Committee, and their Report led to the adoption of the present Woolwich system. Then there was the Armstrong and Whit-worth Committee, before whom both these inventions had a very fair trial, but the Report of the Committee was not in their favour. Then there was the Committee of 13 superior officers of the Royal Artillery, in 1866, and they were unanimous in recommending muzzle-loading field guns. Next there was the Dartmoor Committee of 1869, and they also reported in favour of muzzle-loading guns.

said, that that Committee was appointed exclusively to consider the question of shells, and had nothing to do with muzzle-loading and breech-loading.

wished to pay due deference to the superior scientific knowledge of the hon. and gallant Member upon the subject; but still he must observe that, though the Committee did not directly report upon the question now under discussion, yet indirectly they did, and in a manner that was unfavourable to the breech-loading system. Further, there was the India Committee upon field-artillery equipment, in 1870, who were in favour of the muzzle-loading gun. He believed the hon. and gallant Member stated, in the course of his remarks, that one of the reasons why we introduced the muzzle-loading guns was that India introduced them, and that we were obliged to follow suit. That might be so; but it was quite new to him (Lord Eustace Cecil), and he had never heard that it was one of the reasons which weighed with the authorities at the time. Then we came to the Committee of 1871 on muzzle and breech-loading guns, consisting of 11 officers, who with one dissentient only, stated that the muzzle-loading gun was superior in range and accuracy, in point of simplicity, facility of repair, easy working, rapidity of fire, and original cost. That Committee sat in full view of the affairs that had occurred on the Continent, and they were able to judge from practical experience of the merits of the two systems. The hon. and gallant Member would probably say that he was placing rather an official value upon these Reports, and that he might feel himself bound to support those who had reported to the Secretary of State for War, and therefore he would refer the House to the opinion of a gentleman who did not come within this range. The late Director of Naval Ordnance, Captain Hood, in his Report to the Admiralty, made some remarks of importance upon this question. He summed up a very able Report upon the two systems, and said that the points of the greatest importance in connection with these rival guns were strength, endurance, accuracy, and liability to accidents. As to strength and endurance, he stated that breech-loading weakened the breech; as to accuracy of firing, that the muzzle-loading gun was very satisfactory, and that the power of penetration was good, and had been greatly increased by the adoption of pebble powder. The operation of loading also was very much simpler in the muzzle-loader, and accidents with that weapon were far less likely to occur in action. No doubt it might be said—" How does this bear upon the fact that so many foreign countries had taken up this breech-loading system as against the muzzle-loading system?" To that question he would say that there was nothing so successful as success. Man was an imitative animal. They all knew that Prussia was fortunate in the last war; she used breech-loading guns, therefore almost everybody jumped to the conclusion that breech-loading guns were the things with which to conquer their enemies. But upon a matter of this kind it was most essential that the Government should proceed with caution and care. They found that the Austrian", and even the Germans, were not quite confident about the success of the Krupp guns. It was certain that an extraordinary number of accidents, with loss of life, had year after year taken place in the German service, arising from the guns; and at Woolwich one of the Krupp guns burst upon the second loading. Whatever the future of Artillery manufacture might be, it was quite certain that the Krupp type of gun had not yet reached perfection. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Nolan) had made some very strong observations in favour of the breech-loading gun, and had quoted the opinions of several distinguished officers bearing upon the same point, and had also said the Institute of Civil Engineers, as a body, had decided in the same direction; but in 1873 there was the report of a foreign officer, who said that, although the immediate future was for breech-loading, it was still perfectly certain that they should not adopt the gun loading by the breech, unless they could find one that was superior to all known guns that were loaded by the muzzle. The French Government also, in 1873, after a most exhaustive trial, said that the Woolwich service gun gave results which were not inferior to any other field gun in service in Europe. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) did not say that these opinions settled the question absolutely; but they did show that there was very great difference of opinion among the most competent judges, and would it not be wise under these circumstances—the question being of such very great importance, and there being the Reports of six Committees within the last nine or ten years, which were almost unanimously in favour of our present system—would it not be wise at the present moment to consider what might be the effect of some future invention in reference to the Krupp gun, before we remodelled the whole of our Artillery system? He could not but think that if they took steps at once, they would raise the whole corps of inventors about their ears, and perhaps, after they had gone through many trials and incurred enormous expenditure, they would come back to the point where they where now. He did not think that at this moment the House, or, indeed, anybody else, was competent to arrive at a definite conclusion upon the matter. This, however, he would say, that the matter was one which was being constantly watched. He believed that the Artillery opinion of Woolwich was quiescent upon the subject at this moment; and he did not believe that there was any very strong opinion one way or the other. He recollected, indeed, having a conversation with the late Colonel Milward, who was a great supporter of breech-loaders, but he did not think that there was any very strong feeling about the question at Woolwich. As he had said before, scientific opinion generally was divided concerning it, and he therefore thought it would be best on the whole to let the question rest for the present; but this he was sure of, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War always took into consideration any evidence that was brought forward, and which would be really useful in enabling anyone to form a conclusion upon the question. He was quite certain that whatever foreign countries did would be known in this country; but the trials abroad were not always quite fair in reference to our guns as regarded the charges used, and the results indicated. That being so, hon. Members should not lay too much stress upon trials of guns abroad, unless they were perfectly certain that the conditions were perfectly equal in all respects. He felt certain that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Nolan) would take into his consideration the difficulties of the subject; and, indeed, he had some hope that they might convert him to the opinion that the time for action in this matter had not yet arrived.

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had done good service in calling attention to the subject, as both on board ship and in the field there was under the muzzle-loading system a needless exposure of life. That exposure should, he thought, be made an important point when discussing the comparative merits of breech and muzzle-loaders. The chief point with which at present they had to deal, however, was the erosion of the gun. With regard to that point, he (Lord Elcho) was at the meeting of the Civil Service Engineers which had been referred to, and at that meeting there was a paper read upon the subject by Mr. Lancaster. The result arrived at was the fact that English-made breech-loading guns suffered greatly from the erosion caused by the generation of gases in the act of firing the guns. There was nothing better in the world than the external manufacture of Woolwich guns; but it was found that owing to the escape of gas between the projectile and the body of the gun there was such a rush of gas that the gun was destroyed in a comparatively few rounds. No doubt, great good would be done by calling attention to the question of guns; but the main point for consideration was the erosion of the gun. The Civil Service Engineers were of opinion that there was something radically wrong in our system of boring and constructing guns, because the life of Tube A—that was the inner tube—in the British gun was only about 375 rounds; whereas the life of the same tube in the Krupp gun had been proved to be 800 rounds. Manifestly there must be some defect in a system of rifling which produced results such as that, and he hoped attention would be paid to the subject. On the general question of muzzle-loading versus breech-loading, he ventured to think that as a vast amount of money had already been expended in carrying out the present system, it would be well, before adopting an entirely new plan, involving vastly-increased expenditure, to endeavour, either by an improvement in the system of rifling or some other means, to utilize the existing arms.

gave Notice that, as the noble Lord the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Lord Eustace Cecil) had not answered his Questions in reference to ordnance and projectiles, he should repeat them on another occasion.

said, he agreed that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had done good service in directing attention to the subject, because, although he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not agree in his conclusions, it was unquestionably one of the most important questions connected with our military affairs. This country laboured under a disadvantage as compared with other countries with regard to the number of men, but we ought to be in a much better position than they were with regard to the matériel of war. The muzzle-loading system had not been adopted from any prejudice on the part of our naval and military authorities. When the question was first raised the breech-loading system was in favour, and it was only after a searching investigation by a series of Committees that the muzzle-loading system was adopted. If he remembered rightly, the principal Committee was all but unanimous in its recommendation on that point, only one Member doubting its expediency, and he did so on the ground that, in the case of siege guns worked in entrenchments, muzzle-loaders were more exposed in the act of loading than breech-loaders. They had, however, other than siege guns to provide, and in consequence of the scare in the Navy from the accidents that happened from breech-loaders, muzzle-loaders had to be supplied for that service, in place of the breech-loaders which had been manufactured for it at an enormous expense, and in consequence there were numbers of the latter lying useless at Woolwich at the present time. It was obviously advisable to adopt a system suitable for both services. As regarded field guns, there were one or two advantages which muzzle-loading field guns possessed, and which must be obvious even to hon. Members who, like himself, could pretend to no technical knowledge of the subject. He might point out that it was essential that field guns should be as simple in construction as possible. There should be nothing about them which was easily lost in a rapid movement, or which might require a skilled workman to repair; and there could be no doubt that the muzzle-loader possessed great advantages over the breech-loader in this respect. He did not see how there was more danger in loading one than the other; muzzle-loading might be a longer process than the other, but the risk to a man standing before a gun was not much greater than to a man behind it. All these facts were taken into consideration at the time by the War Office, with their eyes open to what was going on abroad. There was great force in what the noble Lord the Surveyor General of the Ordnance had suggested, that because the Prussians were successful in the war of 1870, other nations jumped to the conclusion that by adopting the same system they also must be successful. He had no doubt that the War Office would be alive to any improvements that were being made, and they would not go on with the muzzle-loading system if they did not believe it furnished the country with the most efficient guns that could be had. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) was, as he was informed, under a mistake with regard to India. It was not the fact that the muzzle-loading system had been adopted in this country out of respect to the Indian Government. An attempt was made to construct guns in India of brass; but it proved a failure, and the muzzle-loading guns now used in India were all made in this country.

said, he had also to express the obligation of the House to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) for having brought a subject of such importance before them. But he declined to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to his conclusions, for he found that the opinion of a series of Committees from 1864 down to the present time had been almost entirely in favour of muzzle-loading guns. In the case of field guns, there was an idea that it was safer to serve breech-loaders than muzzle-loaders; but that was open to question, for men behind guns were peculiarly subject to be killed by splinters in consequence of shot striking the gun or its carriage. As regarded durability, he found that there was a very general opinion in favour of muzzle-loaders. Guns of that description certainly possessed the advantage of simplicity, for in the case of breechloaders accidents constantly happened from the breech being carelessly or hastily closed. As the amount annually spent by this country in the construction of guns was very large indeed—the total amount to be expended up to 1876 being £4,220,000—he deprecated any hasty re-opening of the question of the comparative merits of breech-loaders and muzzle-loaders. Captain Hood in his Report spoke specially of the safety of muzzle-loaders both in ships and garrisons, where—in the latter—now they could be drawn within the mantlets and not exposed at the embrasures. In conclusion, he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) would assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the matter had occupied the serious attention of the Government. Looking at what was going on in foreign countries, they were determined to keep their eyes wide open and not to shrink from any expenditure that might be incurred when they were certain of being in the right track.

explained that this was in reality a Civil Service Estimate of which cine Notice had boon given.

said, he would take advantage of that occasion to say that when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War announced the retirement of the present Chaplain General to the Forces, on whose distinguished services he had passed a high eulogium, he had not informed the House who was to be his successor. It had, however, been naturally inferred, and he (Colonel Alexander) ventured to point out, that gentlemen with the necessary qualifications for the post were to be found among the existing chaplains of the Army of the first class. He did not wish to draw invidious distinctions, but taking the names of the first six gentlemen in that class—the Ven. Archdeacon Wright, who had served 21 years, including service in the Crimea; the Rev. J. E. Sabin, who served in the East in 1854; the Rev. C. Green, who had been in the service since 1846; the Rev. H. Huleatt, who had served in 1854 in the Crimea, and in China from 1857 to 1859, when he was dangerously wounded; the Rev. C. J. Hort, the Rev. E. J. Rogers, and the Rev. E. Halpin, chaplain to the Forces in London—he found they had served for long periods in the most meritorious manner. He considered, therefore, they had been very unfairly treated in being passed over in favour of a gentleman who, however distinguished, had no connection whatever with the Army. Notwithstanding their gallant, distinguished, and meritorious services, it appeared that they were considered totally incompetent to perform the duties of Chaplain General to the Forces; at least, as much might be inferred from the circumstance that a civilian had been selected for the appointment, for a retired colonial Bishop had been appointed, who had, he believed, written a very interesting treatise on the Thirty-nine Articles, and also some letters to Lord Derby on the subject of Convocation. The six chaplains to whom he had referred were, under the circumstances, he could not help thinking, entitled to say "Other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours." Sic vos non vobis nidificatis aves. A slur had, he was afraid, been cast upon them which would tend to humiliate them in the eyes of the Army.

said, he felt bound to state that the new appointment was one which had given the greatest pain to the Army, although he felt confident his right hon. Friend at the head of the "War Office never contemplated that it would have had any such result. In the case of Archdeacon Wright, especially, it had been regarded as a slur. He had always regretted that when the Army returned from Ashantee, when others were receiving rewards, nothing was done for the chaplains who accompanied the troops. He hoped the subject would yet be considered by those who had the means of rewarding merit by promotion in the Church.

said, the observations which had just been made on the subject had taken him quite by surprise, and he must disclaim the slightest intention of casting any slur on the chaplains of the Army. In selecting the person who had been chosen, he had acted solely from a desire to do that which would best promote the interests of the chaplains themselves, for it was pressed upon him that difficulties had constantly arisen when Episcopal authority was desirable, and, indeed, the Chaplain General had to exercise, to a certain extent, quasi-episcopal functions on many occasions; and he was advised that it was desirable, in consequence, that a person possessing the requisite authority in that respect should be selected for the office. Those were his sole reasons for making the selection to which objection was taken, for he was quite as much alive as his hon. and gallant Friends to the services which had been rendered to the country by the chaplains of the Army both at home and abroad.

expressed a hope that the eminent services of Archdeacon Wright, who was at the head of the list, would receive some recognition.

said, no body of men deserved better of the Army or of the country than the Army chaplains, and, whilst giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for his good intentions, he could not help thinking that the selection of a gentleman altogether outside the Army would be regarded by many of them as most painful and invidious. The late Chaplain General's great value to the Army arose from the long knowledge of soldiers which he acquired during the Peninsular War; and amongst the military chaplains now superseded there were many who had established strong claims in the same manner.

suggested the expediency of increasing the salaries of the officials of military prisons, and especially the salaries of the governors and the chief warders, who had duties thrown on them requiring great prudence, tact, and moderation, combined with firmness, for their due performance. Notwithstanding the great rise in the price of provisions, their salaries had not been raised for 25 years. He hoped that next year the Government would be able to see their way to raising the salaries of the governors from a maximum of £350 to one of £400, and those of the chief warders from 5s. 8d. to 6s. 6d. per day.

appealed to the Secretary of State for War to give some assurance that the grievances of the medical officers of the Army, which he understood were now under the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, would he redressed as speedily as possible, whether by the issue of a new Warrant or otherwise.

said, the case of the medical men had been constantly under his consideration, but there was so much difference among those gentlemen themselves as to what their grievances were, and also as to how they ought to be met, that it was difficult to arrive at a clear judgment on the question. He found himself deluged with pamphlets, in which the most opposite views were urged, and these were all of them written by men of eminence in their profession. There were, however, some points in reference to which he should be able to grant some advantages, and he hoped to be able to do that in the course of the present year.

said, he proposed to postpone the Vote for the Militia, in consequence of the absence at quarter sessions of some hon. Members who would have taken part in the discussion of it. He would give Notice of the day on which it should come on.

said, that the horse tax, from which the Yeomanry Cavalry used to be exempt, having been abolished, that Force had now no special encouragement offered to it. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give some further encouragement to men to come forward to serve in the Force?

said, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had under his consideration various schemes for the amelioration of the Yeomanry Cavalry, and it was his intention very shortly to appoint a Committee, consisting partly of officers of the Yeomanry, partly of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and partly of officers of the Army, which would meet at the end of that week, or shortly afterwards, to inquire into the various points that were necessary for bringing the Yeomanry into harmony with the other defensive Forces of the country. It was probable that among the various matters brought before them, there would be that of the difference made in the position of the Yeomanry by the abolition of the horse tax.

believed that under the present system the money voted for the Yeomanry was entirely thrown away. They were brought out only seven days in the course of the year, and their actual drill did not exceed four and a-half days, which was quite insufficient to make the Force what it ought to be. He would suggest that it should be trained in conjunction with some of the other Forces of the country.

asked the Secretary for War if he would add in future in the Appendix to the Army Estimates a statement of the Forces of Volunteers, Yeomanry, and Militia, so as to show the establishments by ranks and numbers of the Militia Artillery and Militia Infantry regiments; also of the Volunteer battalions and Yeomanry, classifying them each under the counties to which belonging, or in which raised, with the number of companies, batteries, and troops? He believed that this information would be of advantage by showing the extent of Forces available in the several localities, and facilitate the labours of those who might wish to show how easy it was to increase these Forces.

hoped the Committee which was about to sit would be directed to take into special consideration the position of Adjutant in the Yeomanry.

said, he could not agree with the belief that had been stated by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley). He was of opinion that the Yeomanry had within it the elements of rare usefulness. He had made many notes respecting several corps; but as a Committee was to be appointed, it would be needlessly taking up time to enter into the subject now.

said, that the Committee which would inquire into the matters which seemed to prejudice the usefulness of the Yeomanry would be an informal body, composed of gentlemen connected with that service and of Members of both Houses. To a remark of the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir George Balfour) he replied that, as the prospective strength of the Yeomanry was given in the general annual Return of the British Army, there was no need to give it in the Vote.

said, he would suggest that it might be advantageous to have the Yeomanry drilled on the same principle as Colonel Bowyer's Hampshire Horse. An officer had declared, after inspecting the latter, that—although it might be heresy on his part—he was bound to say that with a considerable force of men so trained, it would be impossible for an enemy's artillery to traverse the country.

said, that the uniform of a Volunteer Artillery officer was exactly the same as that of an officer of the Militia Artillery. He would suggest there ought to be some distinction; for as one of the latter, he had been taken for an officer in the Volunteers. The state of the uniform of some of the corps ought to be taken into consideration and improved. In some instances it was very bad.

held that the Volunteers ought to receive a little more encouragement than they did. They formed a public force of 160,000 men ready to serve in defence of the country, and gave a great deal of time and labour to qualify themselves for military duty. Government, in fact, had treated them very hardly, for it required them to be efficient—to be equal, in truth, in some respects, to men of the Line—but nothing was said about a little more allowance to pay expenses. He feared conscription would yet become necessary in this country, and, perhaps, the evil day might be averted by being a little less stingy to the Volunteers. He had no present proposal to make; but he thought the amount of the Vote might be profitably increased.

thought the efficiency of the Volunteers would be increased if they were required to bind themselves for six months instead of, as at present, for only 14 days, and if they were drilled for seven days annually with the men of the Line and of the Militia. There was an item of £2,800 for "payments to clerks of lieutenancy," and, as the duties formerly performed by these officers of issuing commissions was now done through the War Office, and not through them, he would move that the Vote be reduced by that sum. These gentlemen were receiving £75 a-year in Militia regiments, and £55 a-year in Volunteer regiments, for which they literally did nothing.

supported the Amendment, and most sincerely hoped that the hated and vile Continental system of conscription would not be resorted to in this country, except in the case of absolute necessity, and, in order to guard against any pressure, he trusted that the Government would avail themselves of an efficient organization, equal to that which which the Foreign Governments have been obliged to establish over the country for the purpose of conscripting the young men, so as to secure the services of volunteers as far as possible instead of waiting till forced to resort to that most objectionable expedient. Such a course would be unnecessary if encouragement was given to the raising of local Volunteers and Yeomanry, and sufficient publicity given as to the places in which they were located. With that view, he should be glad if the Government would consent to furnish Returns of the number of the battalions, batteries, and corps of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer regiments and of the districts in which they were raised, together with the number of males of the Militia age within these various areas, in order that the nation might be alive to the extensive resources in men which could be utilized in case of need in defence of the country.

said, that the number of Volunteer sergeants drawing the additional £2 10s. for having passed their examination showed a considerable increase of efficiency in the Force, which afforded a very excellent substitute for conscription in this country. He thought the public were scarcely aware of the great pains taken by these sergeants to enable them to pass their examination. He also thought that the Volunteers should be utilized more than they had been hitherto; and that the different Forces in the various brigade districts should be drilled together more frequently than they were at present, under the command of the military officer in charge of the district.

said, that if the position of adjutants of the Yeomanry with regard to retirement were taken into consideration, he hoped the position of the adjutants of the Volunteers would also be considered, with the view of placing them on the same footing as adjutants of the Militia. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lush) had spoken very kindly of the Volunteer Force; but he had used expressions from which it might be inferred that its members were paid for their services. He (Lord Elcho) wished it to be clearly understood that the Volunteers received nothing for their services, and that the whole of the capitation grant was expended in defraying the regimental expenses. When the late Secretary for War, instead of increasing the general capitation grant to the Volunteers, proposed to pay an additional sum of £2 10s. for every Volunteer officer and sergeant that passed his examination, he confessed that he had not sufficient faith in their zeal and that he thought that the scheme would fail. He was happy, however, to say that Lord Cardwell was right and that he was wrong in the opinion they had formed on the subject. He thanked the present Secretary for War for the concession he had made during the past year in permitting Volunteer officers who had served in their regiments for a certain period to retain their rank and to continue to wear their uniforms after they had ceased to take an active part in the corps. In this manner, gentlemen would be able to keep up a most beneficial connection with the corps in which they had formerly served. In his opinion the present capitation grant was sufficient.

asked for increased opportunities for the Artillery Volunteers at Shoeburyness to pass a week in camp. Hitherto they had always been crowded, and he was aware that space was small; but there might with advantage be three or four meetings in the year. He also would ask whether the Government could not see its way, instead of giving an increase of capitation grant, to serve out great coats to the Volunteers, so as to enable them to drill with more comfort in the winter months.

considered the Volunteer adjutants had just cause of complaint. In many respects they were in a worse position than the adjutants of Militia, and in some parts of the country they had an enormous amount of work to perform. He would also suggest the advisability of increasing the sum granted for regimental camps. From his own experience, these camps were most serviceable. They increased the popularity of the service, and by bringing men and officers together for a longer period tended towards better discipline, good conduct, and sobriety. His own battalion in the neighbourhood of Glasgow had had one of these camps for the last two years. The rank and file performed all their own civil work, and upwards of 300 officers and men, together with himself, slept in the camp every night. The result of the continued drill of 14 days in the one year and 10 days in the other was very remarkable. It made a battalion which had always been considered fairly efficient very efficient indeed. By it the men were better kept up to practice, more orderly, and the officers had a better opportunity of becoming personally acquainted with them. He further thought it would be of great advantage if some small subsidy was granted for great coats. These could be kept in the drill-shed, and the effect, in his opinion, would be not only to induce men to join a corps, but those already connected with it would attend drill oftener. As to the question of officers retaining their rank after leaving a regiment, he would suggest that old quartermasters of the regular Army should have the same privilege accorded to them which had been given to the Volunteer officers.

pointed out that when the corps composing an administrative battalion were situate at a great distance from one another, the work imposed on the adjutants was enormous.

said, that inasmuch as the rank and file of the Volunteers gave much valuable time and labour to this service they ought to be fairly recognized, and he did not see why they should do their work for nothing, besides having in so many cases to pay money out of their own pockets.

said, that some of the suggestions which had been though useful in themselves, might wait a little while longer for consideration and adoption if thought advisable. He thought that every reasonable encouragement should be given to the Volunteers; but he was surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury should propose to give them pay, which would deprive them of their Volunteer character, and hoped he would use his influence with his friends to increase their liberality in other directions in which they were not so ready to bestow it. The question of their payment must be considered, if at all, on some other occasion than the present. As to regimental camps, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Mure) that they were useful and popular, and he was anxious, therefore, that they should be encouraged. No pressure, however, had been put upon the War Office to furnish an additional number of them. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), he wished to state that it was necessary to keep the clerks of lieutenancy in existence as long as we had to consider the quota of the Militia. The whole question of quotas would, however, have to be considered at some future time, though not during the present Session, with a view to the system being placed on a better footing. With regard to the Volunteer adjutants, there had been considerable delay in consequence of the change of the Inspector General of the Auxiliary Forces, and things had not gone on so fast as they would have done if Sir Garnet Wolseley had remained in England. The adjutants had accepted their office subject to the existing conditions on which they held it, and although there were some anomalies, there was nothing exceptional in their position generally. The whole question was, however, being carefully considered. With respect to the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Colonel Makins), that an extension of time should be given for Volunteer Artillery practice at Shoeburyness, he had to say that their practice there had at all times been most favourably reported upon; but it was feared that to give more time would interfere with the necessary training and practice of the regular Artillery. The matter had, however, been brought under his notice, and he should be most anxious, as far as he could, to meet the desire which had been expressed. The question as to great coats would require grave consideration.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to specify the proportion of men contained in the different classes, distinguishing them from Enrolled Pensioners.

said, the number of men in the First Class of 1870 was 7,676, and Class 1 of 1867, who were dying out, numbered 153—making 7,829; Class 2 of 1867 comprised 676 men; the Reserve of 1859, 1,991 men; and Enrolled Pensioners, 19,328—total, 21,995. That did not include the Militia Reserve. Class 2 of the Reserve were not liable to service abroad.

said, that there was considerable question as to the real existence of these Reserves. He could not say that he shared in that apprehension. He believed that in all cases where they had been actually called out, they had responded to almost the whole of their strength. A rumour, however, had gone abroad that in Ireland last year, when 500 of the First Army Reserve were called out, not more than 50 responded to the call, the fact being that the men were not ordered to come out, but offered the option of doing so.

said, the First Class Army Reserve had never been called out peremptorily. They were merely asked to volunteer on the occasion referred to.

said, he thought it worth while considering whether something might not be done to ascertain that these Reserves were really effective, and could be relied upon when they were wanted. At present it was thought advisable that they should not be called out unless there was some strong necessity; but it would be well to arrange that the whole body of Reserve should be called out once a-year for three or four days, so that the country might have some evidence of their existence.

said, there had been a misapprehension throughout the country with regard to the First Class Army Reserve. He had heard an extraordinary rumour to the effect that if the Reserve Force failed to come out in time of war, there was an actual intention on the part of the authorities to offer them bounties as an inducement to them to fulfil their contracts. There had always been a presentiment in the country that although these men might come out to play, they might not come out for work. It was well known that we drew the men for our Army from a very low section of the labouring classes, and it was also well known that desertion from the Army was not looked on as a serious offence. That showed that there was an excessively low moral tone in the Army, and that being so, it was a question whether the men of the Reserve Force would come out in the event of their being actually required. Reserves were very admirable when they had a higher class of men—for example, in countries where they had the conscription—but in this country they recruited mere lads, who, going into the Army with hardly any tie connecting them to respectable civil life, could hardly be expected to have any whatever by the time they got into the Reserve Force. The authorities had no control over these men. A great many of them would be physically unfit for service, a great many would probably not come out, and probably only a few good men would be forthcoming. The rumour as to the bounties to which he had referred had come to him on authority he could not ignore, and therefore it was that he mentioned it to the Committee. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY dissented.] He was glad to see the Secretary for War shake his head at it; because it showed that he, at all events, did not contemplate such a monstrous and demoralizing course of procedure. If anything of the kind were intended, he thought it should be stated at once, but to resort to it on an emergency as a bribe to men to join the Army and fulfil their contracts would be simply offering a premium on military felony.

thought the sooner he replied to the statement the better. It was news to him to learn that anybody proposed to give a bounty to men to join their colours who were already bound to do so when required without any bounty. There was no truth in the rumour referred to; though, of course, it might become necessary hereafter to alter the conditions of service in the Reserve, and in that case, perhaps something would have to be done.

wished to ask, why we were to find pay for 12,000 enrolled pensioners in Western Australia? One would think the Western Australians would themselves pay for their own war requirements. What were these men doing? Perhaps they were attending to the sheep in the back country.

said, they were attending to the black sheep we sent out there. That remark applied to those under letter D. The others were effective men, who were nut enrolled in the sense of being enrolled in the Army but were effective men for garrison or the easier duties of a soldier's life, if their services should be required.

said, as this Vote showed the recent change in the designations of the officers of the Supply Department, he regretted the alteration, and that it should have been decided to abolish the Control Department. It was formed during the former administration of the present Prime Minister, and during the earlier portion of its existence, from the support and aid it had first received, it had been found so efficient in keeping down our military expenditure. He must say that it had been subjected to opposition from quarters bound to aid it, and it had failed to receive that formation which would have rendered the control permanently useful. All he could add was, that he hoped the Secretary of State would provide some machinery by which that tendency to increased military expenditure which came every day under his notice would be kept down.

said, it was perfectly outrageous that the taxpayers of the country should be called upon to pay persons for molesting innocent women, as he considered the police did in enforcing the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts. He wished to prevent such cases as that of the late Mrs. Percy, the actress, who committed suicide rather than come under the operation of those Acts. In that view, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £4,750, the expenses of the police in carrying them out.

said, it was impossible to bring in these Estimates without putting in the charge in question. He was acting under an Act of Parliament which provided that that should be done, and as long as that Act remained unrepealed in putting this sum on the Estimates he was only discharging a Ministerial duty. Further, it was absurd to pass an Act for a certain purpose, and then to refuse the money necessary to carry out that Act. The whole question, however, would be soon raised by a right hon. Gentleman who was about to bring in a Bill on the subject, and when that time came, he (Mr. Hardy) would be prepared to express his opinion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) was under a misapprehension in thinking that the Control Department had been abolished. It was only the name, which had led to an infinity of confusion and jealousy, that was taken away, and the change had been made with the most cordial agreement on both sides. The same control as before would be exercised, but under a different form.

desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Transport branch of the Commissariat. There were a few officers connected with that branch, and they were placed in a very anomalous and undesirable position, owing to the changes which had been made, by which that branch of the Service was no longer separate and distinct. It was manifest that in ease of a war that branch, must be suddenly extended, and that could only be carried out by the officers connected with the branch itself.

said, it was impossible that an amalgamation like that which had been effected in the Commissariat and Control Departments could have taken place without in dividual hardships. Accordingly, many such cases had come before him since he had the honour of occupying the position which he now filled. So far as they had been able, they had taken the most pressing cases into consideration, but he was bound to confess it was almost impossible to go back five years without doing great injustice to many other officers. It was intended to keep the Transport branch as separate as possible from the Commissariat; and as a good deal had lately been said about exchanges, he might add that no exchange between the Commissariat and Transport officers would be allowed except in particular cases. With regard to entrance into the Service, the same rules would be observed as before. A certain number would enter by competition, and a certain number would be drawn from officers of the Army, and from non-commissioned officers. Those most competent to judge were not altogether satisfied with the experiment made in 1870. He could assure the hon. Baronet that his suggestions with regard to the Transport service would receive the fullest consideration.

said, that having served on the Abyssinian Committee, he would remind his noble Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, that very valuable evidence had been given by Sir William Power as to the importance of the Army sea transport being under the Control Department, and not under the Navy.

said, that those who had opposed the Contagious Diseases Act would be placed in a false position if they now voted for this£4,750 for the police to carry out the Act, and must go against it. As to the general question of transport of stores, he, as a City man of business, thought it a very simple matter, involving no difficulties whatever.

said, this was a statutory payment, and this was not the proper time to take exception to it. The money paid to the police was paid under the provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, and they must first repeal those Acts before they could refuse to put their provisions into effect. In the course of a few weeks an opportunity would be afforded to the House of expressing its opinion whether it was desirable to continue them any longer.

indignantly repudiated the hon. Gentleman's attempt to stifle discussion on this Vote by telling hon. Members that it was a statutory payment under an Act of Parliament. The Committee had the fullest right to criticize the Vote, and, if they pleased, to say "No" to it, in the teeth of any Act of Parliament, or why was it in the Vote?

said, he was quite surprised to hear from the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that that was not the proper time to cavil at the Vote. Such a statement was all the more remarkable coming as it did from the front Opposition Bench. The Votes were brought before them for the very purpose of cavilling at them. He should, in that case, like to know what was the proper time for considering it, if not when the Vote was proposed for work to be done next year. If the money were not voted the work could not be done, and no other harm would ensue; and, therefore, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, he did not mean to dispute the right of hon. Members to discuss Votes in Committee. He would repeat that the proper mode was not to object to the sum, but to the Acts under which it was payable. If it was alleged that the Acts were improperly administered—if, for instance, too many policemen were employed—it was quite proper to object to the item; but if the objection was one of principle, then the proper way to strike at the Vote was to move to repeal the Acts.

took exception, mainly on sanitary grounds, to the item of £13,000 for emptying cesspools. He thought it most disgraceful that in soldiers' quarters the cesspool system should be tolerated. Sanitary science had condemned this system long ago.

explained, that in some districts a perfect system of drainage was not possible, and of course where cesspools existed they should be emptied as soon and as often as possible. The work was done under contract, and at, he believed, moderate cost.

said, he objected to the item because these cesspools were bad for the health of the troops, and should be done away with as soon as possible. Drains ought to be more generally used. Was it to be wondered at there was sickness in some camps?

said, he also believed that nothing could be so dangerous to the health of the troops as these cesspools. They ought to be replaced, where drains were not practicable, by earth closets

said, that many of the cesspools were on the dry-earth system, and the dry-earth formed part of the expenditure. There were a great many camps on a large scale where drains could not be laid down so easily as the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury supposed.

said, he wished to draw attention to the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Public Departments made last year. They pointed out that the arrangements for the Contract Department at the Admiralty were under the financial head of that Department; while at the War Office they were under the Director General of Ordnance, and recommended that the system in operation at the Admiralty should be adopted at the War Office. They also stated that the two Departments frequently competed with each other in the purchase of stores: that the consequence was that prices were enhanced, and recommended that the chief purchasing officers of each Department should consult together periodically, so that competition between them in the same markets might be avoided. He wished, further, to draw attention also to the remarks of the Committee with regard to taking stock of the stores of the Army. That was a matter which the Committee found to be in a very unsatisfactory and confused position; and it was thought advisable that there should be an annual stock-taking and valuation, it being important to know that the stocks of stores were properly kept up, which could only be ascertained by having those stocks taken fairly and accurately at specific periods. Had anything been done to give effect to the views expressed by the Committee?

said, that the Committee referred to had arrived at their Report after a careful investigation extending over two Sessions. He hoped that the recommendations it contained would be duly considered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department. Many of them were of a most useful character, and would benefit the Service if carried out. The main object in view was to ensure co-operative action in the purchasing of stores between the different Departments of the State, and to confide to one branch the duty of laying in stocks of those stores which were in common use, as practised regarding cloth for the marines purchased by the Army, and beef and groceries purchased by the Admiralty for the Army. The next great point was for the Government, by this combined action, to know where to obtain supplies in time of need.

said, that in the Vote a certain sum was taken for the manufacture of small arms. He desired some information on the point, for those who took an interest in the question knew that during last Autumn there was a good deal of discussion in the Press with respect to the Martini-Henry rifle, which was to be the future arm of the British Army and Reserve Forces. It was said that it was severe in recoil and inferior in its shooting qualities. He was glad the Government had not allowed themselves to be influenced by this criticism. He went into the Committee on the Martini-Henry rifle prejudiced against that arm; but he was converted by the evidence brought before the Committee. The evidence was the ablest that could be obtained, and upon it the Committee came deliberately to the conclusion that the Martini-Henry rifle was mechanically correct. He was glad the Government had stood by that arm, and, after the exhaustive inquiry of two Committees, he thought it would be absurd to re-open the question. There might be some small defects in the weapon; but the second Committee, of which he was a member, had, after applying practical tests, come to the conclusion that there was no recoil to which any man, who knew how to shoot, could object, and that its amount was less than that in the case of the Snider. Beyond that, Mr. Ross, one of the best shots in England, had tested it, and had not found the slightest recoil beyond what might have been expected. But it had been stated that, while standing by the rifle, Government had altered the ammunition for it, by reducing the charge of powder and diminishing the weight of the bullet. As the mass of men could not see well for shooting beyond 600 yards, and this rifle would carry up to 1,200, there might with advantage be two descriptions of bullets—the heavier kind for marksmen shooting a long distance, and the lighter for use up to 600 yards. By this arrangement a soldier carrying the lighter ammunition would have nine more shots in his pouch than he could have at present, and this would be of considerable importance. If, however, anything had been done to lower the value of the weapon for long ranges the decision was a mistake, and ought to be re-considered. He had obtained a Return which showed that the Martini-Henry, with its heavy bullet, was infinitely superior in accuracy and range to any arm at present being made for any Army in Europe. He wished to know what number of Martini-Henry rifles had been made; what was the number making; what the number the Government contemplated making; and within what time the Government anticipated that the whole Army, and he presumed the Volunteers, would be supplied with that arm, and have a reserve store beside? He wished also to know what the Government thought was the amount for this country to have of surplus arms for the proper equipment of its forces, and how far the store would consist of Martini-Henry and how far of Snider rifles? Another question he should like to ask was as to what sort of bayonet was to be served out? He believed that the bayonet was of little use in actual war, and that the proportion of men killed by steel in the Franco-German War did not exceed 2 per cent. He would suggest that instead of providing the soldier with one that could be used only as a weapon, it would be wise policy to spend 2s. additional in providing him with an instrument that could be used not only as a weapon, but also as a cutter of wood, and for other purposes.

said, the question of the efficiency of the Martini-Henry rifle was a most important one, and a great deal had been said in the newspapers and elsewhere lately on the subject. There was no doubt it was a good shooting weapon, and that men like the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), Captain Boss, and other able-bodied men were capable of handling it well; but a large number of our soldiers were not able-bodied, and he therefore doubted very much if it was a weapon suitable to the whole of the service. He objected strongly to the course which had been taken by the War Office in reference to the vision tests applied to recruits. The country was spending vast sums of money in arming the troops with weapons of precision, which would shoot with perfect accuracy up to 1,000 yards; but the vision test had been reduced from time to time, until at the present moment the visual powers of recruits were only tested up to 400 yards—that was to say, the test of vision in firing at a target had been reduced from 15 to 10 feet. The reduction was one which had been rendered necessary by a failing system. It was said that the soldiers of the Line could shoot very well; but, as a matter of fact, the best practice was made by members of Volunteer corps.

wished, in reference to the last remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to say that recently the Martini-Henry rifle had been supplied to the recruits of three Line regiments in Dublin, and with the new regulation as to distance, they had made excellent practice with the weapon, which they preferred infinitely to the Snider.

, in answer to the various questions which had been put to him, said, it had always been desired that the different Departments should not compete with each other in reference to contracts, but it had not at present been considered necessary to make any alteration as to the manner in which the Directorship of Contracts should be managed. With regard to the Martini-Henry rifle, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary, he believed it would prove thoroughly worthy of the recommendation of the Committee which brought about its adoption, and that it would prove, if not the absolute best rifle, at any rate one of the best rifles in Europe. As to the reduction in the weight of the ammunition, they were told that it was impossible that recruits could fire these arms, and that it would be necessary to re-model the ammunition, and this naturally led to a certain amount of anxiety, in consequence of which experiments had been and were still going forward in reference to the question; but, at present, no change in the charge originally fixed had been made. Whether, if, in consequence of the experiments, a diminution should be recommended, it would be made, was another matter. The regular Infantry at home were armed with this rifle in November, 1874, and it had since been determined to supply them to the Navy, Marines, Engineers, Artillery, and Volunteers. The work had not as yet been completed; but it was hoped that the whole of the troops would shortly be supplied with the Martini-Henry rifle. The reports from the different regiments were highly favourable, evincing great satisfaction both with regard to accuracy and the amount of recoil. At the present moment there were 392,900 Sniders in use and 218,000 in store, or altogether 611,000, while there were 54,000 Martini-Henry rifles in use and 183,000 in store, or altogether 237,000; and if the whole of the manufacturing power at the disposal of the Government were employed to its full extent, rifles could be produced at the rate of 4,000 per week, as against 2,000, the average number now supplied, showing what could be done on an emergency. With regard to the question of bayonets, it had been determined after mature consideration to adopt in the Army the same type of weapon used by the Irish Constabulary, on the ground that it was cheaper in price and lighter in weight than the arm now in use. With respect to the stores he believed they were, in every point of consideration, in as efficient and satisfactory a state as could be desired, and equal to any contingency that might arise; and although they could not take stock in the manner which the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) desired, it was yet taken in a most satisfactory manner, as appeared by the Reports of the inspecting officers of the various military districts.

said, he was desirous to know what decision the Government had come to in reference to the proper number of reserved arms necessary to be maintained in the country? The Committee of which he had the honour to be a Member had made a certain decision as to the bayonet, and he should like to hear from the Government what was the evidence upon which a subsequent Committee reversed that decision, and whether they had any objection to produce it?

said, he was unable to answer the last question off-hand, but he believed that the great recommendation of the Irish bayonet was its lightness. With regard to the evidence upon the question, if the Reports were not of a confidential character he would produce them. As to reserve arms, 300,000 was the number fixed as the normal reserve, but the numbers in existence were—of Sniders in use and in store, 611,803; of Martini-Henrys 237,630. The total numbers were 849,433.

said, that before he could agree to the Vote for Small Arms he must draw the attention of the Committee to the question to which he had already directed the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the test of vision.

That is not the question before the Committee.

said, the question of the supply of arms of long range before the Committee was intimately connected with the power of vision of our troops, and he should divide the Committee upon it. He had pointed out to the Committee, that every few years they were increasing the expenses of the country for small arms, and reducing the test of vision, and he felt he was right in saying he would take the sense of the Committee upon it.

said, that inquiries had been made as to shortening the distance for testing vision, but no information had yet been received on the subject. He was quite ready to cause further inquiries to be made as to that, and also as to the chest measurement, respecting which he had not been able to ascertain that measurements were made in the careless manner which had been imputed by the hon. and gallant Member the other evening.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire, he would find that 15 feet, which in 1863 was the test of vision recommended by Dr. Longmore, and accepted by the War Office, was, in 1870, when there was a press of recruiting, reduced to 10 feet.

said, he had been in the enlistment room, at the barracks near the National Gallery, and had seen the shortened distance test sight, and, without having any pretensions to acute vision he could easily distinguish the test marks at a distance of 30 feet, whereas the distance for the sight test was now only 10 feet.

said, he concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend on his left (Colonel Mure), in his statement that the test of vision was altered as he had described in 1870. It was an important point whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), instead of being ignorant on the subject, ought not to have satisfied himself that the test distance had been altered on good grounds. He thought the Martini-Henry rifle was as efficient a weapon as was carried by any Army in Europe, though as to the breechblock, he thought that the German Mauser was the best at that moment. With respect to the point raised by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Elcho), in reference to the bayonet he thought it a most important one. When the Army had long rifles they had long bayonets, and now they had shorter rifles the bayonet was also shortened; and that was a great disadvantage to the Infantry soldier when engaged with Cavalry. It was rumoured that a change in the bayonet was contemplated, and that the Army would be armed with a bayonet of the pattern in use in the Irish Constabulary; but however that might be, the present bayonet placed our Infantry in the disadvantageous position of carrying the shortest pike in Europe, for it was 7 inches shorter than any pike carried by foreign Armies. He was informed that that defect could he remedied by re-heating and re-drawing it, so as to lengthen it 6 inches, without altering its temper.

begged to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Fire would stop Cavalry; but bayonets never would, whether they were long or short.

urged that a long arm was of service in keeping a mounted enemy at a distance, whilst the cartridge was introduced, and for that reason, he was in favour of it.

said, with reference to the adoption of the bayonet of the Irish Constabulary, the Reports referred to were of a confidential character, and he could not therefore produce them.

pointed out the necessity of having Richmond and Island Bridge Barracks, Dublin, supplied with Vartry water instead of canal water, as at present. He wished also to draw attention to the disgraceful condition of the buts in the Beggar's Bush Barracks, Dublin, where the 3rd battalion Grenadier Guards, of which he had the command, lay last winter. The subject of fever in those barracks had been referred to in a letter which appeared in The Times on Friday last. Captain Langham and another gallant officer died of typhoid fever within a month. A minute inspection of the barracks was ordered and was made by the principal medical officer for the whole of Ireland, assisted by the principal medical officer in Dublin, but they could not trace the origin of the disease. In February last, the cook employed at the officers' mess died, and soon afterwards a fit investigation took place. The milk and the water supplied to the barracks were tested and found pure. But it was discovered that the sewer traps throughout the barracks were of the most primitive kind, and that poisonous gas diffused itself throughout the officers' quarters. Since he left Ireland he saw by the letter in The Times that a correspondence as to the condition of the barracks had previously passed between the officers of the 2nd battalion Scots Fusilier Guards and the Engineers' department in Dublin. Of that correspondence, he had not before heard; but it was so important, that he intended to move for its production. He could not but think in all such cases the Engineer's department should be instructed to have the necessary work done without delay or regard to the fact whether the expense came out of this or that year's Estimates.

said, he wished to confirm what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend with respect to the unhealthy character of Beggar's Bush, Richmond, and Island Bridge Barracks at Dublin. Their condition was a public scandal, and he trusted that the Secretary of State for War would give his earliest attention to the matter. Unless something were clone to improve the sanitary condition of those barracks, it was utterly useless to talk of recruiting the Army; for the buildings into which they put the men were little better than pest-houses.

, though he knew nothing about arms of precision, hoped he knew something of the affairs of common life, and he maintained that they ought to use every means which sanitary science placed within their reach to preserve their soldiers in health. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would some day remove the ugly and hideous barracks at Knightsbridge, and so beautify Hyde Park.

said, he was glad to find that out of the £73,000 to be expended for new works, in addition to that for the alteration of barracks, £25,000 of it was to be applied to the amelioration of married soldiers' quarters in various parts of Ireland, for which the right hon. Gentleman deserved the hearty thanks of the Army and the public. He had seen 10 married families in two rooms, consisting of between 35 and 40 individuals in each room, with no separation between them. With regard to the barrack accommodation at Dublin, the condition of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham was as bad as that of the other barracks in the city, and required immediate attention.

said, that Votes were being agreed to very rapidly; but before this Vote was passed, he would remind the Committee that it included Votes for fortifications at Home and Abroad. In past years stiff battles were fought over them, and they were known as the "Battles of the Shields." They had, in fact, to strengthen the shields concurrently with improvements in artillery. From 35-ton guns we had got to 80-ton guns, and he wished to know if the increased power of the guns were taken into consideration in the shields that were being erected at Gibraltar, Malta, and Bermuda? Of the 800 guns ready for use, how many would be required for the Army and fortifications at home, and when would the Home forts be completely armed? How many big guns had been sent to Gibraltar, Malta, and Bermuda? Whether any of them had been mounted, and by what time all the armaments abroad would be completed with artillery suited to them?

directed attention to the inconvenient state of some of the chapels in which Divine service was performed for the benefit of our soldiers, and asked whether anything was proposed to be clone with regard to improving the accommodation?

, in corroborating what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander) had said about the Beggar's Bush Barracks, said, that when the Scots Fusiliers took up their quarters there the barracks were in a very bad state indeed, and the result of a correspondence that took place was one of the most lamentable pieces of red tapeism that ever came under his notice. It was found on inspection that it would only cost £15 to place the barracks in a proper sanitary condition; but because the Department did not wish to alter the Estimates this trifling sum was refused, and certain temporary remedies were suggested. The consequence was some mortality in the Scots Fusilier Guards, the death of two officers of the Grenadier Guards, and he did not know of how many of the soldiers' children. He did not know anything more degrading to the Army and the Army authorities than that such mortality should have ensued for the sake of not changing the Estimates. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, whatever he would do in regard to recruiting, would at least direct his attention to the lives of our soldiers.

said, he was quite sensible of the distressing nature of the circumstances which had occurred at Beggar's Bush Barracks, but he was not prepared, from the information before him, to come to the conclusion that the illness of the officers stationed there had been produced by the state of the barracks. He should, indeed, be sorry to find that was the case; but he had reason to believe that there were other causes for that illness. With respect to the private soldiers quartered there, he understood they were in as good health as the men quartered in other parts of the country. In consequence of the Question which an hon. Member had given Notice that he would put to him to-morrow as to these barracks, he had directed every inquiry to be made into the matter, and he would, therefore, give the House tomorrow full particulars on the subject. He might, however, now state that the subject had engaged attention from the first moment it was brought to his notice, and he did not believe there had been any putting off of what was necessary to be done on account of any disinclination to alter the Estimates to the amount of £15. He had given instructions to the Army Sanitary Commission to go over to Dublin to examine the barracks. A question had been asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury about the Hyde Park Barracks. There was nothing respecting them in the present Estimates; and among the many duties cast upon the Secretary of State for War, he hoped the beautifying of London would not be included. It was desirable that he should be left to regard those buildings merely as barracks.

said, that orders had been sent to Malta, Gibraltar, and Bermuda, with regard to the strengthening the shields; but on account of peculiar local circumstances, it was impossible to tell when the works would be entirely finished. Up to the 3lst of March, 1875, the number of guns distributed, or ready to be distributed, over the United Kingdom, Malta, Gibraltar, and Bermuda was 806. Of these, 667 were already in the districts for which they were destined, mounted or about to be mounted; and the remainder were in the Arsenal, and would be gradually despatched to their respective destinations. As to the weight of the guns, there were at Malta five of 28-tons, eight of 25-tons, nine of 18-tons, and 21 of 12-tons—total, 43; at Gibraltar 18 of 18-tons, and 22 of 12-tons—total, 40; and at Bermuda five of 25-tons, 16 of 18-tons, and 12 of 12-tons—total, 33.

said, there had been some mistake as to who was responsible for the Order by which the number of Staff appointments to be filled by students of the Staff College was reduced from one-half to one-sixth of the whole number. Though dated 1873, the Queen's Regulations were not published until March, 1874, and it was desirable to know what Government was responsible for it.

said, he would also like the Secretary for War to give some explanation on this important point. The Order was first issued as a paragraph in the Queen's Regulations bearing date at the end of 1873, but actually issued to the Army in March 1874. The latter date would place it under the jurisdiction of the present Secretary for War.

thought that as it was desirable to induce men of good education to become schoolmasters in the Army the present rate of pay—namely, 3s. 9d. a-day, increasing 6d. every third year—was rather small. Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to a small increase?

said, he should, for he had found no difficulty in getting plenty of teachers at the present salary.

said, it was of great importance to have in India officers who had passed through the Staff College, and he would like to know whether it was intended that the circumstance of an officer having passed through the Staff College should be taken into account in filling up Staff appointments in India?

said, he thought that the Regulations did not express the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, nor the military authorities, which he took to be that on the one hand Staff appointments should be filled, as a rule, by Staff College officers; whilst, on the other hand, it should be clearly understood that they had no absolute right to those appointments. The proper system was to require merely that officers who were candidates for Staff appointments should undergo an examination, leaving them at liberty to get their education where they liked. There would be much inconvenience in restricting the appointments exclusively to officers who had gone through the Staff College.

also was decidedly in favour of having suitable examinations, and not the favour or patronage of individuals, to guide the authorities selecting officers for Army offices. The prospect of a narrow restriction in the disposal of Staff appointments had, he said, created much alarm in the Army. It was not only the subordinate offices but the highest appointments that should be open to the competition of all qualified officers.

said, he was unable to state the exact date of the publication of the Regulations referred to, which had been drawn up prior to his coming into office. As he understood that Order, it was made with the object of showing that there was no absolute right on the part of those who had passed through the Staff College to Staff appointments. He was quite ready to look into the question; but it seemed to him that they could have no absolute claim. The matter was left in the hands of the general officers, who had a general power of selecting their Staff for themselves; although no doubt great consideration would be given to those gentlemen who had passed the Staff examinations and who had practically a monopoly of the lower Staff appointments. With regard to the question about India, he was not able to say what were the rules laid down in India, because he exercised no control over the arrangements made in that country.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to amend the paragraphs in the Queen's Regulations as far as they related to the higher Staff appointments, so as to place these on the same footing as the lower.

remarked that there still appeared to be some misapprehension on the subject of these appointments. He thought it would be a great advantage to the Service and give great hopes of the education at the Staff College if some assurance were afforded that for the future the higher grades of the Staff appointments would be equally open to officers who had been specially educated at the College, and to those selected on account of claims arising from service.

believed that the real grievance against the late Government's military policy was that there was not a sufficient distribution of the Staff appointments.

wished to have some information as to the condition of the Military College at Sandhurst.

replied that there was an increase in the number of the pupils; that the College was working well at present; and that some improvements were in progress.

stated that the expenses of carrying out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Act were chiefly for the salaries of medical examiners and the staff of nurses, and for travelling expenses. The sum asked for the reparation of Crimean graveyards—namely, £5,000, was so large in consequence of the graveyards having been long neglected and allowed to fall into decay. The amount now asked for would enable the cemeteries to be put into a proper condition, and it was contemplated to ask Parliament to sanction a small amount for payment to a guardian permanently residing on the spot, who would prevent any further dilapidations of the graveyards from taking place.

expressed a hope that the Government would take steps to bring the Intelligence Department in India not only into communication with the Intelligence Department at home, but into close relations with it. It was efficiently managed; but he thought that the two should be in communication, neither being subordinated to each other.

thought the Quartermaster General's and the Adjutant General's Departments should be amalgamated, and the Intelligence Department raised to a higher position befitting its importance. No one could have given attention to the duties as formerly assigned to the officers of the Quartermaster General, without being struck with the fact that the Intelligence department as recently formed was a mere duplicated set of Staff, and that looking at the large array of generals and Staff officers of various denominations now existing, it must be conceded that they had an ample Staff for an infinitely larger Army than they at present maintained.

said, he was not able to give details of what the Intelligence Department were doing; but he believed they were in communication with every part of the Empire, obtaining information which might hereafter prove of value. He quite saw the importance of co-operation between the Intelligence Departments here and in India.

asked if it was not better to employ clerks than writers who considered themselves not exactly as Government servants, and were more difficult, consequently, to manage?

said, they were mostly employed temporarily, and it was not desirable, by engaging clerks, to increase the staff and thus swell the future pension list.

wished to know when there would be any reduction in that large amount for out-pensions which they were told two years ago would be shortly reduced?

explained that a Royal Warrant lately issued had increased the Vote by a grant of pensions to old soldiers who had served in the Army during the Peninsular and "Waterloo campaigns, and in operations of that period elsewhere. Many of them were not strictly entitled to pensions, because they had commuted them long ago; but they were scattered through the country in great poverty, some being in receipt of parochial relief, and it was scarcely creditable that this should be the condition of the old soldiers of a great country. Besides, as the hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware, the spectacle they presented, without pensions, operated as a great obstacle to recruiting. The number of these men proved to be considerably larger than had been anticipated. No pension had been granted without the strictest inquiry. The highest which had been granted was 1s. 6d. a-day, and this had been given only in the case of men who were over 80 years of age, or had been wounded. It was a Vote which might still grow; but, owing to the great age of the pensioners, it could only be for a short time, after which it would rapidly diminish.

said, if it were desirable in certain cases to secure the attendance of a shorthand writer, there would be no difficulty in making a regulation authorizing the President to employ one, and it was not necessary, therefore, to insert such a provision in the Act of Parliament. His hon. and gallant Friend must, however, know very well that in many cases of courts martial no shorthand writer could be found. As to the proposal that the prisoners should have the benefit of attorney and counsel, he could not accede to it, as it would entirely alter the character of the inquiry, and would render it necessary for the Court likewise to be assisted by legal advice, which in many instances could not be procured.

said, that the first reading of the Bill was brought in at the same late, or rather, he ought to add, at the early hour of the morning, in a thin House, when all were tired with the labours of the past hours. It was a Bill that, if passed, would involve the country in a guaranteed expenditure of £970,000, and probably entail a much larger sum, and his only way to prevent that was in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He opposed it on the ground that it would be impossible to construct a harbour at Dover, which would not silt up. The question had been inquired into at various times, from 1836 downwards, Committees and Royal Commissions had investigated the subject, and all had reported against the attempt. One engineer who had been specially employed to examine the question, had distinctly stated that it would take at least £20,000 a-year to keep the harbour clear; and in 1865 a Special Committee had reported to the Admiralty that the deposit had then begun and must increase, which led the Government to abandon the idea of forming a close har- bour. Out of nine plans proposed between 1840 and 1846 for constructing the harbour, the lowest estimate was £2,500,000, and some were as high as £4,000,000; and when completed, a deposit of at least 10 inches might be expected to take place, and the cost of dredging would be enormous. In 1873 the late Government proposed a Vote of £10,000, and it was only passed by the House by 61 votes to 60 votes—a majority of 1; and both he and the hon. Member for Aberdeen were assured that this supply was intended for a preliminary inquiry. The Treasury were opposed to the formation of the harbour; but the Board of Trade set itself to work to defeat the Treasury. The President of the Board of Trade, then Mr. Chichester Fortescue, distinctly assured the House that the Treasury had satisfied themselves that the surplus revenue of the Dover Harbour Board would enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance a very large portion of the funds required for the construction of this work, and in the course of the debate, one of those Commissioners, the right hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), distinctly stated that no Report upon the subject of the security for advances for the completion of the work had been made by those Commissioners. Subsequently, the Treasury, in a Letter to the Board of Trade, dated 23rd October, 1873, directed the Board to refer the security to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in order to ascertain its value; but that the Board of Trade had failed to do, or rather refused, notwithstanding the fact that on passing the Act of 1861, known as the Passing Tolls Act, it was the intention of the Legislature, as the Board of Trade had lately avowed, to subject all loans to harbours to the independent scrutiny of that body. This Bill proposed to lend out of the Consolidated Fund a sum equal to all that the Public Works Loan Commissioners had lent to harbours since 1861. For the whole of the harbours of England not £1,000,000 had been expended by the Public Works Commissioners, and yet—and it was what he complaind of—under the Bill the Board of Trade proposed to lend to the Dover Pier and Harbour Board £640,000, without interest, for five years, and without any reference to the Public Works Loan Commissioners as required by the Treasury. Moreover, the Government added as a free gift the sum of £33,000. The rate of interest to be charged on even this nominal loan was at variance with the terms of the Act of 1861, and ought not to be permitted by the House of Commons to be violated. No plan had been submitted to the Commissioners so small in area as that now proposed for Dover. It was only to extend to 310 acres; whereas an area of 520 and even 1,000 acres had been suggested. It would be derogatory to the Navy to enter such a harbour of refuge, when there existed one of the finest anchorages in the Downs, within six miles of this bay, which had not even the merit of having good holding ground. Before the Government committed themselves to this wretched scheme, he hoped they would cause a thorough inquiry to be made. An expenditure of £30,000 or £40,000 would not be justified by any Inquiry or Report now before the House. He warned the House not to trust the information before it, as he believed the scheme would altogether involve an expenditure of several millions, and take 10 20 years to reach its completion. It was deeply to be regretted that this outlay should be permitted, when our commercial and fishing harbours so greatly needed aid. Everywhere abroad he had seen excellent harbours, with great facilities for loading and unloading; and in the face of the commercial activity which he saw, he urged the Government to concentrate all their energies on the improvement of our mercantile harbours, and not on doubtful military and naval harbours. The fisheries of Scotland could be so largely extended by a little aid from the State as to enable the hardy fishermen to collect produce more than the value of the whole land rental of the county in which improved harbours could be erected. And looking at the millions already spent on such harbours as Alderney, and, now, Dover, he much and deeply regretted that the Government should now desire to appropriate the fund at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in constructing a harbour about which such great doubts existed as to its being either practicable, or, if made, of any use.

, in supporting the measure, said, it was a Bill for enlarging Dover Harbour, or rather for completing it. The House had incurred an outlay of nearly £1,000,000 in building the Admiralty Pier at Dover, which was becoming useless because the harbour was not completed. The Admiralty Pier was, in fact, acting as a huge groyne, and was daily silting up, for want of the completion of the harbour, and the expenditure already incurred would be useless unless another £1,000,000 were expended, in which case the pier and harbour at Dover would become in a strategical sense one of the most valuable properties belonging to the nation. The harbour would be most useful for the purpose of Continental communication and the more so in the prospect of larger ships being used, because the French Government intended to make a corresponding harbour on the other side of the Channel. It would also serve as a harbour of refuge in eases where the Downs were not available. The chief argument of necessity for the Bill was, however, grounded upon the importance of this harbour as a great military and naval station in the narrowest part of the Channel. It was also well defended, and in close proximity to great military stations. This being a hybrid Bill, must be sent to a Select Committee, when all engineering and other questions connected with it might be considered in detail.

said, the days had passed with them when it was the habit to advance and expend large sums of national money on harbours of refuge as such. But that was not the present case. The case of Dover was altogether exceptional, and the present proposed works were justified not on commercial grounds alone, or mainly, but on strategical considerations, as a measure of defence. Dover had been the port that, from time immemorial, had dominated the communication between England and the Continent. Our early Sovereigns recognized and appreciated the importance of that port. King Henry VIII. expended a sum—upwards of £80,000—a very large sum in those days, in the construction of a pier, besides other works. Queen Elizabeth expended further monies in maintaining and improving the works. James I. granted a charter to the Lord Warden and to the mayor and authorities at Dover, with power to collect monies for the support of the harbour. Under those auspices the port of Dover was improved from time to time; but it was not until the reign of Her present Majesty that that great and noble structure known as the Admiralty Pier was undertaken and completed. By means of that pier vessels of all sizes were enabled to be in deep water at all states of the tide, and embark and disembark mails, passengers, and goods. Still the harbour, with that single pier, remained very imperfect and insufficient. It was only some two or three years ago that Dover was decided by a jury not to be a harbour of safe anchorage, and the present measure was intended to remedy that state of things, and to make the port of Dover what it ought to be, and the project was based not on commercial grounds alone, as he before stated, but on strategical. Now, in considering for a moment the question whether the outlay of national money involved in that proposal was justified, he ventured to lay down two or three propositions, the first of which was that England, in case of war, must rely for her defence and security, primarily, on her first line of defence—her Navy. Secondly, that they were most assailable on the line of their southern and eastern coasts. He thought he might also assume that since their naval force had become concentrated in iron and ironclad vessels those vessels were neither safe nor efficient, except in connection with their steam power; and that, on the other hand, they could only carry coals for about 10 days. It was obvious, therefore, that a safe port of anchorage was indispensable in the centre of the long line of coast to be watched and guarded. Now, they had no port in the Channel eastward of Portsmouth. There was a time when their main anticipations of attack or invasion proceeded from the coasts and Navy of their opposite neighbour. But there were now three Navies that might threaten them—two in the North—the last of very recent creation, that was being increased constantly, and belonging to, a Power that was coveting and seeking ports in our neighbourhood, the possession of which might involve us in complications with States with which our interests were mixed. Now, it was clear that to enable us to be prepared in case of war against attack in those directions, as well as the defence of our own shipping which passed through the Straits of Dover in such vast numbers, a port was necessary in the position of Dover. Dover had been justly said to hold the key of the gate of the Channel, and our fleets ought to be able to he in force in that vicinity. It was indispensable to our security that there should be a safe harbour at that point, at which our naval force should be concentrated, ready to issue, with full force of steam, to the East, or West, or North, whenever we were threatened, and into which our vessels should be able to retire, for the purpose of refitting or taking in stores, but, above all, for the purpose of coaling. If he might be allowed, he would say a few words on the subject of the cost and management of the works. It would be seen that the cost of the works was estimated at £970,000, of which one-third was to be a gift contributed from the national finances. The other two-thirds to be an advance by the Board of Public Works at interest at the rate of 3¼ per cent. As to the first portion of the outlay it must be admitted to be a very small charge in connection with an advantage so great to the nation. As to the remainder of the outlay, its repayment was to be secured by tolls on vessels using the harbour, and on passengers passing to and from the Continent in vessels sailing from the port. Estimates had been carefully prepared, showing that those tolls would be more than sufficient to pay the interest of the monies to be advanced under the Bill, and to yield a surplus to form some return for the cost of the Admiralty Pier, which had hitherto been unproductive. It was proposed to vest the works, both new and old, in the present Harbour Board, supplemented by additional members nominated by. the three Departments, so as to give a majority in their councils to the Government, in consideration of the Imperial money that would be embarked in the undertaking. The existing Harbour Board was a body of considerable local influence and experience, and they had property in the town and harbour to the extent of an annual income of some £15,000 per annum. It seemed to him that no better management could be desired for the scheme.

suggested that the Town Council, in the interest of the ratepayers, should have a larger representation than was given by the Bill, and would propose the addition of two more persons connected with the town of Dover on the Harbour Board. He also hoped that private rights would be equally respected as those of the Crown. He was not sure that the measure would be an unmixed benefit to the town, and feared that it would quite spoil it as a watering-place.

observed that if the arguments of one of the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) were to prevail, Government might be called upon to build harbours all round the coast, and he certainly thought the safety of England lay in something more substantial than Dover Harbour; besides, they had the opinion of competent authorities, both nautical and engineering, that if the harbour were constructed, an iron-clad would never get into it. Again, they had no assurance whatever that £1,000,000 would pay for the work, which, when completed, would have to be defended by new forts, which would lead to a further outlay. It was rather a bold claim for the expenditure of a large sum of money without the prospect of any adequate return, and he thought the House ought to have farther information before they consented to the second reading of the Bill. By acting without it, they would open the way to claims equally as good.

reminded the House that the Bill was a heritage left by the late Government, who had carried it by only 1 of a majority. He did not think there was a Member on either side of the House who would oppose the Bill if he believed it would be efficient; but they could not control the powers of Nature, and he, for one, had grave doubts of the possibility of carrying out a harbour for the purposes that had been explained to the House. The winds, the waves, and the currents would cause a silting up of the bottom which would render the harbour useless. The area of all depths was only 320 acres, and it was ludicrous to think that ironclads would have room there to get out to sea in case of an attack. Looking to our want of success in the construction of harbours at Alderney and elsewhere, he very much feared that, if the Bill went forward, Dover Harbour would become a standing monument of our want of prudence, and before the very large sum proposed for it was expended, we should have something like probability, at least, that the enter prize would be successful.

supported the Bill, because though it might have defects it was a bold measure, and would, he hoped, be carried out in a patriotic manner. He thought it was opportune, when the French Government was going to improve the harbours on the opposite coast, and larger ships were being built, to improve the harbour at Dover. But the question might arise whether Dover was the best place, and he thought the Bill should be referred to a larger Committee than a hybrid Bill, and that its terms of Reference might include the question of Channel accommodation as regarded harbours generally.

said, the Bill was prepared by the late Government, and in order to make it as complete a measure as possible, the present Government took the opinion upon it of all the Departments concerned in it—namely, the War Office, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, and the Admiralty, which was that the proposed harbour would be a very important work from a naval and military point of view, and that the "silt up" would not prevail to such an extent that it could not be overcome by constant attention. If the House consented to the second reading, the various questions which had been raised could be dealt with by a Committee.